Author Topic: AASHTO approvals Spring 2019  (Read 214 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online oscar

  • TM Collaborator
  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Last Login:Today at 12:39:36 am
    • Hot Springs and Highways pages
AASHTO approvals Spring 2019
« on: June 04, 2019, 07:35:35 pm »

Offline yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1972
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 01:46:39 am
Re: AASHTO approvals Spring 2019
« Reply #1 on: June 05, 2019, 01:55:38 am »
The AR US63 reroute had been on my own personal Fictional list for a while, but I'd never really considered that one day it might actually happen. Good to see.

Offline Highway63

  • TM Collaborator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 211
  • Last Login:June 15, 2019, 01:52:18 am
Re: AASHTO approvals Spring 2019
« Reply #2 on: June 06, 2019, 12:55:05 am »
I can prepare all the Missouri changes except US 61 at Scott City because available aerial photos aren't recent enough. (And there goes my clinch.)

The nature of the change to BL I-55 in Illinois should probably result in changing US 66 as well.

Offline yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1972
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 01:46:39 am
Re: AASHTO approvals Spring 2019
« Reply #3 on: June 07, 2019, 02:31:56 pm »
https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/2911

TX I-169 extended
Interstate, may or may not be a signed one, yadda yadda, close enough.
Going to go ahead and make this change right away.

TX US 175 realigned around Poynor
TX US 175 Business (Poynor) created

New divided bypass, new main thru alignment, all they have to do is sign it, I have little reason to believe they won't do so.
In it goes.

TX US 79 Business (Taylor) deleted
I should hold off on this one until confirming that field signage has changed. The relocation of the south end of the route was approved by AASHTO in Spring 2011, but this sign was still there in Nov 2016 (gone by Feb 2019), and this one is still there as of Mar 2019.

Similarly, one might think I'd have learned from the KS US40 debacle a few years back, but nope. I jumped the gun on the TX US90 reroute that was approved in Spring 2017. The most recent GMSV imagery shows a full complement of signage along the old route. Most recent signage is Aug 2018, EB at I-10(851). Oh bother. I suppose I should pull a KS US40 and undo the changes until I confirm it's actually signed? Yecch...

TX US 62/US 85 realigned in El Paso
Quote
Prior to this application. US 62/US 85 existed on two separate roads in El Paso near the Mexico border: El Paso Street (one-way) and Stanton Street (two-way): the Texas Transportation Commission approved the removal of US 62/US 85 from the state highway system along El Paso Street from Paisano Street south to 6th Avenue: and that jurisdiction. control and maintenance be transferred to the City of  El Paso. The path of US62/US 85 still remains along Stanton Street. which is a two-way roadway.
OK, this one's a head-scratcher. Stanton St, two-way? Uhh, no! Maybe they're referring to just the very beginning of the route on the Good Neighbor bridge, until northbound traffic is looped back south thru the customs facility to Mesa & 9th?
62/85 was removed "along El Paso Street from Paisano Street south to 6th Avenue". All right, but what about the route south of there?
Designation files are no help here, listing the terminus only as a vague "El Paso". (I have yet to look up what AASHTO says about the end.)
In the shapefiles, When a route is on a split alignment, there are three arcs marked as that route: One on the EB or NB roadway itself, one on the WB or SB roadway itself, and another splitting the difference on the "center line", much as we do on TM. This "center line" for 62/85 only goes as far as 6th Ave (see attachment).
(We see a similar line on the grid map, but continuing one block farther south to 7th. Oh boy, and the Statewide Planning Map shows it to around 8th...)
Can this be considered, in some regard, the S/W end of the route? Was it just the most reasonable place TXDOT thought they could continue to represent a center line between the 2 alignments/bridges?
In that regard, if we consider 6th to be the "official" S end, then only mentioning decommissioning it that far down makes sense in a way.
It may make most sense to take a wait and see approach, until newer shapefiles, grid maps, and/or signage make things clearer.
Right now, signage at and south of Paisano is rather lacking. No signage at Stanton to direct either route southward. Only an EAST 62 on EB Paisano. ON NB Santa Fe, there's just a NORTH 85, and nothing for 62.
Is this even going to change, or remain poorly signed?...
« Last Edit: June 12, 2019, 11:16:46 pm by yakra »

Online oscar

  • TM Collaborator
  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Last Login:Today at 12:39:36 am
    • Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: AASHTO approvals Spring 2019
« Reply #4 on: June 07, 2019, 04:38:43 pm »
See my comments on the AARoads forum on the US62/85 mess.

Offline yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1972
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 01:46:39 am
Re: AASHTO approvals Spring 2019
« Reply #5 on: June 07, 2019, 05:50:15 pm »
Quote from: oscar on aaroads
My other take is that my border-to-border clinch of US 85 from my very painful (truck broke down on the Santa Fe St. Bridge) 2017 border crossing is not undone by all this.
Sounds right, since you also have SB via Stanton St under your belt.

Offline rlee

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 37
  • Last Login:June 16, 2019, 10:08:51 pm
Re: AASHTO approvals Spring 2019
« Reply #6 on: June 16, 2019, 09:47:32 pm »
The last time I was there in May, US 61 Business in Baton Rouge had no signage at all on the downtown surface street section between the two I-110 exits.  DOTD's right-size map for East Baton Rouge Parish shows that it had already been turned back to the city-parish.

Fortunately but unknowingly at the time, I reclinched it by driving the one block of Chippewa St (soon-to-be-rerouted US 61 Business) from existing US 61 Business to I-110.

I'm not sure if US 61 Business needs to be rerouted now or wait for signs to be placed on I-110.

Offline rlee

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 37
  • Last Login:June 16, 2019, 10:08:51 pm
Re: AASHTO approvals Spring 2019
« Reply #7 on: June 16, 2019, 10:08:51 pm »
US 190 Business should fully overlap with US 61 Business, but it isn't mentioned in the AASHTO application. I wonder if they meant to reroute US 190 Business onto I-110 along with US 61 Business?

The last time I was there in May, US 61 Business in Baton Rouge had no signage at all on the downtown surface street section between the two I-110 exits.  DOTD's right-size map for East Baton Rouge Parish shows that it had already been turned back to the city-parish.

Fortunately but unknowingly at the time, I reclinched it by driving the one block of Chippewa St (soon-to-be-rerouted US 61 Business) from existing US 61 Business to I-110.

I'm not sure if US 61 Business needs to be rerouted now or wait for signs to be placed on I-110.