AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules for political content in signatures and user profiles. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications  (Read 48457 times)

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3424
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: July 31, 2019, 11:24:20 AM

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.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2013, 03:42:02 PM by Grzrd »
Logged

Brandon

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10469
  • Mr. Accelerator is our friend; Mr. Brake is not.

  • Age: 42
  • Location: Joliet, IL
  • Last Login: Today at 10:38:30 AM
Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
« Reply #1 on: May 09, 2013, 01:02:23 PM »

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.
Logged
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

Illinois: America's own banana republic.

Free HK.  F the PRC.

vdeane

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10474
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Latham, NY
  • Last Login: November 16, 2019, 10:29:38 PM
    • New York State Roads
Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
« Reply #2 on: May 09, 2013, 01:12:47 PM »

Is there a summary of the applications somewhere?  Chrome is choking on the size of that PDF.  I'm curious is NY has anything.
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

wxfree

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 1096
  • Age: -1
  • Location: Over there
  • Last Login: Today at 10:57:59 AM
Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
« Reply #3 on: May 09, 2013, 01:39:48 PM »

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.
Logged
All of my posts represent my personal opinions and the official views of any governmental agency that has good sense.

texaskdog

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2498
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Austin, TX
  • Last Login: November 12, 2019, 10:36:37 PM
Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
« Reply #4 on: May 09, 2013, 02:00:43 PM »

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

english si

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3535
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Buckinghamshire, England
  • Last Login: November 16, 2019, 11:05:32 AM
Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
« Reply #5 on: May 09, 2013, 02:18:33 PM »

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).
Logged

NE2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13898
  • fuck

  • Age: 11
  • Location: central Florida
  • Last Login: November 15, 2019, 10:58:36 PM
Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
« Reply #6 on: May 09, 2013, 02:21:36 PM »

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)
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.

corco

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4981
  • Just Livin' the Dream

  • Age: 31
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Last Login: Today at 02:42:50 AM
    • Corcohighways.org
Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
« Reply #7 on: May 09, 2013, 02:35:30 PM »

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
« Last Edit: May 09, 2013, 02:41:35 PM by corco »
Logged

oscar

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6860
  • Age: 63
  • Location: Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 08:42:18 AM
    • my Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
« Reply #8 on: May 09, 2013, 02:39:48 PM »

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.
Logged
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

corco

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4981
  • Just Livin' the Dream

  • Age: 31
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Last Login: Today at 02:42:50 AM
    • Corcohighways.org
Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
« Reply #9 on: May 09, 2013, 02:42:22 PM »

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

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9631
  • Location: Orlando, fl
  • Last Login: November 15, 2019, 08:54:17 AM
Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
« Reply #10 on: May 09, 2013, 02:59:53 PM »

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.
Logged
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

Molandfreak

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 1752
  • Age: 24
  • Last Login: Today at 10:49:06 AM
Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
« Reply #11 on: May 09, 2013, 03:08:26 PM »

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.
Logged

agentsteel53

  • invisible hand
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15374
  • long live button copy!

  • Age: 38
  • Location: San Diego, CA
  • Last Login: November 21, 2016, 09:58:39 AM
    • AARoads Shield Gallery
Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
« Reply #12 on: May 09, 2013, 03:16:50 PM »

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.
Logged
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

Molandfreak

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 1752
  • Age: 24
  • Last Login: Today at 10:49:06 AM
Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
« Reply #13 on: May 09, 2013, 03:19:14 PM »

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.
Logged

agentsteel53

  • invisible hand
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15374
  • long live button copy!

  • Age: 38
  • Location: San Diego, CA
  • Last Login: November 21, 2016, 09:58:39 AM
    • AARoads Shield Gallery
Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
« Reply #14 on: May 09, 2013, 03:24:13 PM »

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.
Logged
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3424
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: July 31, 2019, 11:24:20 AM
Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
« Reply #15 on: May 09, 2013, 03:32:03 PM »

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);

« Last Edit: May 09, 2013, 06:51:57 PM by Grzrd »
Logged

Molandfreak

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 1752
  • Age: 24
  • Last Login: Today at 10:49:06 AM
Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
« Reply #16 on: May 09, 2013, 03:45:19 PM »

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?
Logged

agentsteel53

  • invisible hand
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15374
  • long live button copy!

  • Age: 38
  • Location: San Diego, CA
  • Last Login: November 21, 2016, 09:58:39 AM
    • AARoads Shield Gallery
Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
« Reply #17 on: May 09, 2013, 03:51:05 PM »

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?
Logged
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

cpzilliacus

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10331
  • Age: 60
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: November 12, 2019, 10:43:43 PM
Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
« Reply #18 on: May 09, 2013, 03:56:49 PM »

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."  ;-)
Logged
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3424
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: July 31, 2019, 11:24:20 AM
Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
« Reply #19 on: May 09, 2013, 04:04:18 PM »

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.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2013, 04:08:44 PM by Grzrd »
Logged

agentsteel53

  • invisible hand
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15374
  • long live button copy!

  • Age: 38
  • Location: San Diego, CA
  • Last Login: November 21, 2016, 09:58:39 AM
    • AARoads Shield Gallery
Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
« Reply #20 on: May 09, 2013, 04:06:34 PM »

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

I would assume that they're the ones who requested it, no?
Logged
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3424
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: July 31, 2019, 11:24:20 AM
Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
« Reply #21 on: May 09, 2013, 04:12:26 PM »

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.
Logged

CanesFan27

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1234
  • Last Login: November 05, 2019, 05:55:35 PM
Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
« Reply #22 on: May 09, 2013, 04:27:19 PM »

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.
Logged

CanesFan27

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1234
  • Last Login: November 05, 2019, 05:55:35 PM
Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
« Reply #23 on: May 09, 2013, 04:28:13 PM »

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.
Logged

agentsteel53

  • invisible hand
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15374
  • long live button copy!

  • Age: 38
  • Location: San Diego, CA
  • Last Login: November 21, 2016, 09:58:39 AM
    • AARoads Shield Gallery
Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
« Reply #24 on: May 09, 2013, 04:30:35 PM »

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.
Logged
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

 


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.