News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

AASHTO Spring 2024 Meeting Minutes

Started by ericlipford, June 01, 2024, 08:13:05 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

ericlipford

Surprise!
AASHTO has uploaded some of the recent applications and minutes to the Route Numbering Archive.

https://grmservices.grmims.com/vsearch/portal/public/na4/aashto/default

Found items from the Fall 2023 and Spring 2024 AASHTO meetings -- including minutes and applications.
Just search by year in the database and you'll find everything that has been posted.
I've posted the Spring 2024 minutes below.

The one that puzzles me is the I-695 application from Maryland.
They're seeking to add the southeast leg of I-695 -- which is already part of the Interstate Highway System, right?
Or was the section of I-695 automatically decommissioned when the Francis Scott Key Bridge collapsed?
Looking forward to hearing what you guys think about that...

Special Committee on U.S. Route Numbering
2024 Spring Meeting Report to the Council on Highways and Streets
Members:
• Region 1: Vacant
• Region 2: Rex Vines, Arkansas DOT
• Region 3: Lyndsay Quist, Indiana DOT
• Region 4: Dwane Kailey, Montana DOT (Chair)
• AASHTO: Kevin Marshia
• AASHTO: Kimberly Floyd
Guests:
• Alexander Couch, Oklahoma DOT
• Lauren January, Oklahoma DOT
• Samuel Coldiron, Oklahoma DOT
• Brian Taylor, Oklahoma DOT
• Daniel Nguyen, Oklahoma DOT
• Michael Henry, Arkansas DOT

Activities:
Below are the results of 18 applications (5 U.S. Bike Routes, 8 U.S. Routes, and 5 Interstate Routes), from 12 member departments, that were submitted to AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials) for review and approval.

• 18 Applications Received
• 16 Approved
• 2 Approved with Condition
• 0 Not Approved
Additional issues discussed:
• Need one new Region 1 representative from CHS.
• USBRS adjustment on policy #4, in the wording for connecting 2 or more states.

AASHTO 2024 SPRING MEETING ROUTE NUMBERING APPLICATIONS
FINAL BALLOT RESULTS

Ballot Item, Action, Description Decision
Item 1: Arkansas, I-42
Action: Establishment of a new route Vote:
Reason for Requested Action: The establishment of a new Comments:
Interstate route with connection to I-44/I-244 in Tulsa, OK.
Approve with Condition
As the segments are redesigned to interstate standards we will approve for each segment.

Item 2: Arkansas, USBR 51
Action: Establishment of a new U.S. Bicycle Route Vote:
Reason for Requested Action: The establishment of Comments: USBR 51.
Approve

Item 3: California, USBR 85
Action: Establishment of a new Bicycle Route Vote:
Reason for Requested Action: The establishment of Comments:
USBR 85.
Approve

Item 4: California, USBR 95
Action: Realignment of an existing U.S. Bicycle Segment Vote:
Reason for Requested Action: The realignment of Comments: segment of USBR 95.
Approve

Item 5: Florida, USBR 15
Action: Extension of a U.S. Bicycle Route Segment Vote:
Reason for Requesting Action: Final segment extension. Comments:
Approve

Item 6: Indiana, I-69
Action: Extension of a Segment Vote:
Reason for Requesting Action: Extension of I-69 along Comments:
existing I-465 to connect I-465 and I-69 interchange.
Approve

Item 7: Maryland, I-695
Action: Extension of a Segment Vote:
Reason for Requesting Action: This portion of the Baltimore Comments:
Beltway provides a direct and logical connection between I-95 in Baltimore County and I-97 in Anne Arundel County and provides interchange connections to arterial roadways that directly service the Port of Baltimore.
Approve

Item 8: Minnesota, US 14
Action: Realignment of an existing route Vote: Reason for Requesting Action: New alignment of the Comments:
Roadway which is now a 4-lane freeway section of US 14.
Approve

Item 9: Minnesota, US 53
Action: Relocation of an existing route Vote:
Reason for Requesting Action: 1.7 mile reroute of US 53, Comments: MNDOT did not own mineral rights.
Approve

Item 10: Nebraska, US 275
Action: Relocation of an existing route Vote:
Reason for Requesting Action: Widens highway from a Comments:
2-lane road to a 4-lane expressway and extends US 275.
Approve

Item 11: Oklahoma, I-42
Action: Establishment of a new route
Reason for Requesting Action: Future route will be fully Vote:
controlled access, divided, multi-lane facility with Comments: connection to interstate routes at both ends as well as I-44 and I-244 in Tulsa, Ok.
Approve with Condition
As the segments are redesigned to interstate standards we will approve for each segment.

Item 12: Pennsylvania, US 15
Action: Relocation of an existing route Vote:
Reason for Requesting Action: US 15 will be moved to a Comments:
new 6.6 mile 4-lane limited access highway bypasses communities, with interchanges at its termini and with PA 61/147 in Shamokin Dam.
Approve

Item 13: Pennsylvania, Business US 15
Action: Recognition of a Business route Vote: Reason for Requesting Action: US 15 is being moved to a Comments:
new 4-lane highway to bypass two communities. The existing 6.7-mile US 15 corridor be designated as Business US 15
Approve

Item 14: Texas, I-69
Action: Extension of a segment Vote:
Reason for Requesting Action: Extension of the Comments:
current I-69 terminus to the new limit of U.S. 59
Approve

Item 15: Virginia, US 1
Action: Realignment of an existing route Vote:
Reason for Requesting Action: Route 1 through Fort Comments:
Belvoir has been widened from 4 lanes to 6 lanes to mitigate transportation impacts of additional development of Fort Belvoir.
Approve

Item 16: Virginia, Business US 460
Action: Realignment of an existing route Vote:
Reason for Requesting Action: Conversion to a business Comments:
route; mileposts west to east, 2-lane divided.
Approve

Item 17: Virginia, US 460
Action: Realignment of an existing route Vote:
Reason for Requesting Action: Realignment of US 460; Comments: 4-lane re-location, mileposts are West to east.
Approve

Item 18: Wyoming, USBR 76
Action: Establishment of a new U.S. Bicycle Route Vote: Reason for Requesting Action: USBR 76 in Wyoming will Comments: connect from Idaho to Colorado.
Approve


vdeane

Quote from: ericlipford on June 01, 2024, 08:13:05 PMThe one that puzzles me is the I-695 application from Maryland.
They're seeking to add the southeast leg of I-695 -- which is already part of the Interstate Highway System, right?
Or was the section of I-695 automatically decommissioned when the Francis Scott Key Bridge collapsed?
Even though Maryland has long signed it as I-695, the portion from I-97 across the Key Bridge to the eastern I-95 junction has always been MD 695 officially.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

davewiecking

FSK collapse didn't automatically get 695 decommissioned, but MD did subsequently apply for such. Discussed somewhere in that thread, including something about the issue raised by vdeane.

Revive 755

Quote from: ericlipford on June 01, 2024, 08:13:05 PMItem 11: Oklahoma, I-42
Action: Establishment of a new route
Reason for Requesting Action: Future route will be fully Vote:
controlled access, divided, multi-lane facility with Comments: connection to interstate routes at both ends as well as I-44 and I-244 in Tulsa, Ok.
Approve with Condition
As the segments are redesigned to interstate standards we will approve for each segment.

In the part of Public Act 117-58 included on the last page of this there's an "Interstate Route 22 spur" around Tupelo listed I don't recall previously hearing of:

Quote''(95) The Interstate Route 22 spur from the vicinity of Tupelo, Mississippi, running south generally along United States Route 45 to the vicinity of Shannon, Mississippi.

WashuOtaku

Quote from: ericlipford on June 01, 2024, 08:13:05 PMItem 1: Arkansas, I-42
Action: Establishment of a new route Vote:
Reason for Requested Action: The establishment of a new Comments:
Interstate route with connection to I-44/I-244 in Tulsa, OK.
Approve with Condition
As the segments are redesigned to interstate standards we will approve for each segment.

Why??? They already establish I-42 in North Carolina. Could they not pick another number, they have in the past despite state suggestions.

Molandfreak

Why would they tell them to pick another number 6 months ago and then just renege at the next meeting?  :no:
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 05, 2023, 08:24:57 PM
AASHTO attributes 28.5% of highway inventory shrink to bad road fan social media posts.

english si

Quote from: WashuOtaku on June 01, 2024, 10:35:53 PMWhy??? They already establish I-42 in North Carolina.
I'm pretty sure AR/OK had pencilled in the 42 number for the 412 corridor before AASHTO dumped it on NC in what was a very strange meeting.
QuoteCould they not pick another number, they have in the past despite state suggestions.
Indeed, including I-42 in NC (the state had submitted I-36 - and gave reasons in the submission why I-42 was not preferred), and I-87 (state had chosen I-56 if E-W, or I-89 if N-S, talked informally with AASHTO before submission and found they wanted to give this E-W highway a N-S number, so submitted I-89).

That same meeting that approved (having changed the numbers of) those interstates rejected I-14 as the number was unacceptable, despite it being written into law - I'd argue that that Spring '16 meeting (and the build up where I-56 was rejected as a N-S number was sought by AASHTO) is where the oddness happened, not this one!
Quote from: Molandfreak on June 02, 2024, 02:02:29 AMWhy would they tell them to pick another number 6 months ago and then just renege at the next meeting?  :no:
They didn't tell them to pick another number 6 months ago, at least not according to the minutes!

The application was withdrawn, but was still 'Approved with Condition', which is what they gave it this time.

vdeane

Quote from: english si on June 02, 2024, 08:14:04 AMI'm pretty sure AR/OK had pencilled in the 42 number for the 412 corridor before AASHTO dumped it on NC in what was a very strange meeting.
And?  NC already got I-42.  There is no need to duplicate an interstate when there are plenty of other numbers available.  Sure, the "drop the 1" gimmick might have been fun, but as they say, you snooze, you lose.  If they wanted to do such that bad, they should have requested it as soon as they came up with the idea.

Quote from: english si on June 02, 2024, 08:14:04 AMIndeed, including I-42 in NC (the state had submitted I-36 - and gave reasons in the submission why I-42 was not preferred), and I-87 (state had chosen I-56 if E-W, or I-89 if N-S, talked informally with AASHTO before submission and found they wanted to give this E-W highway a N-S number, so submitted I-89).

That same meeting that approved (having changed the numbers of) those interstates rejected I-14 as the number was unacceptable, despite it being written into law - I'd argue that that Spring '16 meeting (and the build up where I-56 was rejected as a N-S number was sought by AASHTO) is where the oddness happened, not this one!
I-42 makes more sense from a national perspective than I-36 because it's north of I-40.  I-46 would work fine for US 412.  The Southway certainly should be I-56, though.  It's an east-west corridor by both looking at a compass and by the "north-south is parallel to the coast" convention used down there.  It's perpendicular to I-95 and we all know the real purpose of this road is to connect Elizabeth City to the interstate system, not to connect Raleigh and Norfolk/Virginia Beach.

Quote from: english si on June 02, 2024, 08:14:04 AMThey didn't tell them to pick another number 6 months ago, at least not according to the minutes!

The application was withdrawn, but was still 'Approved with Condition', which is what they gave it this time.
I remember reading here that Oklahoma and Arkansas had agreed to withdraw their applications and resubmit with a different number, so I read the withdrawal/renumber as one of the conditions; if they were just going to keep this I-42 duplication nonsense anyways, why do that?  Why not just have those applications stand?

This is SO frustrating.  What is even the point of having AASHTO if they just rubber-stamp everything?  While the interstate system has always had anomalies, those used to be the exception and small in number.  Now, such instances have at least doubled in the last decade alone.  Between all this and the push towards freeway removals, I feel like the interstate system I read about in my youth and practically worshiped is dead.  It used to be an elegantly ordered spider-web of infrastructure covering the country and connecting most places of importance (granted, with a few gaps like NY 17 and east-west across New England, but most places).  Now I feel like it's becoming difficult to recognize. :-(
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

TheStranger

Quote from: vdeane on June 02, 2024, 03:07:54 PMBetween all this and the push towards freeway removals, I feel like the interstate system I read about in my youth and practically worshiped is dead.

To be fair, if you combine the I-375 (Detroit), I-895 (Bronx), and I-81 (Syracuse) removal mileage, that's pretty miniscule compared to the total system as is, right?
Chris Sampang

vdeane

Quote from: TheStranger on June 02, 2024, 08:27:54 PM
Quote from: vdeane on June 02, 2024, 03:07:54 PMBetween all this and the push towards freeway removals, I feel like the interstate system I read about in my youth and practically worshiped is dead.

To be fair, if you combine the I-375 (Detroit), I-895 (Bronx), and I-81 (Syracuse) removal mileage, that's pretty miniscule compared to the total system as is, right?
I-375 and I-895 may not be integral to their city's freeway systems, but I-81 is (and also to regional traffic between the Finger Lakes and points south), so it's a loss that definitely will be felt.  And I hardly think the movement will stop there.  I-787 could well see removal within the next decade or two, and it's pretty integral to the Albany area.  I recall a push to remove I-275 in Tampa, though I'm not sure of the likelihood in the current political climate.  And there's a chance I-94 could be removed in the Twin Cities.  Ultimately, the New Urbanist movement is opposed to car travel, period (they don't like rural interstates either, they just don't target them for removal because they don't hurt cities).  Maybe my feelings are influenced by living in a state where the New Urbanist movement is strong (in fact, if I had to guess, I would say that they're stronger in New York than anywhere else in the country, as we have just the right mix of political sensibilities, finances, and population demographics to make their influence very potent; it's very easy to give them what they want when you have politicians that love safety, net stagnant population with the people moving in wanting walkable urban areas, and can't afford to modernize the freeways anyways).  As much as I feel that there should be a balance between transportation modes, I hate when reconnecting communities gets implemented as full removals.

(personal opinion)
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

english si

Quote from: vdeane on June 02, 2024, 03:07:54 PMThis is SO frustrating.  What is even the point of having AASHTO if they just rubber-stamp everything?
The alternative, shown when they last didn't just approve/conditionally approve the requests put before them is an AASHTO that is far more frustrating and knows far less about numbering than the state DOTs!

In that meeting where they last vetoed things they showed they:
  • Don't care about law - rejecting I-14, despite the number being written in law
  • Don't care about duplicates - NC didn't want 42 due to the state route of the same number it intersected. There was nothing wrong with I-36 (especially as AASHTO don't care about the grid), which was geographically south of the E-W portion of I-40 in the state and only north topographically because the I-40 extension from I-85 to Wilmington runs N-S, perpendicular to it (given that number for prestige, and because there was no free odd number). Now we have interstate status delayed due to a state highway renumbering project NC shouldn't have needed to do.
  • Don't care about the grid - Raleigh-Hampton Roads is mostly east of I-95, and is E-W anyway, but they insisted on an odd number below 95!
  • Don't care about duplicates (2) - their insistence on making the E-W I-87 an odd interstate puts it in the most crowded group (16 odd numbers in a row used between 69 and 99) vs the emptiest group of even numbers (9 free numbers in a row between 46 and 62) - a certain duplicate rather than a range of choice.

I'd rather they rubber stamp than try and steer numbering despite not seeming to know the basics. Sure, sometimes there's errors that happen, but the states are better at due diligence than AASHTO here.

QuoteI remember reading here that Oklahoma and Arkansas had agreed to withdraw their applications and resubmit with a different number, so I read the withdrawal/renumber as one of the conditions; if they were just going to keep this I-42 duplication nonsense anyways, why do that?  Why not just have those applications stand?
Hobbyists are wrong, and what you heard was, at best, hearsay - though more likely wishful thinking!

AASHTO still approved with conditions the withdrawn proposal for I-42 in Oklahoma and Arkansas last fall. It seems the condition was more information - the submissions this time were lengthy and much more detailed than other proposals. There were also 5 Oklahoma DOT, and 1 Arkansas DOT, representatives at the meeting as guests who didn't get a vote - I imagine they were there to present the I-42 proposal*.

Why approve it 'anyway'? Because the condition set last time was met, obviously!

Why delay approval if they were going to allow it anyway? Because they still need to jump through the hoops and tick the correct boxes - there's no point in allowing shoddy paperwork, lest others do it also and you end up having no clue what you are actually approving.

And why would they block it because it was a duplicate? Literally the last time AASHTO picked a number for a road that wasn't the state's choice was a duplicate (replacing another duplicate that the state was encouraged by AASHTO to submit instead of a non-duplicate number).

*but, as AASHTO isn't the UNECE, we don't get the slideshow used, or minutes detailing discussion had - just a proposal and a verdict. They do things so much better in Geneva!

Rover_0

Anyone wanna try to convince AASHTO why I-42 (NC) should be I-36 or I-46?

I'm fine with I-42 for the US-412 corridor, but pushing NCDOT towards I-42, thus driving them to renumber a portion of NC-42 to avoid confusion when I-36 is sitting right there with no route in NC to confuse it with, makes no sense whatsoever. If the whole "it's north of I-40" argument is suddenly that much of an issue to AASHTO, I-46 also works and is available, and NC-46 (which wouldn't intersect I-46) could instead be renumbered to an available NC-x46, as needed.
Fixing erroneous shields, one at a time...

epzik8

Hopefully the Shamokin Dam bypass will look just as glorious in real life as it does in the map in the archive.
From the land of red, white, yellow and black.
____________________________

My clinched highways: http://tm.teresco.org/user/?u=epzik8
My clinched counties: http://mob-rule.com/user-gifs/USA/epzik8.gif

vdeane

Quote from: english si on June 02, 2024, 09:48:31 PMThe alternative, shown when they last didn't just approve/conditionally approve the requests put before them is an AASHTO that is far more frustrating and knows far less about numbering than the state DOTs!

In that meeting where they last vetoed things they showed they:
    • Don't care about law - rejecting I-14, despite the number being written in law
    • Don't care about duplicates - NC didn't want 42 due to the state route of the same number it intersected. There was nothing wrong with I-36 (especially as AASHTO don't care about the grid), which was geographically south of the E-W portion of I-40 in the state and only north topographically because the I-40 extension from I-85 to Wilmington runs N-S, perpendicular to it (given that number for prestige, and because there was no free odd number). Now we have interstate status delayed due to a state highway renumbering project NC shouldn't have needed to do.
    • Don't care about the grid - Raleigh-Hampton Roads is mostly east of I-95, and is E-W anyway, but they insisted on an odd number below 95!
    • Don't care about duplicates (2) - their insistence on making the E-W I-87 an odd interstate puts it in the most crowded group (16 odd numbers in a row used between 69 and 99) vs the emptiest group of even numbers (9 free numbers in a row between 46 and 62) - a certain duplicate rather than a range of choice.

I'd rather they rubber stamp than try and steer numbering despite not seeming to know the basics. Sure, sometimes there's errors that happen, but the states are better at due diligence than AASHTO here.
Why should they care about a state route with the same number?  The interstates are the federal system, they should be supreme.  The state route systems should bend around it.  Only some states care about the duplication anyways; unfortunately, of those that do, they have this bone-headed belief that their numbering systems are more important and that the interstates should bend to their whims.

Congressmen have shown themselves to care even less for such things than anyone else.  Quite frankly, I'd like it very much if numbers were no longer written into law and the existing ones all repealed!  IMO it is not the place of Congress to butt in on such matters.

As for NC I-87, my understanding was that it was NC insisting on the north-south number, not AASHTO.  What AASHTO did was change it from I-89, on the justification that I-87 would one day connect to the real one and they would be a single route.  That essentially has zero chance of happening, but it's still better odds than it happening for I-42 or if NC I-87 had been I-89.

Quote from: english si on June 02, 2024, 09:48:31 PMHobbyists are wrong, and what you heard was, at best, hearsay - though more likely wishful thinking!

AASHTO still approved with conditions the withdrawn proposal for I-42 in Oklahoma and Arkansas last fall. It seems the condition was more information - the submissions this time were lengthy and much more detailed than other proposals. There were also 5 Oklahoma DOT, and 1 Arkansas DOT, representatives at the meeting as guests who didn't get a vote - I imagine they were there to present the I-42 proposal*.

Why approve it 'anyway'? Because the condition set last time was met, obviously!

Why delay approval if they were going to allow it anyway? Because they still need to jump through the hoops and tick the correct boxes - there's no point in allowing shoddy paperwork, lest others do it also and you end up having no clue what you are actually approving.

And why would they block it because it was a duplicate? Literally the last time AASHTO picked a number for a road that wasn't the state's choice was a duplicate (replacing another duplicate that the state was encouraged by AASHTO to submit instead of a non-duplicate number).

*but, as AASHTO isn't the UNECE, we don't get the slideshow used, or minutes detailing discussion had - just a proposal and a verdict. They do things so much better in Geneva!
IIRC AASHTO used to reject applications that didn't have enough information.  I would have thought that the withdrawal/approve with condition would have been "we'll approve the addition to the interstate system, but not with that number"; it's the only option that makes sense.  Sadly, little that AASHTO has done over the past decade has made sense.  Why can't we have the AASHTO of the 90s/00s back?  Even then, they had screwed up the numbering of the US route system beyond salvaging, but at least the interstates were still respected.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

hbelkins

Where are the US 460 entries in Virginia?


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

Mapmikey


SEWIGuy

Quote from: vdeane on June 03, 2024, 01:04:13 PM
Quote from: english si on June 02, 2024, 09:48:31 PMThe alternative, shown when they last didn't just approve/conditionally approve the requests put before them is an AASHTO that is far more frustrating and knows far less about numbering than the state DOTs!

In that meeting where they last vetoed things they showed they:
    • Don't care about law - rejecting I-14, despite the number being written in law
    • Don't care about duplicates - NC didn't want 42 due to the state route of the same number it intersected. There was nothing wrong with I-36 (especially as AASHTO don't care about the grid), which was geographically south of the E-W portion of I-40 in the state and only north topographically because the I-40 extension from I-85 to Wilmington runs N-S, perpendicular to it (given that number for prestige, and because there was no free odd number). Now we have interstate status delayed due to a state highway renumbering project NC shouldn't have needed to do.
    • Don't care about the grid - Raleigh-Hampton Roads is mostly east of I-95, and is E-W anyway, but they insisted on an odd number below 95!
    • Don't care about duplicates (2) - their insistence on making the E-W I-87 an odd interstate puts it in the most crowded group (16 odd numbers in a row used between 69 and 99) vs the emptiest group of even numbers (9 free numbers in a row between 46 and 62) - a certain duplicate rather than a range of choice.

I'd rather they rubber stamp than try and steer numbering despite not seeming to know the basics. Sure, sometimes there's errors that happen, but the states are better at due diligence than AASHTO here.
Why should they care about a state route with the same number?  The interstates are the federal system, they should be supreme.  The state route systems should bend around it. 


Because its a collection of state agencies, and I don't think state agencies are going to be happy when an organization of their colleagues makes them spend money on a renumbering project when perfectly good alternatives exist.

CNGL-Leudimin

So 10 years ago there weren't any routes numbered I-42 and now there are two. We need some road geeks to take over AASHTO and put things back in order.
Supporter of the construction of several running gags, including I-366 with a speed limit of 85 mph (137 km/h) and the Hypotenuse.

Please note that I may mention "invalid" FM channels, i.e. ending in an even number or down to 87.5. These are valid in Europe.

hbelkins

Quote from: Mapmikey on June 03, 2024, 02:55:27 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 03, 2024, 02:53:47 PMWhere are the US 460 entries in Virginia?

Bus route in Grundy

That's been signed since the bypass opened; for at least 11 years.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

english si

Quote from: vdeane on June 03, 2024, 01:04:13 PM... bone-headed belief that their numbering systems are more important and that the interstates should bend to their whims. ...
Yep, that's basically what your whole post is expressing!

It's not that you merely want AASHTO to assert themselves - they did that when they accepted a duplicate I-42 in the Fall, despite the states withdrawing their application for it! You want AASHTO to have the same approach to numbering as you do. The problem is that they are no 'better' than the state officials (pretty obvious given they are an association of them), nor congress (I-99 being the only terrible number actually written into law, but even then I don't think AASHTO could have done better due to the grid being full there) at following the grid system, not creating duplicates, etc, etc.

QuoteIIRC AASHTO used to reject applications that didn't have enough information.  I would have thought that the withdrawal/approve with condition would have been "we'll approve the addition to the interstate system, but not with that number"; it's the only option that makes sense.
That makes no sense, especially as AASHTO cannot add anything to the interstate system (FHWA does that, though this one all the official's hands have been tied by the law - and AASHTO could have been overridden, as they were with I-14*) and they reject stuff they don't like the number of rather than do that.

And given the proposal was withdrawn, they didn't need to approve or reject it at all - they didn't need to comment at all!

You wish it to have been because they didn't like the number, because you don't like the number. Clearly they had no issue with the number as they have, not very long ago, rejected numbers they didn't like to the point of insisting that a poorly-numbered I-89 proposal should instead bear the equally-poor number I-87.

*A case where Congress chose a good number that fits the grid - unlike the aggressive AASHTO at the same meeting which made a route that has 77% of its mileage east of I-95 a lower I-8x number than what was proposed. Given they were insisting on a change, and cared not about numerical duplication, they could have made it a legit-with-the-grid I-99 had they so desired. Or insisted on an E-W number.

vdeane

Quote from: english si on June 04, 2024, 07:08:06 AMI-99 being the only terrible number actually written into law
I-69E/C/W?  I-74?  I-27E/W?  I-14N/S?  I-73 is wonky too, but at least it has the excuse of the grid being exhaused in the area where it's actually being built, and the totally wacko sections of that interstate will likely never be built.

Quote from: english si on June 04, 2024, 07:08:06 AMThat makes no sense, especially as AASHTO cannot add anything to the interstate system (FHWA does that, though this one all the official's hands have been tied by the law - and AASHTO could have been overridden, as they were with I-14*) and they reject stuff they don't like the number of rather than do that.
My understanding was that it was both.  If it's really just FHWA on that part, why involve AASHTO at all for the routes designated in law?  Why go to them twice, once to establish a number for a corridor and then again when the road is built?  If all they do is numbering, then by definition they have no role to play in those scenarios.

Quote from: english si on June 04, 2024, 07:08:06 AMYou wish it to have been because they didn't like the number, because you don't like the number. Clearly they had no issue with the number as they have, not very long ago, rejected numbers they didn't like to the point of insisting that a poorly-numbered I-89 proposal should instead bear the equally-poor number I-87.
As I already explained, the I-87 decision is a result of them being under the impression that a Delmarva interstate connecting the two might one day be built.

Honestly, I wish we could go back to the way the interstate system was treated in the 50s and 60s, with national planners selecting efficient routes of national importance and the designations tied to funding.  Block granting the funding of the interstate system was the worse thing to ever happen to it.  And it's sad that internet hobbyists care more about this stuff than the decision-makers in charge of it.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

SEWIGuy

Quote from: vdeane on June 04, 2024, 08:59:16 PMAnd it's sad that internet hobbyists care more about this stuff than the decision-makers in charge of it.

Because interstate numbering isn't all that important in the grand scheme of things.

bugo

#22
Quote from: english si on June 02, 2024, 09:48:31 PMHobbyists are wrong, and what you heard was, at best, hearsay - though more likely wishful thinking!

What he heard was absolutely not hearsay. It was direct from the fingers of Sam Coldiron of the Oklahoma Transportation Cabinet.

QuoteThe joint Oklahoma/Arkansas I-42 Route Numbering Application was withdrawn shortly before the AASHTO Fall Meeting when we were informed that the Route Numbering Committee had concerns that an I-42 in Oklahoma and Arkansas might cause confusion with the proposed I-42 in North Carolina and were planning to not allow the application to go through. The Committee was also concerned that since there are no current or future plans to connect the two segments of the proposed I-42 they would remain disconnected for the foreseeable future. Typically there is a question and answer time between the States and the Route Numbering Committee while they are making their recommendations, but that was not provided this year as the Route Numbering Committee met virtually only with its members leading up to the AASHTO Fall Meeting. The decision to temporarily withdraw the application was made in conjunction with both Oklahoma and Arkansas DOT leadership. We plan to resubmit this application for the AASHTO Spring Meeting following more communication with the Route Numbering Committee.

So much for "hearsay", bruv.
Nobody is on the level of the devil.

bugo

Quote from: english si on June 04, 2024, 07:08:06 AM[You wish it to have been because they didn't like the number, because you don't like the number. Clearly they had no issue with the number as they have, not very long ago, rejected numbers they didn't like to the point of insisting that a poorly-numbered I-89 proposal should instead bear the equally-poor number I-87.

Again,

The joint Oklahoma/Arkansas I-42 Route Numbering Application was withdrawn shortly before the AASHTO Fall Meeting when we were informed that the Route Numbering Committee had concerns that an I-42 in Oklahoma and Arkansas might cause confusion with the proposed I-42 in North Carolina and were planning to not allow the application to go through. The Committee was also concerned that since there are no current or future plans to connect the two segments of the proposed I-42 they would remain disconnected for the foreseeable future. Typically there is a question and answer time between the States and the Route Numbering Committee while they are making their recommendations, but that was not provided this year as the Route Numbering Committee met virtually only with its members leading up to the AASHTO Fall Meeting. The decision to temporarily withdraw the application was made in conjunction with both Oklahoma and Arkansas DOT leadership. We plan to resubmit this application for the AASHTO Spring Meeting following more communication with the Route Numbering Committee.
Nobody is on the level of the devil.

vdeane

Maybe there's a difference between what we thought (because it would be the reasonable assumption) and what they meant?  Ie:

What we thought: they would withdraw the application, discuss with AASHTO, and resubmit with a new number
What they might have meant: they would withdraw the application, and resubmit at an in-person meeting where they could convince AASHTO to accept the I-42 number anyways
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.