KY/AR: New I-169 and I-57!

[the_spui_ninja]

Oh brother...
http://www.aaroads.com/blog/2017/05/07/interstate-additions-in-h-b-244/

Not sure when these will be signed...

[mapcat]

Thanks for the report. I'll watch for news about signage on I-169. Not planning on visiting the area anytime soon.

[bejacob]

I'll be in Little Rock in a couple weeks. I doubt there will be any "Future I-57" signage posted along US67 yet, but I'll keep an eye out just in case.

[yakra]

Note to self. AR US67 has already gotten the Operation Arkansas Cleanup treatment (not uploaded yet). Better get on that. Mumble Grumble.
And then -- another Up-D*te once I-57(42) labels become a thing. Mumble Grumble indeed.

[bejacob]

No Interstate signage on US67 (I-57) yet, though exits are now numbered.

[oscar]

I drove both routes last week, northbound in their entirety plus parts southbound. I saw no Interstate (future or otherwise) signs on either one. I've heard that at least the new I-169 needs more work to be eligible for even Future Interstate signs.

Since both routes are already covered in active systems, ISTM even if Future Interstate signage shows up, it should be a low priority to add them to our Future Interstates route set. Only once they graduate to full Interstate status do we really need to do anything.

[yakra]

https://twitter.com/shanebroadway/status/923571641422155776

large image #1
large image #2

[yakra]

Two Future I-57 signs have been spotted out in the wild:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=21289.msg2307839#msg2307839

[mapcat]

Two Future I-57 signs have been spotted out in the wild:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=21289.msg2307839#msg2307839

We're no longer adding miles to usaif except for routes not included in any other set, correct?

[yakra]

We're no longer adding miles to usaif except for routes not included in any other set, correct?

I, really... have no idea, at this point...
What have other contributors done recently when facing potential new usaif routes in their states? (I don't know the answer to that; haven't been following too closely...)
If it were my state, I'd probably add it in, and keep the system up-to-date & accurate, as long as it's still included. Even if it's a somewhat disliked system that's had some talk about going in the bin...

[vdeane]

I'd say keep it up to date if it's going to be kept and ditch the system if it's going to be ditched.

[oscar]

I'd say keep it up to date if it's going to be kept and ditch the system if it's going to be ditched.

There are some Future Interstate routes that are not yet in active systems, such as FI-905 in California, a few FI-49 segments in Arkansas, and I think one in Tennessee that includes a state route signed only as an FI and so isn't in the HB as an active state route. The system is worthwhile for those cases, at least.

As for the ones that are concurrent with routes in active systems (usually US routes), no biggie if one isn't added to the FI system, and no biggie if one isn't removed from the system. Once we have active state route systems for all 50 states, we can figure out at that point whether the FI system is worth keeping around. 

[Markkos1992]

I am linking the AARoads Interstate Guide Page on I-169 here since the original link is broken.  (https://www.interstate-guide.com/i-169-ky/)

[Markkos1992]

Apparently I-169 is now signed to some extent (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?msg=2951019) (though some speculate that this may be another AI group on FB that reported it).  I-57 will soon be for anyone that has paid attention to the I-57 thread on the AARoads Forum.

[mapcat]

Re I-169, since there's some debate on AAroads about the authenticity of that photo, I have reached out to KYTC for confirmation of the change.