Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Grzrd]

The Applications have been posted and it looks like the May 5, 2013 Report will be posted in the near future, as indicated on this page.

An application for I-2 in Texas has caught my eye.

edit

The Actions are now posted.

[Brandon]

The Applications have been posted and it looks like the May 5, 2013 Report will be posted in the near future, as indicated on this page.

An application for I-2 in Texas has caught my eye.

Yeah, that is interesting.  I don't know if it necessarily needs an interstate number, or if a 3di might be better for a 46 mile freeway.

[vdeane]

Is there a summary of the applications somewhere?  Chrome is choking on the size of that PDF.  I'm curious is NY has anything.

[wxfree]

Is there a summary of the applications somewhere?  Chrome is choking on the size of that PDF.  I'm curious is NY has anything.

If the file is opening inside the browser and causing difficulty, right click on the link and select "Save link as..."  You can then open the file in Adobe Reader outside the browser.

[texaskdog]

Took forever but it opened for me, 377 pages later   Looks great!! I-2!!!

[english si]

Yeah, that is interesting.  I don't know if it necessarily needs an interstate number, or if a 3di might be better for a 46 mile freeway.

What is odd is that it is the FHWA forwarding it - they don't seem to want to veto (as is their prerogative) such a number.

I also like how NC I-495 will link two I-x40s and nothing else for the time being (though I can't see it being implemented without the future interstate designation to I-95).

[NE2]

List of applications:
AR-MS US 82 (new bridge)
IL US 41 (LSD extension under construction)
KS US 50 (Holcomb-Garden City, chickenshit realignment that didn't need to be submitted)
KS US 54 (Cunningham bypass - they forgot US 400)
KS US 59 (Ottawa-Lawrence)
KS US 77 (Blue Rapids - more chickenshit)
KS US 166/169 (Coffeyville)
KY US 60 (new Tennessee River bridge at Paducah)
KY USBR 76 (reaffirmation of existing mostly-unsigned route with some changes)
MN USBR 45 (Elk River-Hastings)
MO USBR 76
NC I-495 (I-440 to I-540)
NC I-495 Future (I-540 to I-95)
NC US 421 (Sanford bypass)
NC US 421 Biz (Sanford)
ND US 85 (Williston bypass)
OH US 24 (Fort to Port)
SC US 21 Biz (Rock Hill elimination)
TX I-2 (Mission to I-69E)
TX I-69E (Raymondville south)
TX I-69E (Robstown, renumbering I-69)
TX US 67-377 (Dublin bypass)
TX US 67 Biz (Dublin)
WA I-90 Biz (Spokane Valley)

[corco]

Really surprising to see Washington going for an I-90 Business, given that the state more or less ignores the existing business routes on the books

[oscar]

Really surprising to see Washington going for an I-90 Business, given that the state more or less ignores the existing business routes on the books

Including one in Spokane, right next to the proposed new business route in Spokane Valley.  The Spokane BL has really good signage at the junction with US 2, but zip at its junctions with I-90, or anywhere else along the route.

[corco]

That's right- although that's more over by the airport if I remember right. I think the one in Moses Lake is the only one really consistently signed- the one in Castle Rock has good signage along the loop itself but I can't remember if there's signage from I-5

[roadman65]

The Applications have been posted and it looks like the May 5, 2013 Report will be posted in the near future, as indicated on this page.

An application for I-2 in Texas has caught my eye.

Yeah, that is interesting.  I don't know if it necessarily needs an interstate number, or if a 3di might be better for a 46 mile freeway.

You are forgetting that its the same AASHTO that approved I-97.

[Molandfreak]

The Applications have been posted and it looks like the May 5, 2013 Report will be posted in the near future, as indicated on this page.

An application for I-2 in Texas has caught my eye.

Yeah, that is interesting.  I don't know if it necessarily needs an interstate number, or if a 3di might be better for a 46 mile freeway.

No. There's no other place for an I-2.

[agentsteel53]

No. There's no other place for an I-2.

future I-49 south of I-10 would be better with that number. 

Mission can have I-269 or the like.

[Molandfreak]

No. There's no other place for an I-2.

future I-49 south of I-10 would be better with that number. 

Mission can have I-269 or the like.

Meh. That's north of I-4, so that should be I-6. And anyway, Texas I-2 could be extended. I'd go to Del Rio or Eagle Pass.

[agentsteel53]

there is precedent for widely separated interstates being misaligned on the grid.  I-97 is west of I-87, 89, 91, and 93, for example, and both I-86es are entirely north of the western I-88.

[Grzrd]

The Actions are now posted.  Regarding the Texas applications, the Special Committee disapproved on the basis that the applications conflict with AASHTO Policy HO21.  Federal legislation be damned!  BUT ... SCOH overruled the Special Committee and approved the applications, with the AASHTO Board of Directors accepting the SCOH decision on May 7.

edit

Here's a screen shot of the relevant language from the Special Committee Report (page 1/8 of pdf);

[Molandfreak]

The Actions are now posted.  Regarding the Texas applications, the Special Committee disapproved on the basis that the applications conflict with AASHTO Policy HO21.  Federal legislation be damned!  BUT ... SCOH overruled the Special Committee and approved the applications, with the AASHTO Board of Directors accepting the SCOH decision on May 7.

Ok, that explains I-69E, but why the hate on I-2?

[agentsteel53]

The Actions are now posted.  Regarding the Texas applications, the Special Committee disapproved on the basis that the applications conflict with AASHTO Policy HO21.  Federal legislation be damned!  BUT ... SCOH overruled the Special Committee and approved the applications, with the AASHTO Board of Directors accepting the SCOH decision on May 7.

I don't speak legalese.  will there, or won't there, be an I-2?

[cpzilliacus]

I also like how NC I-495 will link two I-x40s and nothing else for the time being (though I can't see it being implemented without the future interstate designation to I-95).

Suggested name for the new N.C. I-495 - "Lizard Lick Freeway." 

[Grzrd]

I don't speak legalese.  will there, or won't there, be an I-2?

Yes, it is officially AASHTO-approved. At first glance, it appears that FHWA has already approved that section of US 83 as meeting interstate standards (official FHWA approval is necessary before it can be designated as I-2).  The final formality needs to be approval by the Texas Transportation Commission.

[agentsteel53]

The final formality needs to be approval by the Texas Transportation Commission.

I would assume that they're the ones who requested it, no?

[Grzrd]

The final formality needs to be approval by the Texas Transportation Commission.

I would assume that they're the ones who requested it, no?

They provided the authority for TxDOT to submit the application.  Now that it has been approved, they need to rubberstamp AASHTO's decision.  It seems like an inefficient way to do things.  They have followed this procedure with prior I-69 Corridor designations.

[CanesFan27]

The Actions are now posted.  Regarding the Texas applications, the Special Committee disapproved on the basis that the applications conflict with AASHTO Policy HO21.  Federal legislation be damned!  BUT ... SCOH overruled the Special Committee and approved the applications, with the AASHTO Board of Directors accepting the SCOH decision on May 7.

So does that mean we will see from west to east I-69, I-69C, I-69E or I-69W, I-69C, I-69E?  I'm all for all three corridors having some type of Interstate designation.  I think unfortunately the Chamber of Commerce, Political Folks, and others are clinging too much to the I-69 Brand vs. being part of an entire Interstate system, regardless of the number

I have no issue with I-2.

[CanesFan27]

The Applications have been posted and it looks like the May 5, 2013 Report will be posted in the near future, as indicated on this page.

An application for I-2 in Texas has caught my eye.

edit

The Actions are now posted.

I am disappointed that in the summary of actions they don't describe what the request was, establishment, relocation, elimination, extension, etc.

[agentsteel53]

I most object to the "C" designation.  never since the beginning of numbered routes have I heard of a C suffix being used like this.

the only thing we can use as precedent is Tennessee (US-70N, 70, 70-S) and Oregon (US-99E, 99, 99W) and neither used a C.

I-2 is pretty silly but if it will be extended further along the Rio Grande then I object to it less.  I can even claim to have clinched it, if it follows the US-83 freeway.