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.
There's an interesting document about US 301/98 in Florida, and the
decision to fix the record for a decision made in 1958:
Included is a scan of one page of 1958 route numbering decisions,
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 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"
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.
Froggie | Picayune, MS | http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/
> 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
Graduate Student - Louisiana St. University
Dept. of Geography & Anthropology
"When things go wrong
Go wrong with you
It hurts me too
-- Elmore James
> "william lynch" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message
>>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.
>>>- -- --- ---- ----- ---- --- -- -
>>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.
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
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
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
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
> 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.
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.
Typical NorCalifornian! You think LA = anything south of Tejon Pass.
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.
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.
Randy, from the relative wealth of Fanwood, NJ