Travel Mapping
Highway Data Discussion => Updates to Highway Data => Solved Highway data updates => Topic started by: Bickendan on May 10, 2018, 03:27:13 pm
-
Users on aaroads are reporting local-express system of I-5 at I-90 now having split route signage.
The C/D lanes are signed as I-5 Bus, while the mainline remain I-5 prime.
This probably requires creation of a biz 5 file which takes the rxits I-5.wpt had, including I-90.
-
Users on aaroads are reporting local-express system of I-5 at I-90 now having split route signage.
The C/D lanes are signed as I-5 Bus, while the mainline remain I-5 prime.
This probably requires creation of a biz 5 file which takes the rxits I-5.wpt had, including I-90.
Where else are those markers posted? If there's only two, at one exit, might be a one-off mistake that will not last for long.
The other thing is that, apparently, the C/D lanes share the same centerline, and are within the same ROW, as the main lanes. But for the oddball signage, we'd just treat both main and C/D lanes as one route.
Also, have AASHTO/FHWA approved the addition of a new Interstate business route?
-
From the comments to the Reddit thread about this sign:
[–] wsdot Washington State Department of Transportation 2 points 9 days ago
It's a temporary sign we put in place to try to clarify some of the options for drivers during the big northbound I-5 paving/expansion joint (#ReviveI5) project.
-
Looks to me like usage of an incorrect shield and terminology for what most places would call "local" vs. "express" lanes or something like that. I don't think we want to put it in TM.
-
The only counter I have is AP-7/B-30 in Barcelona.
-
The only counter I have is AP-7/B-30 in Barcelona.
There's similar situations with the A2/N2 around Eindhoven, the A1/RA1 around Bologna and the A6a/A6b in Paris - the express carriageways have one number, the locals another and it continues for some distance. It's a relatively rare thing that does exist elsewhere rather than some confusing thing we've never had to deal with before this Seattle case.
If there's an application to AASHTO for I-5 Bus later this month, or if the signage is not temporary and is consistent, then add it. If not, don't. Classic TM rules really.
-
AASHTO/FHWA are completely unconcerned with Interstate business routes. Always have been.
Thus that's not a factor in any decision whether/not to add.
If it's only temporary signage during a construction project, then let's not add it; I'm with Jim here.
--
In addition to Bickendan & Si's examples, I'll throw out that it's fairly common in Texas, when a toll road is involved, to have one number/designation on the mainline, and another number on the frontage roads. TX130/US183, GeoBushTpk/161, GeoBushTpk/190, TX183A/US183, and maybe more...
-
I'll look into reaching out to WSDOT and see what they say. I agree on not adding it if it's only a temporary designation.
-
AASHTO/FHWA are completely unconcerned with Interstate business routes. Always have been.
Thus that's not a factor in any decision whether/not to add.
An application is about the state's intent though, rather than AASHTO caring.
-
Point.
Wasn't it the case recently that a state applied for a business Interstate designation, and AASHTO was like "Dude that's not our bag"?
-
I'll look into reaching out to WSDOT and see what they say. I agree on not adding it if it's only a temporary designation.
Yeah, I'm not a fan of adding this one.
-
Fired off an email to WSDOT, and asked them about WA 409, 433, and the Hood River Bridge while I was at it.
-
Fired off an email to WSDOT, and asked them about WA 409, 433, and the Hood River Bridge while I was at it.
Out of curiosity, did you ever get a response from them regarding this?
-
Not for I-5 Bus, and it wasn't on the list of AASHTO submissions for Spring 2018.
Puget Island Ferry's a county maintained ferry, no changes to WA 409.
WA 433 officially ends at the border while WSDOT maintenance extends to the end of the bridge in Oregon.
Washington portion of the Hood River Bridge is officially WA 35, but so far, is unsigned.