Author Topic: VT: VT38 west end point  (Read 206 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline cl94

  • TM Collaborator
  • Newbie
  • *****
  • Posts: 45
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 08:55:22 pm
VT: VT38 west end point
« on: July 14, 2019, 05:58:38 pm »
I drove VT 38 today and, while internal VTrans documents say it extends to VT 36, the "END" sign WB is at the curve west of County Road (shield assembly has been replaced since GSV went through and it is now clearly legible). The town-maintained road is completely unsigned west of there and no signs exist from VT 36. Since precedent on TM is to follow signed begin/end points for state routes, I propose that we truncate VT 38 to the END sign and end of state maintenance.

Offline froggie

  • TM Collaborator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 481
  • Last Login:September 17, 2019, 08:19:54 pm
Re: VT: VT38 west end point
« Reply #1 on: July 16, 2019, 09:54:32 am »
Part of the hefty conversation with Tim back when this was CHM (as Yakra well-recalls).  Town-maintained routes are included in the route system (VTrans considers it all one route regardless of who does maintenance), so since VT 38 continues to VT 36, I'm inclined to leave the endpoint there.

Offline yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2143
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 11:57:14 pm
Re: VT: VT38 west end point
« Reply #2 on: July 16, 2019, 12:52:48 pm »
On the flipside, though, would we treat it as an unsigned extension of a route?
Compare TX364
Stupid Truck Routes!

Offline Duke87

  • TM Collaborator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 263
  • Last Login:September 17, 2019, 06:50:03 pm
Re: VT: VT38 west end point
« Reply #3 on: July 16, 2019, 11:50:27 pm »
I'm inclined to go with what signs say over what exists on paper if the two disagree and the signs are consistent.

So if there's an end assembly there, and no shields of any kind anywhere west of there (which indeed appears to be the case), then I favor truncation.