Recent Posts

1

6-Month+ Highway Data Outlook / Re: DE: US 9 TRUCK (Georgetown) Realignment

« Last post by Markkos1992 on Today at 06:19:10 pm »

The Project Website (https://deldot.gov/projects/index.shtml?dc=details&projectNumber=T202004601) is currently stating completion is between July and September 2024.

2

Updates to Highway Data / HUN: M6 extension to Villány

« Last post by michih on Today at 10:17:38 am »

Should have been opened today.

https://www.skyscrapercity.com/threads/460510/post-188324319
https://travelmapping.net/hb/showroute.php?r=hun.m006&lat=45.927394&lon=18.572216&zoom=12

3

Updates to Highway Data / Re: I-11 Nevada northern extension

« Last post by cl94 on Today at 10:07:04 am »

And that's the thing- part of the extension is already signed. Sure, NDOT is taking their sweet time, but signs are going up along the extension. Signs have been going up for a while. If "signed" was the only thing I was using, I'd have made the change months ago.

I can certainly hold off if there's a clear concensus, but the extension is signed to some degree.

4

Updates to Highway Data / Re: I-11 Nevada northern extension

« Last post by vdeane on Today at 09:59:37 am »

In those cases, though, isn't it that the state hasn't changed the designation yet?  In the case of I-11, NDOT has, and there are already reports of signage going up, just piecemeal before NDOT does the full roll-out.

5

Updates to Highway Data / Re: I-11 Nevada northern extension

« Last post by rickmastfan67 on Today at 03:35:10 am »

Same thing with I-69 in TN in the Memphis area.  Has full AASHTO & FHWA approval, but we only have it as a 'future' Interstate due to 0 signage.

6

In-progress Highway Systems & Work / Re: usatr: United States select tourist routes

« Last post by shiggins on Yesterday at 10:23:35 pm »

I found another signed spur of the GRR in Atlas, IL. It is signed west along U.S. 54 toward "Pike Station River Access." This implies that the spur continues at least as far as 256th Street and maybe to Ralphs Landing Road or the Two Rivers Marina, but there are no signs in Pike Station or anywhere off IL 96 as far as I can tell.

I suspect there are more of these poorly but unambiguously signed spurs scattered all along the Illinois portion of the GRR in equally unlikely places, but I don't have time to look around for more tonight. I have only driven the stretch of the GRR from I-72 south to Mozier, so I can only safely say that there are not any additional spurs on that stretch beyond the three I have mentioned.

7

Updates to Highway Data / Re: I-11 Nevada northern extension

« Last post by SSOWorld on Yesterday at 10:19:39 pm »

There are no plans to add 344 and 335 in OK until they're signed. FYI.

8

In-progress Highway Systems & Work / Re: usatr: United States select tourist routes

« Last post by bejacob on Yesterday at 06:36:06 pm »

Not exactly trying to drop a new bomb in here, but what about adding the 49-mile drive in SF? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/49-Mile_Scenic_Drive

This is exactly the type of thing I absolutely do not want this system to scope creep into including. Random insignificant local nonsense that happens to have some signs, as opposed to the major multi-state spanning stuff like Great River Road that was the impetus for the system's creation.

I think San Franciscans might have some quibbles with your assertion that anything in The City is insignificant.

Insignificant might have been a somewhat controversial word choice.

I assumed this system to be "National" tourist routes which would be definition exclude state or local scenic/routes. My home state of Ohio has quite a few "scenic byways" that do not cross state lines. They don't belong is this system either. Admittedly, most are part of the existing state route system, but any portions that are not should be omitted.

There could be additional national routes worth including, but if the base criteria are that the route must be signed and exist in multiple states, that should limit the system to a reasonable scope.

9

In-progress Highway Systems & Work / Re: usatr: United States select tourist routes

« Last post by si404 on Yesterday at 05:51:58 pm »

I think San Franciscans might have some quibbles with your assertion that anything in The City is insignificant.

Every route* included in the system is, or is at least part of, a route where at least two states sign it, and the Federal Government recognises it in some way.

The 49-mile Scenic Drive doesn't even seem to be recognised by California as part of the state's State Scenic Highway System.

It is insignificant. It's indisputably local. It also seems to somewhat be random nonsense going round city streets in a loop for a couple of hours (in a city where driving isn't pleasant and there's great transit). At least this city street driving route has a theme beyond 'the city', and is part of a wider state system of tourist drives.

*Other than the Selma-Montgomery Trail. But as we have other NPS Trails, I felt it worth adding as part of that sub-system.

10

In-progress Highway Systems & Work / Re: usatr: United States select tourist routes

« Last post by IMGoph on Yesterday at 03:47:29 pm »

Not exactly trying to drop a new bomb in here, but what about adding the 49-mile drive in SF? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/49-Mile_Scenic_Drive

This is exactly the type of thing I absolutely do not want this system to scope creep into including. Random insignificant local nonsense that happens to have some signs, as opposed to the major multi-state spanning stuff like Great River Road that was the impetus for the system's creation.

I think San Franciscans might have some quibbles with your assertion that anything in The City is insignificant.