Travel Mapping
Highway Data Discussion => Updates to Highway Data => Topic started by: cl94 on June 05, 2021, 09:10:40 pm
-
It looks like the two segments of I-265 in IN and KY were connected in June 2019. Since convention is to include all unsigned Interstates, I propose we delete I-265FutLou and replace with I-265 in both IN and KY.
AASHTO approval: https://s3.amazonaws.com/v3-app_crowdc/assets/3/31/31119030d9a75754/Final_Report_to_CHS_USRN_Application_Results_Spring_2019.original.1558475352.pdf?1558475353
-
Seconded considering our approach to usai. I've also confirmed the link.
-
If we move forward with the change on I-265, then the northern segment of I-555 will need to be added as well.
Having stated that, my understanding is that mapcat and yakra are still waiting for the signage changes to occur. (With the former wondering what will happen to KY 841)
-
Someone (Oscar maybe? I dunno) once upon a time made a distinction I find useful -- Interstates DOTs have no intention of ever signing, like ME I-495, vs. Interstates (or sections of Interstates) meant to be signed that aren't. Or, call it completely unsigned vs. partially unsigned.
-
If we do this, we need to add I-69 in Memphis, as TDOT did get approval the same year ( 2008 ) as MS did for their segment of I-69 from both the AASHTO & FHWA.
-
Someone (Oscar maybe? I dunno) once upon a time made a distinction I find useful -- Interstates DOTs have no intention of ever signing, like ME I-495, vs. Interstates (or sections of Interstates) meant to be signed that aren't. Or, call it completely unsigned vs. partially unsigned.
I think I made a slightly different point, WRT Texas -- if the state DOT formally adopts a roadway segment (such as by TX Transportation Commission order?) as an Interstate route, after getting any necessary AASHTO and FHWA approvals, we needn't wait for signage. But the state needs to affirmatively follow up on the Federal-level approvals, even if not necessarily (but ideally) by putting up signs. That avoids a situation like US 90 relocation in Beaumont TX where the DOT gets approvals, then decides "oh, never mind".
-
I think I made a slightly different point, WRT Texas -- if the state DOT formally adopts a roadway segment (such as by TX Transportation Commission order?) as an Interstate route, after getting any necessary AASHTO and FHWA approvals,
WRT I-555, seems that may have AASHTO but not FHWA approval?
we needn't wait for signage. But the state needs to affirmatively follow up on the Federal-level approvals, even if not necessarily (but ideally) by putting up signs. That avoids a situation like US 90 relocation in Beaumont TX where the DOT gets approvals, then decides "oh, never mind".
...or US40 is Lawrence KS. 🤮
These and TX US175BusPoy made me more conservative about jumping on changes right when they're approved, preferring to wait until signage is confirmed.
-
I think I made a slightly different point, WRT Texas -- if the state DOT formally adopts a roadway segment (such as by TX Transportation Commission order?) as an Interstate route, after getting any necessary AASHTO and FHWA approvals, we needn't wait for signage. But the state needs to affirmatively follow up on the Federal-level approvals, even if not necessarily (but ideally) by putting up signs. That avoids a situation like US 90 relocation in Beaumont TX where the DOT gets approvals, then decides "oh, never mind".
So I see another potential distinction here: relocation versus extension.
If a route is currently signed as going one particular way, it makes sense to not jump immediately on paper changes due to the concerns mentioned above: the possibility exists that the DOT won't actually bother to change the signs in which case what the signs say continues to govern.
But if a route (or part of a route) is simply not signed currently, then this isn't an issue. So there is no reason to hold off on connecting I-265 because there is no existing different signed routing and therefore no risk that IN and/or KY will ultimately decide to leave it signed elsewhere.
And I would favor inclusion of I-69 in Memphis and the I-555 extension for the same reason, provided that they both in fact have AASHTO and FHWA approval (sounds like the latter may not have okayed one of them yet?)
-
It's worth noting that neither this portion of I-265 nor I-69 through Memphis are marked as interstate in FHWA's map, despite being at least AASHTO approved (interestingly, I-69 in Mississippi is, despite not being built yet). Someone with more knowledge of I-555 can check that one. It would seem that the change has simply not happened, not that it did but is not signed.
-
And I would favor inclusion of I-69 in Memphis and the I-555 extension for the same reason, provided that they both in fact have AASHTO and FHWA approval (sounds like the latter may not have okayed one of them yet?)
I-69 does have FHWA approval in TN. I still have on my HD the PDF file from the FHWA approving it between the MS border & TN-300 (which, I might add, is all on existing Interstates) that was posted on the AASHTO website, dated January 18, 2008.
-
Later this month I should have time to contact INDOT and KYTC to assess whether they ever intend to sign the bridge as I-265. Any changes will depend on their response.
-
I clinched I-265/IN 265/KY 841 Friday, and I did notice that I-265 mile markers in IN continue a mile or so east of I-65 (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.3459088,-85.7440452,3a,15y,298.14h,87.79t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sz4KZ4LSNQm_5WpHFf6MEqw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). I am unsure if that means anything for the future.
I also noticed widening of I-265/KY 841 going on in KY (https://transportation.ky.gov/DistrictFive/Pages/Interstate-265-Widening-Project.aspx) as well, but I am unsure if the signage plans at I-71 would be of any help here.
EDIT: Note that the 37 point on KY 841 will need to be relocated as well. Right now it is shown as a direct connection to US 42 that may have been left over from before the completion of the Ohio River Bridge.
-
INDOT was unable to understand what I was asking, but according to KYTC, both states have discussed signing it as I-265 and just haven't moved on it yet because it would be expensive.
-
I also noticed widening of I-265/KY 841 going on in KY (https://transportation.ky.gov/DistrictFive/Pages/Interstate-265-Widening-Project.aspx) as well, but I am unsure if the signage plans at I-71 would be of any help here.
Mentioned southbound only as of this summer.
-
INDOT was unable to understand what I was asking, but according to KYTC, both states have discussed signing it as I-265 and just haven't moved on it yet because it would be expensive.
Are they insisting on the "replace whole sign and supports" method of updating things? I wouldn't think taking down the old shields and putting in the new would be that expensive.
-
INDOT was unable to understand what I was asking, but according to KYTC, both states have discussed signing it as I-265 and just haven't moved on it yet because it would be expensive.
Are they insisting on the "replace whole sign and supports" method of updating things? I wouldn't think taking down the old shields and putting in the new would be that expensive.
Maybe it has to do with the MUTCD in relation to the KY 841 NB Exits (see here from I-71 SB (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.3175509,-85.5753508,3a,75y,298.62h,89.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssA-oCwjDqkps96tMTLSooQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192))...
-
I don't get it. What are we looking at?
-
I don't get it. What are we looking at?
The sign for the KY 841 NB exit specifically. I think that there may be issues with keeping KY 841 and the TOLL BRIDGE banner in regard to adding I-265. Maybe that requires a complete sign replacement IMO.
-
So they spent $241 million to build the bridge and road, but can't find a couple hundred thousand to sign it?
-
The sign for the KY 841 NB exit specifically. I think that there may be issues with keeping KY 841 and the TOLL BRIDGE banner in regard to adding I-265. Maybe that requires a complete sign replacement IMO.
So... patch over KY 841 then. Doesn't need to be signed there anymore if 265 is.
I dunno, this whole thing seems like it's just moving at government bureaucracy speed and there's really no rationale beyond that. They'll get around to it, but it's not a priority.
-
Finally an update: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=6283.msg2823231#msg2823231
-
Wegenwiki reporting (unsourced) that it's now signed as I-265
https://www.wegenwiki.nl/index.php?title=Interstate_265_in_Indiana&curid=3130&diff=360302&oldid=329663
https://www.wegenwiki.nl/index.php?title=Interstate_265_in_Kentucky&curid=3174&diff=360301&oldid=262696
-
I was there 2 weeks ago and signs at I-71 had not changed, so I'll wait for photos.
-
I was there 2 weeks ago and signs at I-71 had not changed, so I'll wait for photos.
Of course, I only posted as a heads up that this might (finally) be happening.
-
As of today there's no change as signed from northbound I-65.