Author Topic: AASHTO Spring 2018  (Read 759 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline si404

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 724
  • Last Login:Today at 03:04:47 am
AASHTO Spring 2018
« on: May 26, 2018, 10:19:09 am »
https://route.transportation.org/committee-notices-actions-and-approvals/past-meetings/

Approved were the following changes (some won't yet be on the ground, others have been on the ground for decades!) to the official route logs:

AL US84: relocation at Elba - in browser

AR US82: relocation at Montrose - in browser
AR US82 Bus (Montrose) creation - in browser
AR US165: relocation at Gillett - in browser
AR US165 Bus (Gillet): creation - in browser
AR US167: relocation at Thornton (related business route rejected) - both in browser

GA US29: relocation at Lawrencville - not in browser (not yet implemented?)
GA US341: relocation at Perry - not in browser (not yet implemented?)
GA US341 Byp (Perry): deletion - still in browser (not yet implemented?)

IN I-69: extension over IN37 from current end to IN39 - not in browser (not yet implemented)
IN US12: elimination in Gary - not in browser (not yet implemented)
IN US421: relocation at Maidison (also IN56) - not in browser (not yet implemented)

MI US131 Bus (Grand Rapids): deletion - still in browser (not yet implemented?)

MT US93 Alt (Kalispell): new route - in browser

NC I-140: 'relocation' (extension to US17 at south/west end) - in browser
NC I-285: new route - not in browser (not yet implemented)
NC US311: truncation between Randleman and Winston-Salem - not in browser (not yet implemented?)

OK US270: relocation at Seminole - not in browser (not yet implemented)

TX US59: relocation at Nacogdoches - in browser
TX US59 Bus (Nacogdoches): new route - in browser

WY US14: relocation of North Sheridan interchange - in browser as US14 bus - need to double check
WY US87: relocation of North Sheridan interchange - in browser as US87 bus - need to double check

we probably already have all the ones that already exist on the ground in the browser already.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2018, 12:20:21 pm by si404 »

Offline Eth

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 26
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 10:17:09 pm
Re: AASHTO Spring 2018
« Reply #1 on: May 26, 2018, 11:07:02 am »
The US 165 and 167 ones are in Arkansas, I believe, not Alabama.

As always with Georgia, the US route relocations will likely result in changes in usaga as well. GA8 will probably have the same change as US29. The changes in Perry might be trickier; GA7 and GA11 swap US route partners there.

Offline oscar

  • TM Collaborator
  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 643
  • Last Login:Today at 12:09:41 am
    • Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: AASHTO Spring 2018
« Reply #2 on: May 26, 2018, 12:07:56 pm »
The US 12 removal in Gary IN is a temporary measure, to make way for transit improvements. A new alignment for that part of US 12 (mostly on US 20, but with a short connector between US 20 and the rest of US 12) will be completed later this year or next, with a separate application to cover that reroute.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2018, 02:33:55 pm by oscar »

Offline mapmikey

  • TM Collaborator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 320
  • Last Login:Today at 06:03:54 am
    • Co-curator Virginia Highways Project
Re: AASHTO Spring 2018
« Reply #3 on: May 26, 2018, 02:11:24 pm »
The US 311 truncation does not appear in NCDOT Change documents either in the proposed section or the approved section.

Given how they've treated recent US 17 and US 158 reroutes, it could be years before they actually de-post it...

I believe this will be the longest truncation of a US route in North Carolina since 1934-1935.
Clinched:
I: 4 12 16 17 20 26 27 30 59 64 66 68 72 73 ew74 77 78 79 82 83 ew84 85 ew86 e88 97 99
US: 4 6N 9W 11E 11W 13 15 19W 21 44 46 48 58 72 92 113 117 123 130 158 163 176 178 192 206 209 211 219 220 221 222 258 264 276 290 311 319 322 340 360 378 401 ew422 501 521 522 601 701
PriSystems: VA, DE

Offline yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1721
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 11:23:56 pm
Re: AASHTO Spring 2018
« Reply #4 on: May 26, 2018, 02:17:08 pm »
The OK US270 change was not listed as approved. Per the comments, it looks like the committee can't figure out just what in the craIG county it is that OklaDOT actually wants to do here.

Offline si404

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 724
  • Last Login:Today at 03:04:47 am
Re: AASHTO Spring 2018
« Reply #5 on: May 26, 2018, 03:38:54 pm »
The OK US270 change was not listed as approved.
Err, OK?
Item No. 27 - State: Oklahoma Route: U.S. 270
Action: Elimination of a U.S Route: Between SH-09 and SH270A.
Description: To reroute highway around Seminole. The route begins at SH-09 junction and travels south then east through Seminole for 3.41 miles to SH-270A/Harvey Rd.
Approved
Comments: Page 2 - Need explanation of why this highway is being rerouted Page 7 - Route description is missing type of facility Point to Point log is not included

Item No. 28 - State: Oklahoma Route: U.S. 270
Action: Relocation of a U.S Route: Between SH-09 and SH270A.
Description: The route begins at the SH-09/SH-3E junction in Seminole and travels east on SH-09 to SH270A/Harvey Rd., then south on SH-270A/Harvey Rd. for a total of 4.18 miles to join back with US-270.
Approved
Comments: Page 2 - Need explanation of why this highway is being rerouted Page 7 - Route description is missing type of facility Point to Point log is not included

Quote
Per the comments, it looks like the committee can't figure out just what in the craIG county it is that OklaDOT actually wants to do here.
If that's true, then as well as the committee being complete idiots for not understanding what's pretty clear from the applications, they are double idiots for approving it. Many of the comments made were excessively Vogonish - anything that wasn't exactly what they wanted on the form got a comment - thus I believe that they understood perfectly, but want better applications that jump through all the right hoops.


Then again, Georgia eliminating US29 off the old route in the same proposal where they reroute it onto a new one seems to have utterly flummoxed the committee to the point where they made approval contingent on US29 being signed continuously from one side the city to another. Unless, of course, is that just another bit of Vogonish anal retentiveness in the quest to increase standards of applications?

Offline Eth

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 26
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 10:17:09 pm
Re: AASHTO Spring 2018
« Reply #6 on: May 26, 2018, 06:53:17 pm »
Then again, Georgia eliminating US29 off the old route in the same proposal where they reroute it onto a new one seems to have utterly flummoxed the committee to the point where they made approval contingent on US29 being signed continuously from one side the city to another. Unless, of course, is that just another bit of Vogonish anal retentiveness in the quest to increase standards of applications?

Vogons at work again, I think. Really it seems to be just a matter of "they ticked the 'elimination' box when they shouldn't have". If only the "relocation" box were checked, as with the US 341 application, it would likely have been approved without comment.

Offline yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1721
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 11:23:56 pm
Re: AASHTO Spring 2018
« Reply #7 on: May 27, 2018, 12:37:09 am »
Aah, gotcha. I had based my statement on only the first PDF that was linked; hadn't looked at the second.
Freddled Gruntbuggly.

Offline mapcat

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 715
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 10:45:56 pm
Re: AASHTO Spring 2018
« Reply #8 on: May 31, 2018, 09:01:54 pm »
Quote
MI US131 Bus (Grand Rapids): deletion - still in browser (not yet implemented?)

MDOT maps are ambiguous (I see it on some but not all). I'm planning a trip to Grand Rapids this summer and will confirm then. Part of the routing we have is no longer a street, so if nothing else it will need to be adjusted.
Clinched:

Offline oscar

  • TM Collaborator
  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 643
  • Last Login:Today at 12:09:41 am
    • Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: AASHTO Spring 2018
« Reply #9 on: June 28, 2018, 08:46:36 pm »
GA US29: relocation at Lawrencville - not in browser (not yet implemented?)

I just drove the route of the approved relocation earlier today. US 29 route signage has not been moved to the new alignment.

Eth, on the aaroads forum, lives in that area and would know when the relocation is implemented.

Offline the_spui_ninja

  • TM Collaborator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 277
  • Last Login:November 17, 2018, 10:54:11 pm
  • THE Western SD Highway Nut
Re: AASHTO Spring 2018
« Reply #10 on: June 29, 2018, 05:30:44 pm »
WY US14: relocation of North Sheridan interchange - in browser as US14 bus - need to double check
WY US87: relocation of North Sheridan interchange - in browser as US87 bus - need to double check
Based on what was in that PDF, it sounds like WYDOT has 14/87 actually going though Sheridan. Now, the last time I was there (a few years ago now), the road through town was signed as 14/87 Business, but that might have changed with the new Exit 20. I would say to leave it as it is in the HB for now until someone field-checks it or Google drives by.
An adventure is only an inconvenience rightly considered. An inconvenience is only an adventure wrongly considered. - G.K. Chesterton

Offline si404

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 724
  • Last Login:Today at 03:04:47 am
Re: AASHTO Spring 2018
« Reply #11 on: June 30, 2018, 07:19:21 am »
^^ that's the plan!

Offline Bickendan

  • TM Collaborator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 211
  • Last Login:Today at 04:15:05 am
Re: AASHTO Spring 2018
« Reply #12 on: July 01, 2018, 06:47:23 am »
WY US14: relocation of North Sheridan interchange - in browser as US14 bus - need to double check
WY US87: relocation of North Sheridan interchange - in browser as US87 bus - need to double check
Based on what was in that PDF, it sounds like WYDOT has 14/87 actually going though Sheridan. Now, the last time I was there (a few years ago now), the road through town was signed as 14/87 Business, but that might have changed with the new Exit 20. I would say to leave it as it is in the HB for now until someone field-checks it or Google drives by.
Indeed, when I went through in 2016, it was 14B/87B through downtown Sheridan.

Offline Eth

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 26
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 10:17:09 pm
Re: AASHTO Spring 2018
« Reply #13 on: July 01, 2018, 09:48:50 pm »
GA US29: relocation at Lawrencville - not in browser (not yet implemented?)

I just drove the route of the approved relocation earlier today. US 29 route signage has not been moved to the new alignment.

Eth, on the aaroads forum, lives in that area and would know when the relocation is implemented.

Yep, that's just one county over from me. Local news recently had a story about the elimination of the one-way pair on Clayton/Perry streets on (former?) GA 20 adjacent to current US 29 through downtown, though it doesn't sound like they've gotten wind of the pending US 29 changes yet.

Offline mapcat

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 715
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 10:45:56 pm
Re: AASHTO Spring 2018
« Reply #14 on: October 07, 2018, 07:11:45 pm »
Quote
MI US131 Bus (Grand Rapids): deletion - still in browser (not yet implemented?)

It's still signed from US131 southbound (I was unable to see the sign northbound) as well as along the existing route. On Oakes St, where it used to turn south onto a street now eliminated to make way for a large mixed-use development, it simply disappears. It does not appear to be signed at the end of the northbound ramps from US 131.

Not sure how to handle the south end.
« Last Edit: October 07, 2018, 07:15:15 pm by mapcat »
Clinched: