AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

The next forum trivia night will take place on OCTOBER 30, 2019 at 8:15 PM Eastern.

Author Topic: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications  (Read 48642 times)

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 #100 on: June 21, 2013, 03:27:13 PM »

^ Try emailing Marty Vitale at mvitale@aashto.org and tell (I think) her the problems you are experiencing.  Maybe something weird is going on at their end. I just got into Actions, but got timed out on Applications.  If nothing else, she might be able to attach the files to an email response.
Logged

NE2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13916
  • fuck

  • Age: 11
  • Location: central Florida
  • Last Login: Today at 03:35:02 PM
Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
« Reply #101 on: June 21, 2013, 03:35:29 PM »

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

Never mind.
Quote
This should not have been listed. Interstate Business Routes are not part of the Interstate System and do not require FHWA approval.
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.

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 #102 on: June 27, 2013, 03:27:22 PM »

Why not just wrap I-69 around to make it I-69 with the I-69E, I-69C and I-69W running off of it?
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 #103 on: June 27, 2013, 03:37:26 PM »

Why not just wrap I-69 around to make it I-69 with the I-69E, I-69C and I-69W running off of it?
what
Logged

Alps

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

  • Posts: 12865
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 36
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: December 07, 2019, 12:44:33 AM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
« Reply #104 on: June 27, 2013, 06:58:26 PM »

Why not just wrap I-69 around to make it I-69 with the I-69E, I-69C and I-69W running off of it?
what
yawn

FightingIrish

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 298
  • Location: Wisconsin
  • Last Login: Today at 11:58:21 AM
Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
« Reply #105 on: July 04, 2013, 10:35:14 PM »

Why not reroute I-95 through Raleigh, overlapping I-40 from Raleigh to Benson, and sign the current I-95 around Raleigh as I-495? Being in the top 50 in the US by city proper, it deserves another 2di. Also, I've come to think that the 2di's should go through the big cities, and I-95 just doesn't serve enough big cities between Richmond and Jacksonville (Except Fayetteville and Savannah).

San Jose, Austin, San Francisco, El Paso, Las Vegas, Fresno, Long Beach, Virginia Beach, and Colorado Springs all respectfully ask Raleigh to get in line and wait for them to get their second (...or first) 2di.

I don't mean to offend you, and I hope I don't, but I consider Long Beach a suburb, since it is part of the metro area of the much bigger Los Angeles, which already has 2 2dis, and I-3 could be a 3rd one for that metro, and it can go through San Jose and San Francisco. They should extend I-80 south on I-280 to end in San Jose at future I-3. Las Vegas is getting I-11 soon, and Houston and Austin need an interstate connecting each other, and when that is built, Austin would become a 2di crossroad. They can extend it to Abilene and Lubbock to I-27, and extend this I-27 to Colorado Springs. I also want an El Paso-Lubbock-Wichita-Topeka highway built, and I-20 and 25 rerouted to El Paso, like how they should've gone in the first place. US 1 can be upgraded from Rockingham at future I-73 to Raleigh, then go to Norfolk and VA Beach as I-38 or I-42. Fresno can get CA 99 upgraded to I-7, then using CA 41, an I-9 to Reno. Bakersfield can have I-5 rerouted to downtown using CA 99 and the future westside parkway, I-40 on CA 58, and another highway to Las Vegas. Those are just my ideas, I think the 2dis should go through the big cities. I also brought up my idea for I-95 through Raleigh since they were discussing a spur/loop at the meeting, I figured, why not route I-95 through the city, making I-495 the bypass? Maybe to avoid an I-40/95 overlap from Raleigh to Benson, I-40 could go to Greenville, giving Wilmington a 3di. Then Wilmington can have an extended I-20, and make a coastal I-97 or 99 when those numbers are freed. Again, just my suggestions, I hope they become real.

EDIT: Maybe this should be moved to Fictional Highways?

Not to veer widely off topic into fantasyland,  but...

1.  I always thought I-580 in California should have been a separate 2di from I-5 to I-80 in Oakland. How about I-58? Or I-38 to make the roadgeeks happy. ;)

2.  People talk about renaming US 101 to I-3. NOOOOOOOOOO! US 101 is too legendary to carve up, and there's no way all of it could be turned into interstate.

3.  As I understand, CA 99 will become I-9.  I-7 probably fits better but I-9 just seems right. And forget about that Fresno to Reno interstate. No way is California going to build a new interstate across mountains and national parks. That's part of what killed the idea of a coast-to-coast I-66.

4.  The I-97 numbering makes no damn sense,  but I'm preaching to the choir here.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2013, 10:47:35 PM by FightingIrish »
Logged

Quillz

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2513
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Los Angeles, CA
  • Last Login: July 24, 2019, 12:25:24 PM
Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
« Reply #106 on: July 05, 2013, 02:08:55 AM »

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.
I agree with this, it's silly to have three splits of I-69 when 3di will do just fine. (I-169, I-269, etc... why not use them?)

And I have no issues with I-2, even though I don't see it as particularly necessary.
Logged
US Highways: 1 / 2 / 6 / 12 / 14 / 16 / 18 / 20 / 26 / 30 / 50 / 64 / 66 / 84 / 85 / 87 / 91 / 93 / 95 / 97 / 99 / 101 / 189 / 191 / 201 / 285 / 287 / 385 / 395
Interstate Highways: 5 / 10 / 15 / 17 / 25 / 40 / 45 / 70 / 80 / 84 / 89 / 90 / 93 / 95

Pete from Boston

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5282
  • Location: Massachusetts, and all the roads radiating out of it
  • Last Login: October 26, 2019, 12:02:51 PM
Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
« Reply #107 on: July 05, 2013, 10:29:18 AM »

I wonder if we had our own "fictional highways aashto" if we'd ever agree on anything.
There are three camps:
Those who want Interstate designations for everything that's remotely a freeway or could be made one
Those who want to keep everything exactly as it is because state route freeways are exciting
Those who would apply rational judgment

And naturally, everyone you might ask is in the third category.

Logged

Pete from Boston

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5282
  • Location: Massachusetts, and all the roads radiating out of it
  • Last Login: October 26, 2019, 12:02:51 PM
Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
« Reply #108 on: July 05, 2013, 10:32:18 AM »

So I do understand that the suffixed I-69s are all written into law like I-99 and I-86.  But knowing that there has been a 40-year effort not to do this, did the Texas people who pushed this law just figure, "We're Texas, screw the silly Washington standard"?  I mean, at a certain point, what's the point in having professional guidelines if they're just legislated around?
Logged

FightingIrish

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 298
  • Location: Wisconsin
  • Last Login: Today at 11:58:21 AM
Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
« Reply #109 on: July 05, 2013, 11:15:05 AM »

So I do understand that the suffixed I-69s are all written into law like I-99 and I-86.  But knowing that there has been a 40-year effort not to do this, did the Texas people who pushed this law just figure, "We're Texas, screw the silly Washington standard"?  I mean, at a certain point, what's the point in having professional guidelines if they're just legislated around?

The I-69s (along with I-99, etc.) are essentially congressional pork tacked on to other bills. But one wonders how a law could be passed if parts of it (numbering) violate the guidelines set forth by another government agency. Welcome to Congress!
Logged

tdindy88

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1420
  • Last Login: Today at 11:38:10 AM
Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
« Reply #110 on: July 05, 2013, 11:30:18 AM »

I thought it was mentioned on the I-69 in Texas thread, but doesn't the three I-69s boil down to three communities that each HAD to have I-69 end there?
Logged

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 #111 on: July 05, 2013, 01:18:55 PM »

I thought it was mentioned on the I-69 in Texas thread, but doesn't the three I-69s boil down to three communities that each HAD to have I-69 end there?

Someone was smart enough to figure out the suffix thing if that was the case.  Sounds like a road nerd came up with that one.
Logged

kkt

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 4529
  • Location: Seattle, Washington
  • Last Login: Today at 04:57:19 PM
Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
« Reply #112 on: July 05, 2013, 01:51:47 PM »

Not to veer widely off topic into fantasyland,  but...

Too late   ;-)

Quote
1.  I always thought I-580 in California should have been a separate 2di from I-5 to I-80 in Oakland. How about I-58? Or I-38 to make the roadgeeks happy. ;)

Meh.  It's not the longest 3di, and it's a very mnemonic number.  I don't think it's worth changing.

Quote
2.  People talk about renaming US 101 to I-3. NOOOOOOOOOO! US 101 is too legendary to carve up, and there's no way all of it could be turned into interstate.

Part of 101 has already been truncated and replaced by I-5. 

It gets down to what an interstate should mean.  101 from L.A. to the S.F. area mostly meets interstate standards for geometric design, and where it doesn't it should be upgraded.  It certainly carries enough traffic to be an interstate.  If you want to keep historic numbers the same, why should US-66 or US-99 or any routes at all have been renumbered when interstates were made?

Quote
3.  As I understand, CA 99 will become I-9.  I-7 probably fits better but I-9 just seems right. And forget about that Fresno to Reno interstate. No way is California going to build a new interstate across mountains and national parks. That's part of what killed the idea of a coast-to-coast I-66.

Yes.  People from flat parts of the country don't seem to realize how expensive it is to keep a freeway across 8000 foot+ passes open year round.  California already has I-80 and US-50.  They were chosen because they're the least difficult passes, both to build and to keep open.  We don't need another pass, especially one that would be even more expensive.

Quote
4.  The I-97 numbering makes no damn sense,  but I'm preaching to the choir here.

It makes some sense.  The decision to make it a 2di is questionable, but having decided that I-97 fits in the grid fine.
Logged

Scott5114

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8294
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Norman, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 01:32:13 PM
    • Denexa 100% Plastic Playing Cards
Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
« Reply #113 on: July 05, 2013, 02:47:40 PM »

My guess is that the I-69 suffixes came from someone in Texas looking at I-35E/W in DFW as an example to follow, never realizing that split is the only one in the country and new ones aren't supposed to be done.
Logged

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 #114 on: July 05, 2013, 03:25:57 PM »

My guess is that the I-69 suffixes came from someone in Texas looking at I-35E/W in DFW as an example to follow, never realizing that split is the only one in the country and new ones aren't supposed to be done.

Wait, did they get rid of I-35W and I-35E in Minnesota?
Logged

Pete from Boston

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5282
  • Location: Massachusetts, and all the roads radiating out of it
  • Last Login: October 26, 2019, 12:02:51 PM
Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
« Reply #115 on: July 05, 2013, 04:14:18 PM »

My guess is that the I-69 suffixes came from someone in Texas looking at I-35E/W in DFW as an example to follow, never realizing that split is the only one in the country and new ones aren't supposed to be done.

Wait, did they get rid of I-35W and I-35E in Minnesota?

I've always assumed that since those two pairs go through side-by-side cities that were unwilling to be the "secondary" destination, politics forced the E-W to remain.  I don't think Brownsville, Laredo, and Pharr (Pharr?) are in quite the same situation.
Logged

Quillz

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2513
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Los Angeles, CA
  • Last Login: July 24, 2019, 12:25:24 PM
Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
« Reply #116 on: July 05, 2013, 04:15:56 PM »

Is there a good map yet showing the entire proposed length of I-69, including the three splits in Texas? I've not been able to find any yet.
Logged
US Highways: 1 / 2 / 6 / 12 / 14 / 16 / 18 / 20 / 26 / 30 / 50 / 64 / 66 / 84 / 85 / 87 / 91 / 93 / 95 / 97 / 99 / 101 / 189 / 191 / 201 / 285 / 287 / 385 / 395
Interstate Highways: 5 / 10 / 15 / 17 / 25 / 40 / 45 / 70 / 80 / 84 / 89 / 90 / 93 / 95

Pete from Boston

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5282
  • Location: Massachusetts, and all the roads radiating out of it
  • Last Login: October 26, 2019, 12:02:51 PM
Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
« Reply #117 on: July 05, 2013, 04:23:23 PM »

Is there a good map yet showing the entire proposed length of I-69, including the three splits in Texas? I've not been able to find any yet.

Pieces of I-69E and I-69C (along with I-2) are in Google Maps already.
Logged

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 #118 on: July 05, 2013, 04:31:25 PM »

Is there a good map yet showing the entire proposed length of I-69, including the three splits in Texas? I've not been able to find any yet.

Pieces of I-69E and I-69C (along with I-2) are in Google Maps already.

He said a good map.
Logged

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 #119 on: July 05, 2013, 04:51:11 PM »

Is there a good map yet showing the entire proposed length of I-69, including the three splits in Texas? I've not been able to find any yet.

Not quite sure how well this January 2013 map will work for you. (pp. 7-8/122 of pdf):



Quote
As Texas is currently exploring an east‐west connection along State Highway (SH) 44 from U.S. Highway (US) 59 in the City of Freer to US 77 in the City of Robstown as an alternative to SIU 31, this alignment is included in Table 1 as 31 Alt.

edit

I-2/US 83 is not part of the statutory I-69 Corridor, but Texas officials like to consider it as part of the I-69 "system".

It's difficult to see on my snip of the map, but the tiny, easternmost "fourth prong", SIU 32, is SH 550 from the Port of Brownsville to I-69E/US 77, and can be more easily seen at the linked version of the map.  There are no current plans to put interstate shields on SH 550, but there may be a remote possibility that it will one day become an eastward extension of I-2.

SIU 9B is I-269, SIU 28 is the I-69 Connector/Future I-530, and SIU 29 includes the recently designated I-369.

Also, the I-69 statute technically includes a section from the Port of Corpus Christi to I-69E/US 77. I think that is I-37 and have emailed FHWA to see if that is correct (no response yet). Any insight here on that question will be appreciated, but I suspect that is why it is not included as part of the "blue line" "I-69 Corridor" on the map. However, if it is I-37, then it will make for a great trivia question: What was the first interstate designation given to a part of the I-69 Corridor in Texas?  :sombrero:
« Last Edit: July 05, 2013, 07:17:05 PM by Grzrd »
Logged

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 #120 on: July 05, 2013, 05:02:54 PM »

Why is I-69 not signed on the Purchase Parkway?
Logged

Speedway99

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 65
  • Last Login: July 22, 2015, 11:23:04 PM
Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
« Reply #121 on: July 05, 2013, 06:13:50 PM »

Why is I-69 not signed on the Purchase Parkway?

I believe the FHWA and/or AASHTO describe it as "close to, but not at" interstate standards, meaning a few upgrades are necessary.
Logged

Speedway99

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 65
  • Last Login: July 22, 2015, 11:23:04 PM
Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
« Reply #122 on: July 05, 2013, 06:20:56 PM »



Not to veer widely off topic into fantasyland,  but...

1.  I always thought I-580 in California should have been a separate 2di from I-5 to I-80 in Oakland. How about I-58? Or I-38 to make the roadgeeks happy. ;)

2.  People talk about renaming US 101 to I-3. NOOOOOOOOOO! US 101 is too legendary to carve up, and there's no way all of it could be turned into interstate.

3.  As I understand, CA 99 will become I-9.  I-7 probably fits better but I-9 just seems right. And forget about that Fresno to Reno interstate. No way is California going to build a new interstate across mountains and national parks. That's part of what killed the idea of a coast-to-coast I-66.

4.  The I-97 numbering makes no damn sense,  but I'm preaching to the choir here.
[/quote]

Why wouldn't San Jose, 10th largest US city, not want a 2(or 1)di. Call me crazy, but to me, Indianapolis, St. Louis, and even Birmingham look much bigger than San Jose on a road map. Or, to fix that, maybe have I-80 eat I-280. Then we free up that number, allowing it to be put on I-238.
Logged

Pete from Boston

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5282
  • Location: Massachusetts, and all the roads radiating out of it
  • Last Login: October 26, 2019, 12:02:51 PM
Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
« Reply #123 on: July 05, 2013, 06:25:40 PM »

As I understand, CA 99 will become I-9.  I-7 probably fits better but I-9 just seems right. And forget about that Fresno to Reno interstate. No way is California going to build a new interstate across mountains and national parks. That's part of what killed the idea of a coast-to-coast I-66.

If this happens, what will be the new largest city not served by an Interstate?
Logged

kkt

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 4529
  • Location: Seattle, Washington
  • Last Login: Today at 04:57:19 PM
Re: AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications
« Reply #124 on: July 05, 2013, 07:19:56 PM »

As I understand, CA 99 will become I-9.  I-7 probably fits better but I-9 just seems right. And forget about that Fresno to Reno interstate. No way is California going to build a new interstate across mountains and national parks. That's part of what killed the idea of a coast-to-coast I-66.

If this happens, what will be the new largest city not served by an Interstate?

It looks like if they made CA 99 into Interstate, Oxnard CA would be the largest U.S. city not on an interstate.  If they also made US 101 south of San Francisco into Interstate, Santa Rosa CA would be the largest.  If they also made US 101 north of San Francisco into Interstate, we get to Brownsville TX.  If and when I-69 goes to Brownsville, we're at Palmdale CA.

http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/index.php/topic/32062-largest-us-cities-not-directly-on-an-interstate-highway/
Logged

 


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.