SK: TCH 16 in Saskatoon

[vdeane]

There's a post on AARoads stating that TCH 16 actually splits (similar to I-95 on the New Jersey Turnpike) on the ring road, and it appears to be signed that way as well.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18478.msg2272966#msg2272966

[oscar]

Route signage in Saskatoon is really, really screwed up, with multiple instances of inconsistent signage. Complicating things is that Circle Drive (except perhaps the northeast quadrant) is city- rather than province-maintained. I don't take the signage mentioned in the AARoads post seriously.

That came up in a discussion of a newly-opened segment of the Regina bypass between Victoria Avenue and SK 33. That is clearly signed as part of TCH 1, but it's unclear whether the existing routing between SK 33 and the TCH/Regina Bypass interchange (parts of Ring Rd. and Victoria Ave.) has already been removed from the TCH. I expect that once the bypass is finished in a few years, TCH 1 will be moved to the bypass, perhaps with the Ring Road segment removed from TCH 1 added to SK 11. Absent better information, I might go ahead and add the new Regina Bypass segment to the HB as TCHRegByp, while leaving TCHMai intact for now except to add a point for the Regina Bypass interchange, and tweak a few other points affected by bypass construction.

[yakra]

TCHBypReg, rather?
Or, if you wanna be consistent with the convention used for the handful of child routes in Manitoba, TCHReg.

[oscar]

An April 2018 video, posted over in the AARoads forum, shows that route markers once indicating TCH 1 had been moved to the incomplete Regina Bypass have been greened out, and the Ring Rd. part of TCH 1 remains signed as such. So no need to change anything for the TCH (already added a point for the Regina Bypass interchange east of Regina, as well as for SK 33 at its interchange at the other end of the open bypass segment).

I could add the open part of the bypass to the in-dev cannf system (at least westbound, it appears not to be signed as a provincial route). But I would rather wait until the next phase of the bypass is opened (probably late next year), at which time it likely will become the new routing for TCH 1 around Regina.

[julmac]

An April 2018 video, posted over in the AARoads forum, shows that route markers once indicating TCH 1 had been moved to the incomplete Regina Bypass have been greened out, and the Ring Rd. part of TCH 1 remains signed as such. So no need to change anything for the TCH (already added a point for the Regina Bypass interchange east of Regina, as well as for SK 33 at its interchange at the other end of the open bypass segment).

Cool vid, including a pass-by of my home visible from SK 33 (Arcola Ave). I'm happy with this section of the bypass but I am less impressed with the chosen location past this point which adds an extra 4.5 km travel distance. An earlier concept had the bypass heading directly to TC 1 at the curve east of SK 6. A more complex and expensive connection at the west end for sure, but saving of 11 km of new freeway.

I could add the open part of the bypass to the in-dev cannf system (at least westbound, it appears not to be signed as a provincial route). But I would rather wait until the next phase of the bypass is opened (probably late next year), at which time it likely will become the new routing for TCH 1 around Regina.

Good call, agreed. By the way, who is maintaining cannf?

[oscar]

By the way, who is maintaining cannf?

Nobody in particular. Team members make spot changes as needed, especially in the jurisdictions for which they are responsible. For example, I added Circle Drive to cannf since I needed to use waypoints from that route file for several cansk routes. Ditto the northwestern part of the Regina Bypass, if it isn't assigned a route number whenever it opens. However, neither I nor anyone else is responsible for completing cannf, or pushing it into preview or active status so users can map their travels.

[yakra]

I am less impressed with the chosen location past this point which adds an extra 4.5 km travel distance. An earlier concept had the bypass heading directly to TC 1 at the curve east of SK 6. A more complex and expensive connection at the west end for sure, but saving of 11 km of new freeway.

This design really left me scratching my head. Looking at this area, it seems ROW and frontage roads really should not have been a problem. A 3-way interchange at the west end (a trumpet, even?), I'd think would be simpler than this ponderous 4-way mess they have there now.
Sure, there'd need to be a new split with SK1/6, but OTOH, no need for the SK6 interchange south of town. And as you said, save 11 km of new freeway.
How does this get the green light? Direct & sensible routes aside, don't people wanna build things cheap?