Skip to main content

AASHTO's Latest Response to NCDOT's Route Numbering Requests

AASHTO SCOH has posted their responses from their October meeting of the Special Committee on U.S, Route Numbering in Hartford on a single Word document, link below. They have not yet posted the documents with specific responses to each application, however. Hopefully these will be posted soon so a better understanding for the decisions can be deciphered.

For NC, the results are mixed. They approved the applications for I-440 (dropping it from the I-40 portion of the Beltline) and the application for the US 17 Windsor Bypass. They approved the I-540 and I-140 applications though conditionally, citing the need for a revised application for both, requesting that I-540 be marked Future and possibly a spur (?) and I-140 be revised to designate that route a spur(?). They conditionally approved the I-73 application but also want the application resubmitted to have the route designated Future I-73 'since it is not complete.' They again disapproved the US 117 move back to its original alignment from the I-795 freeway and the elimination of Alt US 117 because 'information submitted appeared to be conflicting and inconsistent'.

Go to the AASHTO Document

Commentary: My initial reaction to this is 'huh?'. The I-540 extension application was for the extension from US 1 to the current end at US 64/US 264. Aren't those NHS routes? Why does AASHTO want Future signage? Also, what is this about a spur designation? Doesn't the odd numbers 140 and 540 indicate that already? Or have they forgotten how 3-digit interstates are numbered?

As far as I-73 goes, it is signed on an interstate standard freeway that begins at an interstate (I-85) and ends at another interstate (I-40) for now and could be extended to a expressway elevated to NHS status (Bryan Blvd.) as approved by the FHWA. So why does it need a future banner? Yes, its not 'finished' and won't be in NC for many years to come, but there are other segments of I-73 signed as an interstate elsewhere despite the whole road not being complete. Maybe some at AASHTO resent that the road was legislated into existence without their consent? The I-73 signing is important for traffic using the southwestern part of the Greensboro Loop since I-40 is being taken off the Loop (NCDOT never applied to change I-40's route to the Loop in the first place, so that's why that wasn't included among their applications). Since all of NCDOT's interstate applications have already been approved by the FHWA or through legislation, I believe there's little AASHTO can do anything about changing the signs that are already up. It may though cost NCDOT time and effort to have to reapply for these various routes in order to remind AASHTO of this and have them finally agree to the changes.

As for the US 117 application, the later one was clearer than the first. NCDOT expanded its explanation including the history of the building of the US 117 freeway, reminding them AASHTO approved the move of US 117 to it and the creation of Alt US 117. They then indicated the history of I-795 approval and the wish to revert US 117 to the route it had run on for many decades. They even included the history of the application to AASHTO that they approved of extending US 117 to I-95 and the wish it be truncated back to its original terminus. From my reading of all that, I don't see anything that would be too confusing, especially since they had a previous application to build on. Do these two organizations speak two different languages? Would it be possible for someone at AASHTO to call NCDOT to clear up any confusing issues? From all appearances, they seem to just mail memos back and forth to each other and no one on either side takes it upon themselves to clear up any misunderstanding.

In any case, NCDOT and AASHTO always make the designation of new routes interesting.

Comments

James Mast said…
Seems like the AASHTO might be on crack or something. lol.

They also forgot to mention the Nevada application for TEMP US-50/395.
Eric Goodson said…
Read the I-540 request carefully.

"The proposed action will increase the overall system capacity of the existing roadway network and will divert traffic from
secondary roads in an area of Wake County that is experiencing substantial residential growth.The need for an additional
transportation facility in the southern and eastern Wake County is based on a combination of factors including transportation
demands, social and economic demands, and safety considerations. The Southern and Eastern Wake Freeway will link the
towns of Clayton, Garner, Fuquay Varina, Holly Springs, Apex, Cary, and Raleigh. It will also connect the major radial routes
in the southern portion of Raleigh and reduce traffic volumes on the Raleigh Beltline (I-440), I-40, NC 42, NC 55, and Ten Ten
Road (SR 1010) by providing an alternate route for local and through traffic. The Southern Wake Freeway is a component of
the Raleigh Outer Loop and will tie into the Western Wake Freeway near Apex and the Eastern Wake Freeway near Garner.
The Eastern Wake Freeway will tie to the northern portion of the Outer Loop at the US 64 Knightdale Bypass."

This statement is a request for the Southern and Eastern Wake Expressway, but all of the supporting maps and doc refer to the segment north of US-64. I think NCDOT was on something when they submitted this one.
Bob Malme said…
An update; AASHTO has posted resubmitted applications they requested from NCDOT for the interstate routes extensions submitted for the October 17 SCOH meeting. NCDOT, however, did not change their applications to what AASHTO asked for. Instead, they sent the same applications with additional highlighted sentences along with a copy of a letter from the FHWA sent to AASHTO 10 days before the meeting. The letter was in response to questions the Route Numbering Committee had about the NC Interstate requests. The letter indicated the FHWA approved all the interstate extensions NCDOT asked for. They also specifically pointed out that they can be properly signed as full interstates stating a Future Interstate designation is only applicable to a highway not on the FHWA list of current interstate routes, which is not the case here. As you recall AASHTO asked for reapplications because they wanted NCDOT to request future interstate routes for I-73, I-140 and I-540.

So what happened? Is it a simple failure to communicate from one side or the other. Did the Route Numbering Committee get the FHWA letter? If so, did they read it? The FHWA letter also points out that several of the interstate routings had already been approved by AASHTO before! Did any of the committee members look up past decisions? While some of the NCDOT applications may have been somewhat confusing, the FHWA letter would have helped clear up much of that, in that it spells out exactly what NCDOT is asking for and why the FHWA agrees with it. In the end it really doesn't matter if AASHTO approves the routes or not since the FHWA already approved the highways and AASHTO has approved the route numbers.

The link to the letter and the new applications is here:
http://cms.transportation.org/?siteid=68&c=downloads

Popular posts from this blog

Small Towns of Virginia Series - Charlotte Court House

This sleepy little rural town in Central Virginia can easily be overlooked.  Located miles from the Interstate or four lane US and Virginia Highways, Charlotte Court House in many ways is easily forgotten.  However, this tiny town of slightly over 400 residents holds a lot of Virginia and American History.

In 1799, Charlotte Court House saw the passing of the torch from an aging Patrick Henry and a young John Randolph.  The great debate over states' rights was the last for the fiery Henry and the first in public for Randolph.  Randolph would go on to serve in the US House of Representatives and U.S. Minister to Russia.  Henry, who was serving in the Virginia General Assembly representing Charlotte County at the time of the debate, died three months later.

Charlotte Court House is not the original name of the town.  Originally named The Magazine, then Daltonsburgh, followed by Marysville (which was the town's name at the time of the Henry-Randolph debate), Smithfield, and finally…

History of the Wawona Road (Yosemite National Park)

Recently I located a portion of the Old Wawona Road that was the original alignment used by wagons and early cars to get to Yosemite Valley from the south before the Wawona Tunnel was built.  Locating the Old Wawona Road was the primary driving force to head to a very dry Yosemite National Park this winter.






Generally I don't talk about the history of a route first, but in the case of the Wawona Road I thought it was particularly important to do so first.  The modern Wawona Road is approximately 28 miles in length from the north terminus of California State Route 41 at the boundary of Yosemite National Park to South Side Drive near Bridalveil Falls in Yosemite Valley.  A good chunk of people entering Yosemite Valley use the Wawona Road which generally is considered to be the easiest route...that certainly was not always the case.

The origins of the Wawona Road are tied to the Wawona Hotel.  The first structure in the Wawona Hotel complex dates back to 1876 which was built by the Wa…

Old California State Route 41 on Road 425B

While researching the history of the Lanes Bridge crossing of the San Joaquin River I noticed an oddity on the 1935 California Division of Highways map of Madera County.  Today California State Route 41 takes a crossing of the Fresno River west of the confluence with China Creek.  Back on the 1935 Map of Madera County the crossing is very clearly east of the confluence crossing on what are now Road 425B and Road 426 in Oakhurst.   CA 41 can be seen traversing southbound from Oakhurst on Road 425B towards Coarsegold on the 1935 Madera County Map.

1935 Madera County Highway Map

After viewing Road 425B on the Google Street Vehicle it was clear that the path downhill from the top of Deadwood Gulch was substantially more haggard than the modern alignment of CA 41.  I finally had occasion to visit Oakhurst today so I pulled off of modern CA 41 at Road 425B.   Immediately I was greeted by this warning sign.






Road 425B ahead was clearly a narrow road but barely wide enough for two vehicles.  T…