Author Topic: SD: Highways in Sioux Falls turned over  (Read 252 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Highway63

  • TM Collaborator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 214
  • Last Login:August 07, 2019, 02:26:48 am
SD: Highways in Sioux Falls turned over
« on: June 04, 2019, 01:52:03 pm »
I happened to look at the most recent South Dakota highway map (downloaded through Avenza) and noticed that the highway lines in the Sioux Falls inset looked like city streets.

I e-mailed the South Dakota DOT and found out that yes, the routings inside Sioux Falls have been turned over. SD 42 is now discontinuous, SD 115 is now discontinuous, and even SD 11 is discontinuous. The green interstate routes are unchanged. Some signs remain to help travelers but the roads are no longer maintained by SDDOT.

That means I have to split up three routes. What is the best way to do this? Does this also require editing the CSV file?

Offline Jim

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1511
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 09:17:48 pm
Re: SD: Highways in Sioux Falls turned over
« Reply #1 on: June 04, 2019, 02:56:17 pm »
If this is the same situation to what happens to California state routes, we should handle it similarly.

Offline froggie

  • TM Collaborator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 464
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 06:46:17 am
Re: SD: Highways in Sioux Falls turned over
« Reply #2 on: June 04, 2019, 03:04:34 pm »
How is it handled with California?

Offline oscar

  • TM Collaborator
  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 783
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 10:53:59 pm
    • Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: SD: Highways in Sioux Falls turned over
« Reply #3 on: June 04, 2019, 05:54:06 pm »
The California Streets and Highways Code generally but not always requires, in the law authorizing a mid-route relinquishment, that the relevant local government maintain continuation signage for the relinquished segment to guide motorists to the rest of the route. This requirement is often ignored.

How I've been handling it for the usaca preview system:

(a) if the relinquishment is at the end of a route, treat it like a truncation;

(b) if such signage is known to exist, and is required by state law, we've left the route intact, as with relinquished CA 1 segments in Dana Point and Santa Monica;

(c) if there is no such signage (even though required by law), but the route can be easily followed without the signage, we've left the route intact. Relinquished CA 1 through Newport Beach is one where we've left the route intact despite lack of signage, since it's just a straight line through the city. Relinquished CA 79 through San Jacinto, and CA 160 in Sacramento south of the American River, are impossible for motorists to follow, due to several unsigned turns (plus there's an End CA 160 sign at the southern city limits), so I removed those segments.

These rules are open for discussion, before usaca goes active.

I guess for South Dakota, the key issue is whether signage for the relinquished segments is required by law, rather than just left behind by South Dakota DOT but with no obligation by the Sioux Falls city government to maintain the signage.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2019, 10:29:02 pm by oscar »

Offline the_spui_ninja

  • TM Collaborator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 296
  • Last Login:August 05, 2019, 12:31:18 am
  • THE Western SD Highway Nut
Re: SD: Highways in Sioux Falls turned over
« Reply #4 on: June 04, 2019, 09:51:12 pm »
From what I remember of SD law, local jurisdictions can sign routes through a discontinuity if they want, but are not obligated to. Currently (i.e. last time I was in Sioux Falls about a year ago) the only sign on the interstates that represents the discontinuity is the signage at Exit 399 which says SD-115 North (they changed it when they rebuilt that exit back in ~2014). All other interstate signage still implies that SD-42 and SD-115 both go through Sioux Falls even though they technically don't. From what I remember, there are no "END" signs at the city limits, signage just gets sparse and old until you're out the other side.


We have unsigned discontinuities elsewhere in the state (SD-63 on the rez (this might actually be signed never been there), SD-20 up by Watertown, SD-271 over by Mobridge, and of course the good old river roads 1804 and 1806), but I think the routes are still signed through Sioux Falls because people expect them to be.
An adventure is only an inconvenience rightly considered. An inconvenience is only an adventure wrongly considered. - G.K. Chesterton

Offline Highway63

  • TM Collaborator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 214
  • Last Login:August 07, 2019, 02:26:48 am
Re: SD: Highways in Sioux Falls turned over
« Reply #5 on: June 04, 2019, 11:21:08 pm »
From the e-mail:
Quote
If you are WB SD42 and approaching the intersection of Veteran's Parkway (old SD11), the city is still maintaining route markers showing that the driver is still on SD 42 and they are approaching the intersection of SD11 going south.  Technically, these roads are not SD42 and SD11 by then, they would be Arrowhead Parkway and Veterans Parkway, respectively.  As you go further west and get into Sioux Falls near the 10th St. AutoWash (now SilverStar), the City also still maintains the old SD42 route markers there.

I believe this helps the driver however causes some confusion when the public has questions on who's authority the roadway is under.

I interpret this to be under city jurisdiction, but the city is going to keep the routes signed at major intersections at least. (Frankly, my opinion on a broken route is that the state should renumber one portion.)

Also the easternmost mile of SD 38 was lopped off, which would be a clean truncation.

Because the signs are to be maintained, I wouldn't change the interstate bannered route points downtown. The question is if the state routes should get split given that information. (The new official endpoints will be added, at least.)
« Last Edit: June 04, 2019, 11:26:28 pm by Highway63 »

Offline the_spui_ninja

  • TM Collaborator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 296
  • Last Login:August 05, 2019, 12:31:18 am
  • THE Western SD Highway Nut
Re: SD: Highways in Sioux Falls turned over
« Reply #6 on: June 07, 2019, 12:13:03 am »
I mean if there's no actual end signs I would not split the state routes, as the only way a driver would be able to tell that they're technically not routes would be to look on Internet sources.

Plus, I think the business routes are also unofficial, so if they're going to stay might as well keep the state routes.
An adventure is only an inconvenience rightly considered. An inconvenience is only an adventure wrongly considered. - G.K. Chesterton