Author Topic: CO: E470 should be moved to usasf?  (Read 390 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline US 89

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 28
  • Last Login:April 17, 2019, 12:46:43 am
CO: E470 should be moved to usasf?
« on: February 02, 2019, 10:21:14 pm »
The E-470 highway in Colorado is currently listed in the Colorado State Highways, but it isn't a state highway. Colorado considers it to be the same thing as Northwest Parkway, which is currently in the usasf system. They even have similar CDOT reference numbers: E470 is 470B, while the Northwest Parkway is 470N.

In addition, the most similar case to this that I can find is CC 215 in Las Vegas, which is mapped as part of usasf: http://travelmapping.net/hb/?units=miles&u=null&r=nv.cr215

This should probably be in usasf, and maybe just as "E470", not as "COE470" since it isn't a CO state highway.

Offline cl94

  • TM Collaborator
  • Newbie
  • *****
  • Posts: 33
  • Last Login:March 31, 2019, 06:33:11 pm
Re: CO: E470 should be moved to usasf?
« Reply #1 on: February 02, 2019, 10:26:36 pm »
I'm going to second this. E470 is a name. As far as the State of Colorado is concerned, E470 = Northwest Parkway as far as internal numbering. If I

Clark County 215 is precedent here, IMO. That is certainly the best comparison, given that both have numbers and neither are really "state highways". Since we're not mapping unsigned SR designations, E470 belongs over in USASF.

Offline si404

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 867
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 08:23:48 pm
Re: CO: E470 should be moved to usasf?
« Reply #2 on: February 06, 2019, 06:31:35 am »
Any objections?

Offline froggie

  • TM Collaborator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 427
  • Last Login:April 18, 2019, 11:27:47 am
Re: CO: E470 should be moved to usasf?
« Reply #3 on: February 07, 2019, 05:34:27 pm »
Functionally, it's an extension of CO 470.  Why not just leave it as-is?

Offline Duke87

  • TM Collaborator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 224
  • Last Login:April 20, 2019, 11:56:22 pm
Re: CO: E470 should be moved to usasf?
« Reply #4 on: February 07, 2019, 08:26:27 pm »
It won't affect anyone's travels either way. It's purely housekeeping.

As I see it the arguments in favor of a move are:
- The road is not maintained by the state of Colorado, rather by a multi-county agency. This could be interpreted as making the road a county route.
- While CDOT does have an internal numerical designation for the road, it is 470B, not E470
- The road is not signed with CO state highway shields. It has its own special shield.
- It is an odd case with few if any direct parallels, but the most similar situation is Clark County 215 in Nevada, which was put in usasf.

And the arguments against are:
- So what if it's county maintained, there are plenty of state routes out there that are county maintained in part or entirety. And it has a state route designation!
- So what if the internal designation is slightly different, there are plenty of cases where the internal designation for a road has a suffix that isn't signed in the field. See all state routes in Maryland with multiple segments for example.
- It is contiguous with CO 470, which is clearly a state highway by the same number. And it exists due to planning by the state, even if the state didn't build and doesn't maintain it.
- When in doubt, default to status quo. Ruling on the field stands unless there is clear and convincing evidence it should be overturned.


It makes no difference to me personally. I have no objection to moving it. I have no objection to leaving it as is, either.

It would be nice if we had an actual E470 shield for it though, instead of shoving "E470" in the CO shield which just doesn't look right.

Offline Jim

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1397
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 10:19:14 pm
Re: CO: E470 should be moved to usasf?
« Reply #5 on: February 07, 2019, 09:33:25 pm »
I'm in favor of moving it to usasf and including the old COE470 .list name as an alt name so no user lists will break.

Offline cl94

  • TM Collaborator
  • Newbie
  • *****
  • Posts: 33
  • Last Login:March 31, 2019, 06:33:11 pm
Re: CO: E470 should be moved to usasf?
« Reply #6 on: February 07, 2019, 10:16:59 pm »
It's worth noting that, in the field, E470 is clearly distinct from SH 470 and the state highway system. As far as presentation, E470 isn't too different from the Garden State Parkway. Heck, the newer posted E470 shields even have "SM" on them. Registered service mark = name.

Offline si404

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 867
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 08:23:48 pm
Re: CO: E470 should be moved to usasf?
« Reply #7 on: February 08, 2019, 05:01:27 am »
 Moving it, but breaking nothing. Reasoning being it's simple to do, and allows a proper shield.

Offline vdeane

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
  • Gender: Female
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 12:45:07 pm
    • New York State Roads
Re: CO: E470 should be moved to usasf?
« Reply #8 on: February 09, 2019, 06:47:48 pm »
I wonder if this opens up a can of worms with ON 407/407 ETR.  Although CO 470/E470 resets mileage and exit numbers, and ON 407 doesn't.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

Online rickmastfan67

  • TM Collaborator (A)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 633
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:Today at 02:53:22 am
Re: CO: E470 should be moved to usasf?
« Reply #9 on: February 09, 2019, 08:07:43 pm »
I wonder if this opens up a can of worms with ON 407/407 ETR.  Although CO 470/E470 resets mileage and exit numbers, and ON 407 doesn't.

I say 407 plays like PA-43/PA Turnpike 43 & PA-66/PA Turnpike 66 do.  That's how I've always thought it.

Offline si404

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 867
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 08:23:48 pm
Re: CO: E470 should be moved to usasf?
« Reply #10 on: February 10, 2019, 04:00:21 am »
Or the Florida Toll State Highways...

Offline Duke87

  • TM Collaborator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 224
  • Last Login:April 20, 2019, 11:56:22 pm
Re: CO: E470 should be moved to usasf?
« Reply #11 on: February 10, 2019, 11:40:11 am »
The PA and FL examples are different though in that they only use a modified version of the state shield to signify tolling - PA's "toll" shields are still keystones, just color swapped and with the word "toll" added in; FL's are still the state outline, just with a frame added around it. 407 ETR, like E470, switches to a completely different and unique shield.


Offline oscar

  • TM Collaborator
  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 718
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 11:53:33 pm
    • Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: CO: E470 should be moved to usasf?
« Reply #12 on: February 10, 2019, 12:05:27 pm »
407 ETR, like E470, switches to a completely different and unique shield.

If anyone gets the idea of doing to 407 ETR what was done with E470, remember that the Canadian counterpart to usasf is still in devel status, unlike usasf which is active.

Offline mapcat

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 801
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 05:41:18 pm
Re: CO: E470 should be moved to usasf?
« Reply #13 on: February 10, 2019, 01:58:47 pm »
It's ridiculous that cannf is still in devel.
Clinched:

Offline froggie

  • TM Collaborator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 427
  • Last Login:April 18, 2019, 11:27:47 am
Re: CO: E470 should be moved to usasf?
« Reply #14 on: February 10, 2019, 08:18:47 pm »
Quote from: Duke87
switches to a completely different and unique shield.

This is the same logic that Tim kept going back to with Vermont and why the Vermont state routes were never finished under CHM.