KY: I-66FutBow

[mapcat]

Even though plans for an I-66 in Kentucky have been scrapped, per KYTC correspondence, the "Future I-66 Corridor" signs remain at several points east of I-65. I didn't see any towards the east end, and they have been replaced with "Future I-65 Spur" signs on the Natcher Pkwy. I'm going to trim the file down to just the segment east of I-65, but would prefer to eliminate the entire thing. We wait until signs have been added in order to officially add a segment to usaif, so does that work in reverse as well? I can't think of another instance where a future interstate ceased to exist (besides those which were elevated to full interstate status, of course).

Also, is there any reason to make all the points originally west of the truncated west end into alt labels for the new west end (or at least all of those currently in use)?

[bejacob]

If the route has been scrapped, it makes sense to remove it from TM. If I recall, this route follows the existing Kentucky Parkways, so as long as a user has that route in his file, dropping the I-66FutBow wouldn't change much.

Isn't the Natcher Pkwy getting the I-565 designation? If so, would it make sense to convert that part of I-66FutBow to I-565Fut or is that premature?
http://transportation.ky.gov/Program-Management/Documents/2016RecommendedProjectListing.pdf

[mapcat]

Isn't the Natcher Pkwy getting the I-565 designation? If so, would it make sense to convert that part of I-66FutBow to I-565Fut or is that premature?
http://transportation.ky.gov/Program-Management/Documents/2016RecommendedProjectListing.pdf

I was going to wait until the "future" signs specifically said 565. Same for 369 on the Audubon Pkwy (assuming that's the official number for that one).

[Jim]

I remain in favor of scrapping the usaif system as discussed in a different thread.  Since it's all or at least very close to all concurrent with routes that have other designations in the project, I don't think it adds anything.

[si404]

Consider the signs east of I-65 as just ones that haven't been taken down, but should have been. Treat them as signage errors.

[bejacob]

What's the status of the segment east of I-65 along the Cumberland Pkwy? Should that section of I-66FutBow also be removed? If the route really isn't going to become I-66, I'm with si404 that these are more like signage errors.

[yakra]

http://tm.teresco.org/logs/unmatchedfps.log

Code: [Select]

ky.i066futbow;KY109;PenPkwy;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;14.20
ky.i066futbow;KY293;KY109;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;11.41
ky.i066futbow;US231_Mor;US231_Bow;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;19.37
ky.i066futbow;US431;US231;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;16.68

[mapcat]

Here's the most detailed explanation I could get from KYTC regarding the signs, and the future of the Cumberland Pkwy as an interstate:

The Cumberland Parkway was identified in a Federal Authorization as a portion of the future I 66 corridor.  Although we are not actively pursuing the interstate, the designation remains and if activity were to resume on the I 66 corridor then the Cumberland Parkway would ultimately become the route used in this area.

This explains why some KYTC planning documents refer to work on/near the parkway as relating to I-66.

Given that they are "not actively pursuing the interstate", in contrast to their active pursuit of interstates along the Audubon, Natcher, and Purchase Parkways, and given that all mileage currently associated with the road is clinchable on other highways in existing systems, I intend to delete I-66FutBow in a week if there are no objections.

[yakra]

I object, your honor!
I latched onto the "the designation remains" bit. Their quote combined with the remaining signage tips me slightly in favor of retaining I-66FutBow.

given that all mileage currently associated with the road is clinchable on other highways in existing systems

I'd view that concern as part of the larger debate about whether to keep or scrap usaif.
Until we've got a definitive plan for scrapping it, I'd say to keep the route in place, and have future Interstates be future Interstates...
For my two cents, I'm still in favor of keeping usaif...

I remain in favor of scrapping the usaif system as discussed in a different thread.

Got a link to that thread handy? I'd like to reread it, and organize my thoughts.
The rest of my response probably belongs there...

[michih]

I intend to delete I-66FutBow in a week if there are no objections.

You had truncated I-66FutBow earlier. There were no objections but you've never deleted the route.

[yakra]

I object, your honor!

[michih]

Ok, I'll add the ? message icon indicating "wait for info"...

[rickmastfan67]

So, looks like we can axe it, as it's now officially becoming an I-x65 instead of I-66.  No idea 'which' I-x65 it will become yet, but since we have the file duplicated as Cumberland Parkway, I'd say just delete it and make it an alt label for CumPkwy after adding the I-66 labels as alt labels to that file (at least the ones that are in use of course).

https://guthrie.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=387291&fbclid=IwAR2L39Ll8DvVW04KIJCej0LUUvwJ1s5DB_X8xjA2-Cs2OBpsIYBE2uA_jx0
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=27732.0

[oscar]

So, looks like we can axe it, as it's now officially becoming an I-x65 instead of Future I-66.

Jumping the gun a bit, since the proposed legislation is not yet law. But the concurrency with the Cumberland Parkway is reason enough to axe the Future I-66 file right away, and wait to see what if any new I-x65 number is adopted.

[yakra]

Another topic with this very same title... a candidate to merge?
https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=1837