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 47980 times)

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 #25 on: May 09, 2013, 04:31:30 PM »

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

I am disappointed that the summary of actions is damn near incomprehensible, and does not unequivocally state for the viewing public such basic facts as "there will be an I-2".  instead, it does a better job of naming every useless last damn subcommittee than a NASCAR winner.
Logged
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

NE2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13867
  • fuck

  • Age: 11
  • Location: central Florida
  • Last Login: September 15, 2019, 09:08:41 PM
Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
« Reply #26 on: May 09, 2013, 04:59:59 PM »

The actions also mention temporary US 89 in Arizona.

Also, apparently FHWA must approve Interstate business routes. But the I-35 Biz in Minnesota from fall 2012 didn't require FHWA approval. Zuh.
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.

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 #27 on: May 09, 2013, 05:14:12 PM »

I am disappointed that the summary of actions is damn near incomprehensible, and does not unequivocally state for the viewing public such basic facts as "there will be an I-2".  instead, it does a better job of naming every useless last damn subcommittee than a NASCAR winner.

AASHTO ("Alanland Association of Seriously Habromanic Transportation Oblasts")  :hmmm:
Logged

The High Plains Traveler

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1128
  • Age: Just an old prairie dog

  • Location: Pueblo West CO
  • Last Login: August 16, 2019, 10:39:42 PM
    • Unofficial Minnesota and New Mexico Highway Pages
Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
« Reply #28 on: May 09, 2013, 05:20:15 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.
Perhaps instead of I-2, they can extend the I-69 suffix madness by making the route marking the end of these branches I-69T.
Logged
"Tongue-tied and twisted; just an earth-bound misfit, I."

wxfree

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1078
  • Age: -1
  • Location: Over there
  • Last Login: September 15, 2019, 11:31:54 PM
Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
« Reply #29 on: May 09, 2013, 05:23:26 PM »

I was just viewing far south Texas on Google Maps.  When I started, it showed US 77 and US 83 from Harlingen to Brownsville.  When I zoomed in, it showed US 83 and US 69.  When I zoomed further in, it showed US 77, US 83, and I-69.  Zooming back out, US 69 is displayed on one level but I-69 is shown on most zoom levels.  I just now noticed I-69C along US 281.

I don't think those routes have been designated by TTC.  I was looking at it earlier and didn't notice the red-white-and-blue markers.  Did this just happen?
« Last Edit: May 09, 2013, 05:32:01 PM by wxfree »
Logged
All of my posts represent my personal opinions and the official views of any governmental agency that has good sense.

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 #30 on: May 09, 2013, 05:23:40 PM »

given that it will connect three branches, the correct letter is Ш.
Logged
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

Molandfreak

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1752
  • Age: 24
  • Last Login: July 17, 2019, 10:11:08 PM
Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
« Reply #31 on: May 09, 2013, 05:30:12 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.
Perhaps instead of I-2, they can extend the I-69 suffix madness by making the route marking the end of these branches I-69T.
What would the T stand for?
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 #32 on: May 09, 2013, 05:35:33 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.
Perhaps instead of I-2, they can extend the I-69 suffix madness by making the route marking the end of these branches I-69T.
What would the T stand for?

Talanland.
Logged
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

NE2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13867
  • fuck

  • Age: 11
  • Location: central Florida
  • Last Login: September 15, 2019, 09:08:41 PM
Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
« Reply #33 on: May 09, 2013, 05:36:25 PM »

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.

oscar

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6693
  • Age: 63
  • Location: Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: September 15, 2019, 11:37:22 PM
    • my Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
« Reply #34 on: May 09, 2013, 06:19:35 PM »

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.
The I-2 designation would include only the US 83 freeway, and its west end is where the freeway ends.  So the designation could be extended later, if the freeway is extended.
Logged
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

The High Plains Traveler

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1128
  • Age: Just an old prairie dog

  • Location: Pueblo West CO
  • Last Login: August 16, 2019, 10:39:42 PM
    • Unofficial Minnesota and New Mexico Highway Pages
Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
« Reply #35 on: May 09, 2013, 07:25:09 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.
Perhaps instead of I-2, they can extend the I-69 suffix madness by making the route marking the end of these branches I-69T.
What would the T stand for?
Obviously from my use of "suffix madness" I was being sardonic (or is it sarcastic, I never can tell the difference). But I was envisioning a series of T interchanges that the notional I-2 would have. Not sure how to pronounce the "Ш" Agent Steel proposed instead. Enron?
Logged
"Tongue-tied and twisted; just an earth-bound misfit, I."

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 #36 on: May 09, 2013, 07:28:42 PM »

Obviously from my use of "suffix madness" I was being sardonic (or is it sarcastic, I never can tell the difference). But I was envisioning a series of T interchanges that the notional I-2 would have. Not sure how to pronounce the "Ш" Agent Steel proposed instead. Enron?

it's "sh"; part of the Cyrillic alphabet.
Logged
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

vdeane

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10264
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Latham, NY
  • Last Login: September 15, 2019, 08:34:59 PM
    • New York State Roads
Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
« Reply #37 on: May 09, 2013, 08:08:07 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.
But the PDF specifically says that is was denied by AASHTO.
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

roadman65

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9500
  • Location: Orlando, fl
  • Last Login: September 15, 2019, 10:57:02 AM
Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
« Reply #38 on: May 09, 2013, 08:36:22 PM »

I would think that I-2 would be better suited for the I-69 Spur that is planned to follow TX SH 44 from Freer to Corpus Christi.  From the I-69 alliance map it shows that freeway to be longer than the current US 83 freeway. 

I do see that the Texarkana Spur will be I-369 and that maybe US 83 should be another x69 and save the I-2 for that would be less of a waste of a number.  I doubt they would ever extend it west to Laredo so it would be a short run as per planned now.
Logged
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

ssummers72

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 59
  • DOT Employee

  • Location: Porter County, Indiana
  • Last Login: September 15, 2019, 07:36:00 PM
Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
« Reply #39 on: May 09, 2013, 08:39:47 PM »

The problem with I-69E, I-69C and I-69 is they were all signed into legislation by congress and the president under public law:

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hpcor.cfm#l18

According to the FHWA, they must be signed as such, according to federal legislation.
Logged

NE2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13867
  • fuck

  • Age: 11
  • Location: central Florida
  • Last Login: September 15, 2019, 09:08:41 PM
Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
« Reply #40 on: May 09, 2013, 09:24:14 PM »

But the PDF specifically says that is was denied by AASHTO.
Denied by one subcommittee (SCRN) but overruled by the committee (SCOH) and accepted by AASHTO as a whole. But I-2 did not violate Policy HO2 anyway.

According to the FHWA, they must be signed as such, according to federal legislation.
Yes and no and goat.
Quote
(i) DESIGNATION- The routes referred to in subsections (c)(18) and (c)(20) shall be designated as Interstate Route I-69. A State having jurisdiction over any segment of routes referred to in subsections (c)(18) and (c)(20) shall erect signs identifying such segment that is consistent with the criteria set forth in subsections (e)(5)(A)(i) and (e)(5)(A)(ii) as Interstate Route I-69, including segments of United States Route 59 in the State of Texas. The segment identified in subsection (c)(18)(B)(i) shall be designated as Interstate Route I-69 East, and the segment identified in subsection (c)(18)(B)(ii) shall be designated as Interstate Route I-69 Central. The State of Texas shall erect signs identifying such routes as segments of future Interstate Route I-69.
A strict reading says that they shall be signed as I-69 East, I-69 Central, and I-69 (no 'west' to Laredo), but also as future I-69 period. The suffixes do not appear in the law. I-94 east of Chicago shall also be signed as I-69.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2013, 09:30:03 PM by NE2 »
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.

mrose

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 164
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Northglenn, CO
  • Last Login: September 15, 2019, 01:40:37 AM
Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
« Reply #41 on: May 10, 2013, 12:44:28 AM »

I'm confused... does this mean the new suffixes aren't happening, or they are? I'd rather they didn't. I'd rather see them use, say, 31 and 33 or have two x69s.

As for I-2, an interstate there seems a little redundant but I guess there's really no other place it'll ever exist, so I don't have a problem with it. I seriously doubt we'll ever see a glut of E/W interstates ever get built south of I-10.

Logged

NE2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13867
  • fuck

  • Age: 11
  • Location: central Florida
  • Last Login: September 15, 2019, 09:08:41 PM
Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
« Reply #42 on: May 10, 2013, 12:54:04 AM »

I'm confused... does this mean the new suffixes aren't happening, or they are?
They are, and they are. No goat.

My only quibble with I-2 is that Mexico has their 2 just across the border.
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.

Rover_0

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 867
  • Why not?

  • Age: -66
  • Location: Utah
  • Last Login: Today at 12:53:46 AM
Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
« Reply #43 on: May 10, 2013, 01:38:56 AM »

The more I think about it, the more I feel that Victoria-Laredo should be something like an I-6. Using the number 6 would keep some kind of continuity for I-69 drivers while avoiding this suffix madness. Of course, you could have I-6 be George West-Laredo while splitting I-69 into I-69E (US-77) and I-69W (US-59 between Victoria and George West, then US-281). That would at least keep the suffixing reasonable.

It's good to be hearing that there will be an Interstate 2, because, as said above, where else is there going to be one (unless you count I-H2)? There's also the (slim) chance that US-83 gets upgraded all the way to Laredo, more fully justifying the number.

Here's one way I'd align the branches:

Victoria-Laredo: I-6
Corpus Christy-Freer: I-106
Victoria-Brownsville: I-69
George West-McAllen: I-169* (weren't signs already ordered?)
US-83: I-2


*Even though, under this scenario, I-169 wouldn't directly connect to I-69, it's a more appropriate number (as it is a branch of I-69) than either I-102 or I-106.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2013, 02:09:48 AM by Rover_0 »
Logged
Fixing erroneous shields, one at a time...

Kacie Jane

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1670
  • Age: 34
  • Location: Kent, WA
  • Last Login: September 14, 2019, 06:02:35 PM
Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
« Reply #44 on: May 10, 2013, 01:48:05 AM »

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

Just drove to Portland and back today.  IIRC, there's signage on I-5 NB at the south end of the business loop, but that's it.
Logged

texaskdog

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2493
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Austin, TX
  • Last Login: September 15, 2019, 04:25:21 AM
Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
« Reply #45 on: May 10, 2013, 10:45:19 AM »

I'm confused... does this mean the new suffixes aren't happening, or they are?
They are, and they are. No goat.

My only quibble with I-2 is that Mexico has their 2 just across the border.

It will cause confusion with those people who don't know what country they are in.
Logged

Henry

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5010
  • Age: 49
  • Location: Chicago, IL/Seattle, WA
  • Last Login: September 15, 2019, 08:20:29 PM
    • Henry Watson's Online Freeway
Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
« Reply #46 on: May 10, 2013, 10:55:16 AM »

I-2 in TX??? Never dreamed in a million years that I would see that!

And it looks like NC will get another new interstate to add to its growing inventory (I-495); good for them.
Logged
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

nexus73

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1742
  • Age: 63
  • Location: Coos Bay OR
  • Last Login: September 15, 2019, 10:39:15 PM
Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
« Reply #47 on: May 10, 2013, 06:01:04 PM »

Any word on when state route 210 becomes I-210 in SoCal?

Rick
Logged
US 101 is THE backbone of the Pacific coast from Bandon OR to Willets CA.  Industry, tourism and local traffic would be gone or severely crippled without it being in functioning condition in BOTH states.

corco

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4949
  • Just Livin' the Dream

  • Age: 31
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Last Login: Today at 01:34:04 AM
    • Corcohighways.org
Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
« Reply #48 on: May 10, 2013, 06:07:19 PM »

Quote
It will cause confusion with those people who don't know what country they are in.

Maybe that's part of the plan- illegals swim across the border, see a "2" and assume they must have gone the wrong direction.

That would be a terrible plan.

andy3175

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1298
  • Location: San Diego, California, USA
  • Last Login: September 12, 2019, 09:57:35 AM
    • AARoads
Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
« Reply #49 on: May 10, 2013, 06:13:13 PM »

Any word on when state route 210 becomes I-210 in SoCal?

Rick

I've wondered the same thing and have heard nothing. Significant progress has been made at the I-215 and California SR 210 interchange, with several ramps opening recently, but I don't know if all of the planned improvements to 210 in that vicinity are complete yet, nor do I know if those improvements are delaying the process. Perhaps I should email SANBAG (San Bernardino local assoc of governments) and see what the plan is.

Regards,
Andy

Logged
Regards,
Andy

www.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.