AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications  (Read 48677 times)

Scott5114

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8298
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Norman, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 12:59:00 PM
    • Denexa 100% Plastic Playing Cards
Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
« Reply #150 on: July 18, 2013, 01:35:36 AM »

Since there is the occasional complaint that I-11 really does not fit the grid, why not change and go with another gridbuster that is more Vegas-centric: I-69$.

A more fitting one would be I-69-01. (Obscure joke, many slot floors use an A-12-34 type addressing scheme for the machines, where the letter designates the zone, the first two numbers are the bank/row, and the last two numbers are the machine position on that bank.)
Logged

Rover_0

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 878
  • Why not?

  • Age: -66
  • Location: Utah
  • Last Login: Today at 12:51:08 AM
Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
« Reply #151 on: July 18, 2013, 05:24:03 PM »

Since there is the occasional complaint that I-11 really does not fit the grid, why not change and go with another gridbuster that is more Vegas-centric: I-69$.
A more fitting one would be I-69-01. (Obscure joke, many slot floors use an A-12-34 type addressing scheme for the machines, where the letter designates the zone, the first two numbers are the bank/row, and the last two numbers are the machine position on that bank.)

Would it be too late (with the whole I-11 legislation) to make I-11 an I-19 extension, should these Tucson plans happen?
Logged
Fixing erroneous shields, one at a time...

Avalanchez71

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1094
  • Location: Middle Tennessee
  • Last Login: September 02, 2019, 05:12:17 PM
Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
« Reply #152 on: July 24, 2013, 12:05:26 AM »

Since there is the occasional complaint that I-11 really does not fit the grid, why not change and go with another gridbuster that is more Vegas-centric: I-69$.
A more fitting one would be I-69-01. (Obscure joke, many slot floors use an A-12-34 type addressing scheme for the machines, where the letter designates the zone, the first two numbers are the bank/row, and the last two numbers are the machine position on that bank.)

Would it be too late (with the whole I-11 legislation) to make I-11 an I-19 extension, should these Tucson plans happen?
Call your Congressman and ask them.
Logged

FightingIrish

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 298
  • Location: Wisconsin
  • Last Login: Today at 02:44:38 PM
Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
« Reply #153 on: July 24, 2013, 08:09:04 PM »

Since there is the occasional complaint that I-11 really does not fit the grid, why not change and go with another gridbuster that is more Vegas-centric: I-69$.
A more fitting one would be I-69-01. (Obscure joke, many slot floors use an A-12-34 type addressing scheme for the machines, where the letter designates the zone, the first two numbers are the bank/row, and the last two numbers are the machine position on that bank.)

Would it be too late (with the whole I-11 legislation) to make I-11 an I-19 extension, should these Tucson plans happen?

Why? Just to please a few fussy roadgeeks?

I think I-11 is a fine number. And yes, it does fit the grid (considering that I-15 is diagonal from southern Utah to Los Angeles, if you want to get technical). And why shouldn't a freeway connecting Arizona and Nevada get its own number? Not like the western states are going to run out of interstate numbers anytime soon.

If the powers-that-be intended I-19 to be a different number, they would have signed it as a continuation of I-17. But as it currently stands, I think they all work as intended.

Besides, if I were to harass Congress about anything, I'd tell 'em to stop all that partisan gridlock bullshit and start getting things done in D.C. I get it, the Republicans are pissed Obama won. Hey, Democrats didn't like Bush either. Stop acting like babies!

<stepping off soapbox>
Logged

Molandfreak

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1752
  • Age: 24
  • Last Login: November 26, 2019, 11:07:08 PM
Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
« Reply #154 on: July 24, 2013, 08:25:16 PM »

Since there is the occasional complaint that I-11 really does not fit the grid, why not change and go with another gridbuster that is more Vegas-centric: I-69$.
A more fitting one would be I-69-01. (Obscure joke, many slot floors use an A-12-34 type addressing scheme for the machines, where the letter designates the zone, the first two numbers are the bank/row, and the last two numbers are the machine position on that bank.)

Would it be too late (with the whole I-11 legislation) to make I-11 an I-19 extension, should these Tucson plans happen?

Why? Just to please a few fussy roadgeeks?

I think I-11 is a fine number. And yes, it does fit the grid (considering that I-15 is diagonal from southern Utah to Los Angeles, if you want to get technical). And why shouldn't a freeway connecting Arizona and Nevada get its own number? Not like the western states are going to run out of interstate numbers anytime soon.

If the powers-that-be intended I-19 to be a different number, they would have signed it as a continuation of I-17. But as it currently stands, I think they all work as intended.

Besides, if I were to harass Congress about anything, I'd tell 'em to stop all that partisan gridlock bullshit and start getting things done in D.C. I get it, the Republicans are pissed Obama won. Hey, Democrats didn't like Bush either. Stop acting like babies!

<stepping off soapbox>
The idea is to have two numbers on the CANAMEX corridor, not three. And the fussy roadgeeks who like the grid too much will have a fit about that one, too, because I-17 would be east of I-19. I agree that the grid should be used only for reference and not everything has to be exactly correct, but this is an instance where it is better just to extend one number, rather than use something new.
Logged

NE2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13918
  • fuck

  • Age: 11
  • Location: central Florida
  • Last Login: December 10, 2019, 06:07:28 PM
Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
« Reply #155 on: July 24, 2013, 08:32:22 PM »

The idea is to have two numbers on the CANAMEX corridor, not three.
Then why not reroute I-15 so there's one number - on both sides of the border?

Frankly, I don't give a shit about the latest big corridor or giving it one number. I-69 should not be one number. Neither should USBR 76.
Logged
Florida route log | pre-1945
I will do my best to not make America hate again.
Global warming denial is barely worse than white privilege denial.

Molandfreak

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1752
  • Age: 24
  • Last Login: November 26, 2019, 11:07:08 PM
Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
« Reply #156 on: July 24, 2013, 08:52:22 PM »

The idea is to have two numbers on the CANAMEX corridor, not three.
Then why not reroute I-15 so there's one number - on both sides of the border?

Frankly, I don't give a shit about the latest big corridor or giving it one number. I-69 should not be one number. Neither should USBR 76.
That I-15 re-route would actually be ideal in my book. Agreed that I-69 shouldn't have been one number (or built at all in northern Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, or Mississippi). Even though it screws up the grid, the I-19 extension is ideal because it requires minimal number-changing on ADOT?'s part, and saves I-11 for another day (which obviously won't happen, but meh...) If you could extend an existing interstate reasonably, why not?
Logged

vtk

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3912
  • she pronouns please

  • Age: -15
  • Location: Columbus
  • Last Login: September 24, 2019, 05:06:08 AM
    • Vid's Space
Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
« Reply #157 on: July 24, 2013, 09:07:58 PM »

The idea is to have two numbers on the CANAMEX corridor, not three.
Then why not reroute I-15 so there's one number - on both sides of the border?

I'm pretty sure I suggested that once before.
Logged
Look, over by the restrooms! It's a girl! It's a boy! No, it's Captain Enby!

…Do you think they're trying to decide which one to use?

kkt

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4529
  • Location: Seattle, Washington
  • Last Login: December 10, 2019, 03:39:50 PM
Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
« Reply #158 on: July 24, 2013, 11:27:16 PM »

Not like the western states are going to run out of interstate numbers anytime soon.

Maybe not soon, but I can envision running out of N-S interstates in the foreseeable future:

I-1 cannot use, would duplicate CA-1
US-101 from L.A. to S.F. -> I-3
I-5 in use
US-97 -> I-7
CA-99 from the Grapevine to Sacramento -> I-9
CA-14 and US-395 from San Fernando to Reno -> I-11  oops, wait...

All of which would be more worthwhile projects than Phoenix to Las Vegas.  Well, okay, maybe not US-97.
Logged

FightingIrish

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 298
  • Location: Wisconsin
  • Last Login: Today at 02:44:38 PM
Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
« Reply #159 on: July 25, 2013, 10:41:35 AM »

The idea is to have two numbers on the CANAMEX corridor, not three. And the fussy roadgeeks who like the grid too much will have a fit about that one, too, because I-17 would be east of I-19. I agree that the grid should be used only for reference and not everything has to be exactly correct, but this is an instance where it is better just to extend one number, rather than use something new.

You're absolutely right! With the random nature of some routes (i.e. diagonals), it would be impossible to route everything 100% to the grid. So yes, there will be a few areas of contention.

Not like the western states are going to run out of interstate numbers anytime soon.

Maybe not soon, but I can envision running out of N-S interstates in the foreseeable future:

I-1 cannot use, would duplicate CA-1
US-101 from L.A. to S.F. -> I-3
I-5 in use
US-97 -> I-7
CA-99 from the Grapevine to Sacramento -> I-9
CA-14 and US-395 from San Fernando to Reno -> I-11  oops, wait...

All of which would be more worthwhile projects than Phoenix to Las Vegas.  Well, okay, maybe not US-97.

I would think SR99 and the Phoenix to Las Vegas are very important routes, and are both at the front of the line. As for the others, like I said, I really don't think they'll run out of numbers, unless hoards of people begin a mass exodus to live in the California desert. And even then, by the time those other routes get upgraded to interstates, we'll likely all be dead.
Logged

vdeane

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10592
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Latham, NY
  • Last Login: Today at 01:42:28 PM
    • New York State Roads
Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
« Reply #160 on: July 25, 2013, 08:44:54 PM »

The idea is to have two numbers on the CANAMEX corridor, not three. And the fussy roadgeeks who like the grid too much will have a fit about that one, too, because I-17 would be east of I-19. I agree that the grid should be used only for reference and not everything has to be exactly correct, but this is an instance where it is better just to extend one number, rather than use something new.
I very much doubt I-11 would ever be a CANAMEX corridor.  Not enough traffic across Nevada.  Besides, numbers like I-11 and I-69 aren't valid transcontinental numbers; for that you need an x5.
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

Molandfreak

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1752
  • Age: 24
  • Last Login: November 26, 2019, 11:07:08 PM
Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
« Reply #161 on: July 25, 2013, 10:21:18 PM »

The idea is to have two numbers on the CANAMEX corridor, not three. And the fussy roadgeeks who like the grid too much will have a fit about that one, too, because I-17 would be east of I-19. I agree that the grid should be used only for reference and not everything has to be exactly correct, but this is an instance where it is better just to extend one number, rather than use something new.
I very much doubt I-11 would ever be a CANAMEX corridor.  Not enough traffic across Nevada.  Besides, numbers like I-11 and I-69 aren't valid transcontinental numbers; for that you need an x5.


http://www.itd.idaho.gov/transporter/2002/080202_Trans/080202_CanaMex.html
Logged

Alps

  • Everybody Obeys the Octagon
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12882
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 36
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 04:48:17 PM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
« Reply #162 on: July 26, 2013, 07:19:12 PM »

The idea is to have two numbers on the CANAMEX corridor, not three. And the fussy roadgeeks who like the grid too much will have a fit about that one, too, because I-17 would be east of I-19. I agree that the grid should be used only for reference and not everything has to be exactly correct, but this is an instance where it is better just to extend one number, rather than use something new.
I very much doubt I-11 would ever be a CANAMEX corridor.  Not enough traffic across Nevada.  Besides, numbers like I-11 and I-69 aren't valid transcontinental numbers; for that you need an x5.


http://www.itd.idaho.gov/transporter/2002/080202_Trans/080202_CanaMex.html
That says to me "route 15 down the proposed corridor and turn the rest into 11"

NE2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13918
  • fuck

  • Age: 11
  • Location: central Florida
  • Last Login: December 10, 2019, 06:07:28 PM
Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
« Reply #163 on: July 26, 2013, 07:28:08 PM »

That's what I said. Bonus: Mexico's side is also 15.

I'm not a big fan of the hard turn at Vegas, but any farther east and you get into the mountains, not good for heavy trucks hauling Mexicanadians with calves the size of cantaloupes. The only reasonable alternative seems to be 89-160-191-6, which saves only 12 miles (and may have issues north of Price).
Logged
Florida route log | pre-1945
I will do my best to not make America hate again.
Global warming denial is barely worse than white privilege denial.

kkt

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4529
  • Location: Seattle, Washington
  • Last Login: December 10, 2019, 03:39:50 PM
Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
« Reply #164 on: July 26, 2013, 07:39:08 PM »

That says to me "route 15 down the proposed corridor and turn the rest into 11"

It would make the grid neater.  But of the traffic from St. George to Vegas, I bet 99% of it continues toward California.

US-93 is a fine route number.  If it had to be interstate, I-515 would also be fine.
Logged

Molandfreak

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1752
  • Age: 24
  • Last Login: November 26, 2019, 11:07:08 PM
Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
« Reply #165 on: July 26, 2013, 07:53:08 PM »

I'm not a big fan of the hard turn at Vegas,
If you really wanted to get rid of that crap, you could also straighten out that stupid little hairpin curve at Great Falls. Not that it really matters.



US-93 is a fine route number.  If it had to be interstate, I-515 would also be fine.
To make another I-476? Uh, no thank you.



It would make the grid neater.  But of the traffic from St. George to Vegas, I bet 99% of it continues toward California.
And I bet 99% of the traffic from Memphis to Chicago has no intention of going through St. Louis. But that didn't stop them from routing I-55 through all three.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2013, 08:03:27 PM by Molandfreak »
Logged

kkt

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4529
  • Location: Seattle, Washington
  • Last Login: December 10, 2019, 03:39:50 PM
Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
« Reply #166 on: July 27, 2013, 12:36:20 PM »

US-93 is a fine route number.  If it had to be interstate, I-515 would also be fine.
To make another I-476? Uh, no thank you.

What aspect of I-476 are you objecting to?  I assume not its bitter environmental opposition.  Just that it's long for a 3di?  There's lots of space between cities in the intermountain west, I don't see length by itself justifying a low traffic 2di.

Quote


It would make the grid neater.  But of the traffic from St. George to Vegas, I bet 99% of it continues toward California.
And I bet 99% of the traffic from Memphis to Chicago has no intention of going through St. Louis. But that didn't stop them from routing I-55 through all three.

There's significant traffic from Chicago to St. Louis, which has not been demonstrated for Las Vegas-Phoenix.
Logged

Molandfreak

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1752
  • Age: 24
  • Last Login: November 26, 2019, 11:07:08 PM
Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
« Reply #167 on: July 27, 2013, 12:50:52 PM »

US-93 is a fine route number.  If it had to be interstate, I-515 would also be fine.
To make another I-476? Uh, no thank you.

What aspect of I-476 are you objecting to?  I assume not its bitter environmental opposition.  Just that it's long for a 3di?  There's lots of space between cities in the intermountain west, I don't see length by itself justifying a low traffic 2di.
Creating a 300-mile 3di just because it has low traffic? I know you want all those other corridors to become interstates, but couldn't one of them use I-13 in lieu of I-11?



Quote
Quote
Quote
It would make the grid neater.  But of the traffic from St. George to Vegas, I bet 99% of it continues toward California.
And I bet 99% of the traffic from Memphis to Chicago has no intention of going through St. Louis. But that didn't stop them from routing I-55 through all three.

There's significant traffic from Chicago to St. Louis, which has not been demonstrated for Las Vegas-Phoenix.
The point is that the interstate system has a lot of areas where the road doesn't necessarily follow, or continue on, the way you want to go. I-94 is a better example of this.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2013, 12:53:57 PM by Molandfreak »
Logged

corco

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4983
  • Just Livin' the Dream

  • Age: 31
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Last Login: Today at 05:19:18 PM
    • Corcohighways.org
Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
« Reply #168 on: July 27, 2013, 01:22:23 PM »

Quote
There's significant traffic from Chicago to St. Louis, which has not been demonstrated for Las Vegas-Phoenix.

It hasn't?

kkt

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4529
  • Location: Seattle, Washington
  • Last Login: December 10, 2019, 03:39:50 PM
Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
« Reply #169 on: July 27, 2013, 09:19:45 PM »

US-93 is a fine route number.  If it had to be interstate, I-515 would also be fine.
To make another I-476? Uh, no thank you.
What aspect of I-476 are you objecting to?  I assume not its bitter environmental opposition.  Just that it's long for a 3di?  There's lots of space between cities in the intermountain west, I don't see length by itself justifying a low traffic 2di.
Creating a 300-mile 3di just because it has low traffic? I know you want all those other corridors to become interstates, but couldn't one of them use I-13 in lieu of I-11?

I'm not advocating an interstate there at all.  Let Arizona build whatever they want, but interstate route numbers should be allocated more objectively.

So, I-13 is too unlucky for Nevada and Arizona, but it would be just fine for the losers on the coast?  Using number I-13 for one of the other possible interstates I mentioned would be even worse for the grid than I-11 is already.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
It would make the grid neater.  But of the traffic from St. George to Vegas, I bet 99% of it continues toward California.
And I bet 99% of the traffic from Memphis to Chicago has no intention of going through St. Louis. But that didn't stop them from routing I-55 through all three.
There's significant traffic from Chicago to St. Louis, which has not been demonstrated for Las Vegas-Phoenix.
The point is that the interstate system has a lot of areas where the road doesn't necessarily follow, or continue on, the way you want to go. I-94 is a better example of this.

So there are other cases of the interstate not following the traveled route.  Does that mean we should create even more instances of it?

Quote
There's significant traffic from Chicago to St. Louis, which has not been demonstrated for Las Vegas-Phoenix.

It hasn't?

http://mpd.azdot.gov/data/aadt.asp

Check the 2010 and 2030 AADT columns.  There are three busy spots:  Hoover Dam,  right next to I-40, and approaching the Phoenix end.  At the moment, everywhere else is well under 10,000 AADT; even by 2030 only from I-40 to Hoover Dam and the area around Phoenix are projected to be over 10,000.  Doesn't need to be an interstate.

In a previous post above, I said US-97 probably doesn't need to be interstate either, but it's closer than US-93.  At least there are more than three spots with heavy traffic. 

It's up to Arizona what they build, but if it were up to me I'd just reserve right of way for future construction of freeway from I-40 to Hoover Dam and build a bypass for Phoenix, and leave the rest alone.
Logged

Scott5114

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8298
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Norman, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 12:59:00 PM
    • Denexa 100% Plastic Playing Cards
Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
« Reply #170 on: July 28, 2013, 03:08:17 AM »

This is not Fictional Highways . . .
Logged

vdeane

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10592
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Latham, NY
  • Last Login: Today at 01:42:28 PM
    • New York State Roads
Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
« Reply #171 on: July 28, 2013, 07:35:46 PM »

So, I-13 is too unlucky for Nevada and Arizona, but it would be just fine for the losers on the coast?  Using number I-13 for one of the other possible interstates I mentioned would be even worse for the grid than I-11 is already.
The reason luck factored into I-11's number is because Las Vegas is built on gambling.
Logged
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.