| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
dfilpus
Joined: 14 Jul 2008
Posts: 717
Location: Chapel Hill NC
|
|
| Back to top |
   |
 |
rickmastfan67
Joined: 14 Jul 2008
Posts: 2031
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
|
 Posted: Thu May 09, 2013 8:53 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Any PDF maps of the changes posted yet? For some odd reason, I'm blocked from their site and have to use a proxy to get to it. |
|
| Back to top |
 |
|
admin
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Jul 2008
Posts: 4053
Location: Maryland
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yakra
Joined: 30 Jul 2008
Posts: 2600
Location: Area Code 207
|
| Posted: Fri May 10, 2013 2:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Once again, Kansas says "Hey AASHTO! We're twinning a US Route in place! Isn't that keen!"
Also: replacing an at-grade multiplex split with an interchange.
Texas:
* I'll just hand-wave the I-69E stuff till there's reports of it being signed in the field. I'm sure it will not take the AARoads crowd long at all, once it exists.
* The US 67/377 entry describes the first I-69 Robstown segment that's already been in the HB since April 2012. Yeah, okay...
* US 67 Business: TXDOT appears to be jumping the gun again. They also got bypasses/business routes approved in Cresson and Mount Pleasant, before there's even any evidence of construction having begun. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
oscar_voss
Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 622
Location: Arlington VA
|
| Posted: Fri May 10, 2013 6:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Don't forget the new I-2 along the TX/MX border, as well as I-69C. Those will also catch the AARoads crowd's attention, to the extent any of them wander that far south. |
|
| Back to top |
 |
|
admin
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Jul 2008
Posts: 4053
Location: Maryland
|
| Posted: Fri May 10, 2013 8:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Does anyone know more about the story behind the rejection--oops,nah---approval of the suffixed I-69 routes? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
si404
Joined: 07 Oct 2009
Posts: 708
|
| Posted: Fri May 10, 2013 11:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| admin wrote: | | Does anyone know more about the story behind the rejection--oops,nah---approval of the suffixed I-69 routes? |
The AASHTO Committee's rejection (based on their no new suffixed routes) was overturned by the SCOH.
Quite why they also did the same with I-2 beats me - it isn't a suffixed route! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
deanej
Joined: 29 Jul 2010
Posts: 103
|
| Posted: Sun May 12, 2013 8:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I can understand why one would reject I-2 (it's only 46 miles long), but it doesn't fit under the reason mentioned there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jeff Morrison
Joined: 03 Aug 2008
Posts: 620
|
| Posted: Thu May 16, 2013 1:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
North Carolina wants an even-numbered spur from I-95 to Raleigh and doesn't want to change I-540, which is/will be a loop.
Texas wants suffixed I-69 routes and AASHTO's objection was overruled.
Completely bass-ackwards. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
