Gribblenation

The 1968 Federal-Aid Highway Act expanded the Interstate Highway system an additional 1,500 miles - increasing the overall network to 42,500 miles.  During a series of public hearings and correspondences , the House Subcommittee on Roads, chaired by Illinois Congressman John Kluczynski, would help craft the legislation that authorized funding and the designation of the new corridors. On May 15, 1968, Chairman Kluczynski sent a telegram to every state highway/transportation department.  His request asked each state to return on their state's additional Interstate Highway needs as soon as possible with the approximate mileage and location.  He also asked if they intended to attend sub-committee hearings that were scheduled to begin on May 23. The individual state's responses varied. A number of states responded with specific corridors and mileages, a number were vague or gave long-winded answers in regard to funding and needs, and others requested very little mileage or in ...

A recent post in the  aaroads.com forum  shared information that AASHTO (Association of American State Highway and Transportation Officials) have begun digitizing all of their records from 1920s to modern day. This includes not only applications but correspondences and other materials. There's a lot of good information - and I am sure over the upcoming months - there will be updates to websites like Mike Roberson's NC,VA,WV, and SC pages or in posts in groups like Freeway Jim on some of the new information. There's a lot and appears more to be added. One of the more interesting finds so far is this map by the American Automobile Association (AAA) that shows the planned lane configurations of the original Interstate system. I was amazed by the amount of two lane interstates planned for 1971.  Interstate 95 in Maine, I-70 in Utah are well known. And over the years I have learned about I-25 in New Mexico and I-91 in North East Vermont but I-81 in South Central PA or I-26 in ...

The semi-annual American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) meeting is being held next week in Atlanta.  And with this meeting is another round of state petitions for highway designation changes, additions, and deletions .  Requests from North Carolina are typically on the agenda for every meeting. This year is no different - as North Carolina is petitioning for the designation of Interstate 295 and Future Interstate 295 for the Fayetteville Outer Loop.  You may be wondering - wasn't this done before - maybe a few times before.  Hell, I've lost count. So what is going on here - and if Interstate 295 was approved over a decade ago why did they take the I-295 signs down in the first place? Taken in 2007, could I-295 shields be returning to the Fayetteville Outer Loop? Well - it's complicated.  The first numbering request for the Fayetteville Outer Loop was made in 2003 , and the highway was asked to be signed as Interstat...

Future I-87 signs are coming to Wake, Franklin and Nash Counties. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials have recently approved North Carolina's application to remove the short-lived Interstate 495 and future I-495 from Raleigh to Rocky Mount.  This administrative move most likely will result in North Carolina signing Interstate 87 and Future I-87 on the entire corridor in the near future. Interstate 495's Future is no longer bright along the I-87 corridor . Approved in 2013, Interstate 495 was first signed in 2014 along US 64 from Interstate 440 in Raleigh to Interstate 540 in Knightdale.  The remaining segment of highway to Rocky Mount was signed as Future Interstate 495.  However, in 2016, North Carolina's congressional legislators were able to get language in the 2015 FAST ACT designating the US 64/US 13/US 17 corridor from Raleigh to Norfolk as an Interstate.  In 2016, the FHWA and AASHTO designated this entire corrid...

Well Interstate 36 tags won't be climbing up the blog list after all.  The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) reviewed North Carolina's two interstate requests of Interstate 36 for the US 70 Eastern Corridor and Interstate 89 for the US 64/17 Raleigh-Norfolk Corridor and suggested two different numbers that NCDOT agreed to.  They are: Interstate 42: This is the Clayton /Morehead City Super 70 Corridor.  It appears that AASHTO wanted to have continuity with the numbering grid.  I-42 will run completely north of Interstate 40.  NCDOT's concern for duplication with NC 42 was overruled.  Now, the question is will NCDOT rename all or part of the NC 42 which intersects both Interstate 40 and Interstate 42 before/after the new Interstate's western terminus.  The exit after/before what will be I-42 on Interstate 40 is NC 42.  In fact that intersection is known locally as "4042".  In fact, there was a local ...

Well when I made predictions for the designations of the two new North Carolina Interstate corridors a few months ago, I was way off.  NCDOT has formally requested Interstate 36 to be signed along the Super 70 Corridor and Interstate 89 for the Raleigh to Norfolk corridor.  The designations are pending AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials) and FHWA (Federal Highway Administration) approval.  AASHTO meets in Des Moines, IA later this month.  The FHWA - to the best of our knowledge - has both requests under review.  Both numbers would be exceptions to the standard Interstate numbering grid set in the 1950s. Interstate 36 will run North of Interstate 40.  Typically, a number higher that 40 would be assigned to this route (more on NCDOT's rationale in a moment). On the other hand, Interstate 89 has a number of exceptions. 1) It is a duplicate of Interstate 89 in Vermont and New Hampshire.  This does occur with othe...

If you click the title you will be taken to an article written a few days ago (August 26) about efforts to redevelop Main Street through downtown High Point. The main point of the article is that when the street is no longer designated as US 311 Business, the city and local development groups can take control of the road and move ahead on efforts to revitalize the corridor. Most of the efforts currently involve slowing traffic down through reducing speed limits, possibly narrowing the road from 4 lanes to 2 with wider sidewalks and medians, plus other traffic calming measures which all believe will help stimulate the local economy. The story is based on one big assumption though, that NCDOT hasn't given back Main Street to local control. But, in fact it has. Last November NCDOT submitted an application to remove the US 311 Business designation from Main Street to AASHTO's US Route Numbering committee. They approved the application. According to the NCDOT application, upon AASHT...

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...