Temporary route numbers

[bugo]

What is the logic of temporary route numbers?  When AHTD built I-540 north, they knew good and well it was going to eventually be I-49, but the geniuses at AASHTO refused to let them number it I-49.  Same with AR 549, even though I am not sure whether they even applied for the number.  It seems counterproductive and illogical to give a road a number when they know it will be changed down the road. 

[US71]

One could ask the same thing about AR 540 at Fort Smith. They knew it would be I-540, but south of Rogers Ave, it was AR 540 before it became I-540.

[bugo]

One could ask the same thing about AR 540 at Fort Smith. They knew it would be I-540, but south of Rogers Ave, it was AR 540 before it became I-540.

At least it was the same number.  Call it AR 49 if AASHTO are going to be dicks.  Or else go ahead and sign it as I-49 US 377 style.

[NYYPhil777]

Interesting- maybe MO-249 will be a temporary designation for future I-49 or maybe an auxiliary route from I-49.

One could ask the same thing about AR 540 at Fort Smith. They knew it would be I-540, but south of Rogers Ave, it was AR 540 before it became I-540.

At least it was the same number.  Call it AR 49 if AASHTO are going to be dicks.  Or else go ahead and sign it as I-49 US 377 style.

How is US 377 signed differently from other route shields?

[bugo]

US 377 north of Madill was signed without AASHTO permission.

[roadfro]

A "future" number is not always guaranteed to be built. With some routes, one could argue that the number doesn't yet provide a logical extension of the route until further sections of it are constructed.


Then on the other end, you have a temporary alignment between constructed portions that is officially designated as a temporary route, since construction of the connecting piece may have an uncertain funding or construction timeline and it would be infeasible to not connect the two ends. US 50/395 in Carson City is an example--the portion along Fairview Drive is officially "TEMP US 50/395" according to AASHTO (although not signed as such by NDOT), connecting the old highway on Carson Street to the new freeway bypass to the east.

[national highway 1]

US 377 north of Madill was signed without AASHTO permission.

That's just the AASHTO just trolling us for reasons unknown to man.

Another one is CA 31 for what is now I-15 in Ontario, CA.

[US71]

One could ask the same thing about AR 540 at Fort Smith. They knew it would be I-540, but south of Rogers Ave, it was AR 540 before it became I-540.

At least it was the same number.  Call it AR 49 if AASHTO are going to be dicks.  Or else go ahead and sign it as I-49 US 377 style.

Don't forget also, that "North" 540 was originally supposed to be a new US 71 when it was originally planned.  But AHTD changed their minds when tourist traps along "old" 71 complained about the fear of losing business because no one would know "471" (or what ever designation it was given) was formerly US 71... not that it helped, anyway,

[Roadsguy]

There's PA Turnpike 576 southwest of Pittsburgh, there's NC 540 to the west of Raleigh, and... I can't think of any more off the top of my head.

All of those will be Interstates when (if?) they're ever completed.

[1995hoo]

The scenario roadfro mentions has shown up on the Interstates on occasion. The Baltimore—Washington Parkway in Maryland was once signed as "Temporary I-95" while the "between the Beltways" part of the real I-95 was finished. I think it made a lot of sense. It reassures drivers of the thru route while making clear they should expect a change on future trips. I believe I saw a AAA map showing a "Temporary I-77" or "Temporary I-20" (I forget which) in Columbia, SC.


(edited to fix a bad typo.)

[Brian556]

Tennessee-TN 840 (future I-840 around Nashville)
California-Temp I-5 on CA 99 (before I-5 was complete)

Texas:
Spur 553 on then-future SH 121 frontage roads in Lewisville
TX 197 on then-future US 77 in Ellis County
Spur ??? on SH 121 north of DFW airport during planning construction, before SH 121 moved to this alignemnt upon completion.
     

[bugo]

There's PA Turnpike 576 southwest of Pittsburgh, there's NC 540 to the west of Raleigh, and... I can't think of any more off the top of my head.

All of those will be Interstates when (if?) they're ever completed.

The point is that the numbers are going to be the same.  Changing from 540 or 549 to 49 is going to cause mass confusion when they are changed over.  They use that excuse when they don't want to upgrade a state highway to a US highway, and turn around and do this?

[StogieGuy7]

The scenario roadfro mentions has shown up on the Interstates on occasion. The Baltimore—Washington Patkeay in Maryland was once signed as "Temporary I-95" while the "between the Beltways" part of the real I-95 was finished. I think it made a lot of sense. It reassures drivers of the thru route while making clear they should expect a change on future trips. I believe I saw a AAA map showing a "Temporary I-77" or "Temporary I-20" (I forget which) in Columbia, SC.

Yep, I sure remember that!  That was back in 1970 or so and the B/W Parkway was very congested back then; I think that it was only 2 lanes each way.  Then, once that stretch of I-95 opened with 3 lanes each, it was like an open road.  I'll never forget how the original button reflectors (when new) appeared to be gold rather than silver!   

[hbelkins]

When Kentucky opens a portion of a new road that will eventually be a through route, it will give the new route a temporary state route number until the entire route is completed and the permanent number can be assigned.

Examples of this include US 119 in Pike County, US 62/68 in Mason County and US 23/460 in Floyd and Johnson counties.

[Takumi]

VDOT has done the same thing as HB mentioned. US 29's Danville bypass was originally VA 265, and became US 29 when it was finished. It's now also (unsigned) VA 785 in anticipation of I-785's arrival. US 58's bypass of Franklin was VA 280 before completion, and there's a map scan somewhere on the Virginia Highways Project that shows the then-unbuilt I-664 in Suffolk as VA 664. There's also the infamous VA 895, but I'm unsure as to whether that's really a temporary number or not.

[Henry]

The scenario roadfro mentions has shown up on the Interstates on occasion. The Baltimore–Washington Patkeay in Maryland was once signed as "Temporary I-95" while the "between the Beltways" part of the real I-95 was finished. I think it made a lot of sense. It reassures drivers of the thru route while making clear they should expect a change on future trips. I believe I saw a AAA map showing a "Temporary I-77" or "Temporary I-20" (I forget which) in Columbia, SC.

It was Temporary I-77, which followed parts of SC 277, I-20 and I-26 around Columbia. This was due to the fact that what would be the permanent routing of I-77 (which was then designated as SC 48 and I-326, among others) had not yet been completed in full.

[roadman65]

The Trenton Freeway (US 1) was signed as NJ 174 until the freeway was completed north of Whiting Road.

I think that US 10 and US 27 in Michigan might of been signed that way until I-75 was finnished from US 10 to US 27 (now US 127).

I-78 WB from Newark to NJ 24 was signed "TO NJ 24 WEST" unitl I-78 opened to traffic in 1986 between Exits 41 and 48 for a good reason, as there were no direct routes between the two endpoints.

[vdeane]

What is the logic of temporary route numbers?  When AHTD built I-540 north, they knew good and well it was going to eventually be I-49, but the geniuses at AASHTO refused to let them number it I-49.  Same with AR 549, even though I am not sure whether they even applied for the number.  It seems counterproductive and illogical to give a road a number when they know it will be changed down the road. 

There's no guarantee that I-49 will be finished, so AASHTO won't approve new numbers unless they make sense on their own.  In many cases you can't be sure something will get built until the construction starts.  It's certainly better than moving US routes to it and then having useless concurrencies.

[TheStranger]

Another one is CA 31 for what is now I-15 in Ontario, CA.

Route 31 isn't a true temporary number - the route ONLY became Temporary I-15 (usually with that being signed in lieu of 31) in the mid-1970s, after 15 had been shifted from what is now I-215 (and what would be I-15E for 8 years).  Prior to that, 31 and the southern segment of Route 71 existed on their own, 71 having been in the system since the 1930s.

[roadman65]

What is the logic of temporary route numbers?  When AHTD built I-540 north, they knew good and well it was going to eventually be I-49, but the geniuses at AASHTO refused to let them number it I-49.  Same with AR 549, even though I am not sure whether they even applied for the number.  It seems counterproductive and illogical to give a road a number when they know it will be changed down the road. 

There's no guarantee that I-49 will be finished, so AASHTO won't approve new numbers unless they make sense on their own.  In many cases you can't be sure something will get built until the construction starts.  It's certainly better than moving US routes to it and then having useless concurrencies.

What about Mississippi and them signing I-69 that may never get connected to the rest of the route anytime soon.   Hey, they are having trouble getting it across the Ohio River and if Ole Miss can sign a short piece of freeway as I-69, so should Arkansas. 

[The High Plains Traveler]

There were several freeway stubs with temporary numbers around the Twin Cities until the freeways were built out. MN-103 as a stub of MN-3 south of I-494 south of St. Paul, the whole route of which became U.S. 52; MN-312 for U.S. 212 west of Eden Prairie; and MN-118 (the only example with a non-derivative temporary number) for U.S. 10 in Blaine.

[hbelkins]

What about Mississippi and them signing I-69 that may never get connected to the rest of the route anytime soon.   Hey, they are having trouble getting it across the Ohio River and if Ole Miss can sign a short piece of freeway as I-69, so should Arkansas.

North Carolina has signed I-74 and it will never be connected to the section that begins in Ohio.

[kendancy66]

I am surprised that no one has mentioned Temporary I-85 in NC yet. US-29/US-70 from Lexington to Greensboro, NC, until 1984 when the new I-85 opened

[vdeane]

What is the logic of temporary route numbers?  When AHTD built I-540 north, they knew good and well it was going to eventually be I-49, but the geniuses at AASHTO refused to let them number it I-49.  Same with AR 549, even though I am not sure whether they even applied for the number.  It seems counterproductive and illogical to give a road a number when they know it will be changed down the road. 

There's no guarantee that I-49 will be finished, so AASHTO won't approve new numbers unless they make sense on their own.  In many cases you can't be sure something will get built until the construction starts.  It's certainly better than moving US routes to it and then having useless concurrencies.

What about Mississippi and them signing I-69 that may never get connected to the rest of the route anytime soon.   Hey, they are having trouble getting it across the Ohio River and if Ole Miss can sign a short piece of freeway as I-69, so should Arkansas. 

A 2di requires that one end be at an interstate and the other at a route of regional significance (these appear to be defined by AASHTO and don't make any kind of sense as to which routes get this designation).  The Mississippi one might meet this while the Arkansas one may not.  As far as AASHTO is concerned, they are duplicate numbers in the same league as I-84, I-86, and I-88.

Also note that I-69 and I-11 were recently granted an exception.  If Arkansas could promise to build the rest of I-69 within 25 years, they could probably change the designation now.

[bugo]

None of I-69 in Arkansas has been built.