It looks like they will publish at least the most recent route numbering decisions here. I have already emailed the secretary advocating for making available all historical decisions as well.
Included is a scan of one page of 1958 route numbering decisions, including:
New route in Mississippi and Tennessee (TN 125 to Bolivar, then TN 18 to US 45) (denied)
New US 320 in Oregon (denied) from US 101 at Otis along OR 18 and OR 22 through Salem, Stayton and Detroit, to US 20 at Santiam Junction. (About 140 miles)
I'm not surprised Oregon was denied since the route was all "in-state". I'm curious why TN and MS thought it was important to have this route signed as a US Highway. From looking at the map, it doesn't seem as if the highway would really be important enough to qualify for the AASHTO's tough assignment policy.
> Andrew Farina wrote: > I'm curious why TN and MS thought it was important to have this route > signed as a US Highway. From looking at the map, it doesn't seem as if > the highway would really be important enough to qualify for the > AASHTO's tough assignment policy.
I can offer a theory...
MS 15 is the longest route in Mississippi, and one of only a few corridors that stretch from the MS/TN state line down to the Coast (and the only one that is fully within Mississippi). Even back then, major improvements were proposed for the route...mostly straightening and bypasses. Today, the route is a high-priority under MDOT's "Vision 21" plan.
Personally, I see a route from Jackson, TN along TN 18, MS 7, and US 49E to Yazoo City as being a better option for a US route.
Andrew Farina wrote: > I'm not surprised Oregon was denied since the route was all "in-state". > I'm curious why TN and MS thought it was important to have this route > signed as a US Highway. From looking at the map, it doesn't seem as if > the highway would really be important enough to qualify for the > AASHTO's tough assignment policy.
> - -- --- ---- ----- ---- --- -- -
> Andrew Farina
All of a sudden I'm thinking that splitting states out here would be a good idea simply to get our fair share of federal transportation money, instead of more decades of simply watching it vanish back east somewhere.
>> I'm not surprised Oregon was denied since the route was all "in-state". >> I'm curious why TN and MS thought it was important to have this route >> signed as a US Highway. From looking at the map, it doesn't seem as if >> the highway would really be important enough to qualify for the >> AASHTO's tough assignment policy.
>> - -- --- ---- ----- ---- --- -- -
>> Andrew Farina
> All of a sudden I'm thinking that splitting states out here > would be a good idea simply to get our fair share of federal > transportation money, instead of more decades of simply > watching it vanish back east somewhere.
You sure it isn't getting buried in mud or burned up in wildfires? :-P
-- Sandor Gulyas Graduate Student - Louisiana St. University Dept. of Geography & Anthropology
"When things go wrong Go wrong with you It hurts me too -- Elmore James
>>>I'm not surprised Oregon was denied since the route was all "in-state". >>>I'm curious why TN and MS thought it was important to have this route >>>signed as a US Highway. From looking at the map, it doesn't seem as if >>>the highway would really be important enough to qualify for the >>>AASHTO's tough assignment policy.
>>>- -- --- ---- ----- ---- --- -- -
>>>Andrew Farina
>>All of a sudden I'm thinking that splitting states out here >>would be a good idea simply to get our fair share of federal >>transportation money, instead of more decades of simply >>watching it vanish back east somewhere.
> You sure it isn't getting buried in mud or burned up in wildfires? :-P
> All of a sudden I'm thinking that splitting states out here > would be a good idea simply to get our fair share of federal > transportation money, instead of more decades of simply > watching it vanish back east somewhere.
That is so rediculously absurd, I don't even know where to start. The west has been very heavily subsidised, with the exception of CA. The best line I ever heard was that if it were not for the federal highway trust fund and states like NY, NJ, and the other urban wealthy states, states like Montana could not even afford to paint the lines on their highways.
States like Wyoming and Idaho have no population to tax and large highway systems. The money has to come from somewhere and it comes from the feds and that comes from the wealthy states in the east.
Always remember the wealth of the US is in the east. The poorest states in the nation are the southeast and the Rocky Mountain states.
Oregon and Washington have also done very well in terms of the Federal Highway Trust Fund.
Randy, back home in Fanwood, NJ after driving 20,000 miles out west and back
> States like Wyoming and Idaho have no population to tax and large > highway systems. The money has to come from somewhere and it comes > from the feds and that comes from the wealthy states in the east.
The money does not solely come from the eastern states. California, a western state of ~35 million people, is also taxed too; many of its dollars are sent to government institutions in the east. A popular cry from Californians, if you will, is that its federal tax is used to develop and maintain interests decided by the east coast, usually for projects outside California. In effect, one can argue that California tax money is gathered by Washington, D.C., is allocated for projects therein, which could plausibly & partially support Wyoming highway projects.
> Always remember the wealth of the US is in the east.
Not necessarily. There are certain locations in the American west, even Mexico, that harbour more economic and consumer wealth than certain spots on the east coast.
For example, Boise has more economic and independent wealth than a township in New York.
> The poorest states in the nation are the southeast and the Rocky > Mountain states.
It depends on where you look you in each state. For example, Casper, WY has a median family income of USD 46,267, while Watertown, NY has a median family income of USD 36,115.
> The money does not solely come from the eastern states. California, a > western state of ~35 million people, is also taxed too; many of its > dollars are sent to government institutions in the east. A popular cry > from Californians, if you will, is that its federal tax is used to > develop and maintain interests decided by the east coast, usually for > projects outside California. In effect, one can argue that California > tax money is gathered by Washington, D.C., is allocated for projects > therein, which could plausibly & partially support Wyoming highway > projects.
I can't speak for other states, but I've heard many times that Oregon is a net exporter of taxes, largely because there are no significant military facilities in this state; in other words, we get back less in federal expenditures than we pay in federal taxes. However, I agree with you on the funding of major interstate routes: the miles per capita of these is probably greater in the less-densely settled large states like ID, WY, MT, ND etc, and thus represent a de facto "subsidy" by the denser states. But there's nothing wrong with this, as I'm sure many goods bound for the denser populations of the eastern states use the interstate and US routes through the less settled west, especially given the volume of our trade with China and the rest of east Asia.
There are many places in the intermountain west which are far wealthier and receive a greater amount of money than they give out. Granted, Alaska is an exception to every rule in this, but I think the majority of states do very well. I saw a stat some time ago that listed Idaho, Utah, Nevada, and Wyoming much higher on $ per people than the more much more populated states in the Great Lakes and Southeast. I think it mostly depends on representation, not any real "conspiracy" to swindle money out of the west.
>>>>I'm not surprised Oregon was denied since the route was all "in-state". >>>>I'm curious why TN and MS thought it was important to have this route >>>>signed as a US Highway. From looking at the map, it doesn't seem as if >>>>the highway would really be important enough to qualify for the >>>>AASHTO's tough assignment policy.
>>>>- -- --- ---- ----- ---- --- -- -
>>>>Andrew Farina
>>>All of a sudden I'm thinking that splitting states out here >>>would be a good idea simply to get our fair share of federal >>>transportation money, instead of more decades of simply >>>watching it vanish back east somewhere.
>> You sure it isn't getting buried in mud or burned up in wildfires? :-P
> That only happens in LA.
Typical NorCalifornian! You think LA = anything south of Tejon Pass.
>> States like Wyoming and Idaho have no population to tax and large >> highway systems. The money has to come from somewhere and it comes >> from the feds and that comes from the wealthy states in the east.
> The money does not solely come from the eastern states. California, a > western state of ~35 million people, is also taxed too; many of its > dollars are sent to government institutions in the east. A popular cry > from Californians, if you will, is that its federal tax is used to > develop and maintain interests decided by the east coast, usually for > projects outside California. In effect, one can argue that California > tax money is gathered by Washington, D.C., is allocated for projects > therein, which could plausibly & partially support Wyoming highway > projects.
Wyoming also has a large mineral royalty reserve that provides funding for a great many government services, including higher education and roads, that most other states do not possess. As a result of this reserve, Wyoming has had surpluses while some other states have not in recent years. Wyoming is generally a low tax stae (no income state), but I am not sure if it is a donor or receipient state when it comes to federal gas tax allocations.
Carl Rogers wrote: > > States like Wyoming and Idaho have no population to tax and large > > highway systems. The money has to come from somewhere and it comes > > from the feds and that comes from the wealthy states in the east.
> The money does not solely come from the eastern states. California, a > western state of ~35 million people, is also taxed too; many of its > dollars are sent to government institutions in the east. A popular cry > from Californians, if you will, is that its federal tax is used to > develop and maintain interests decided by the east coast, usually for > projects outside California. In effect, one can argue that California > tax money is gathered by Washington, D.C., is allocated for projects > therein, which could plausibly & partially support Wyoming highway > projects.
> > Always remember the wealth of the US is in the east.
> Not necessarily. There are certain locations in the American west, > even Mexico, that harbour more economic and consumer wealth than > certain spots on the east coast.
> For example, Boise has more economic and independent wealth than a > township in New York.
> > The poorest states in the nation are the southeast and the Rocky > > Mountain states.
> It depends on where you look you in each state. For example, Casper, > WY has a median family income of USD 46,267, while Watertown, NY has a > median family income of USD 36,115.
In my original post in this thread I specifically excluded CA for that reason. They along with my home state of NJ are always at the bottom of what they get back from the Feds.
If you want to do a zip code by zip code comparison of per capita wealth, the wealthiest ones are in the northeast and great lakes.
I am very well aware that there are very weathy areas in the west and CA, but over all it is very poor, and heavily subsidized. For that matter South Jersey, Cumberland and Salem and Cape May Counties are very poor also, relatively speaking.
Take care, Randy, from the relative wealth of Fanwood, NJ
|
