freeways missing from usasf

[yakra]

There are a couple on the list I could get behind but most of these seem unimportant.

My takeaway here too.

-- I don't like the idea of adding to usasf routes that would belong in usaca (CA 259) or usanv (NV 171) if their route numbers were signed. EDIT: But then there's Florida's Turnpike, which has two unsigned route numbers, but is also one of the main reasons why we need usasf in the first place -- so let's not get carried away with this as a possible guideline.

I think usasf could be a good landing pad for unsigned routes left out of state systems, as long as they're freeways. Don't know how CA259 or NV171 would qualify here.

CT Bradley International Airport Connector some recent construction has reduced the portion of the connector that is freeway and not part of CT 20 down to essentially nothing. So this should be out of consideration.

This was discussed and nixed before, on the grounds of already being short & non-freeway.

NJ 76C is a long exit ramp and has no signed name. Methinks this does not belong in usasf. However in the event we were to make a system for the unsigned NJ state routes it would absolutely go in there.

I stumbled across this a while back. Based on how NJ is classifying things, I don't think a state route set would be the right fit. I thought about adding it to usai (compare OH I-480War) but ultimately took no action...

NY Central Westchester Parkway is county maintenance, so should be categorically excluded.

Not necessarily. There's Nevada's CR 215 beltway as Oscar mentioned, as well as a potential freeway in Oklahoma. (LL Tisdale?)

NY CR 97 and CR 99 (Suffolk County) a.k.a. Nicolls Rd and Woodside Ave, respectively, should also be categorically excluded on account of being county routes.

I'd just nix these on "not a freeway" grounds, the latter also being too short.

NY Inner Loop (Rochester) is worth including even in abbreviated form.

Meh... I was more enthusiastic about it before it was slighted, but... maybe?

NY JFK Expressway (Queens) has been proposed for addition in the past by others. I think it would be worth adding.

ISTR this one being mentioned on the AARoads thread for potential usasf additions. Maybe.

Related:
http://travelmapping.net/hb/?r=tx.sp0097 should probably be moved to usasf as IntPkwy. Most of it is not Spur 97, and I don't think it's signed.

It is signed, even if not terribly thoroughly.

neroute2 is correct; Most of it is not Spur 97. Designation file says "From south entrance of Dallas-Fort Worth Regional Airport, southward to SH 183." Shapefiles have the end at the Fort Worth / Euless boundary, pretty much right at the edge of the interchange footprint. Meaning the sign that Duke87 posted is effectively at the end of the route. Note the pavement change.
For the sake of correctness, TXSpr97 should be truncated, and IntPkwy should pick up the rest of the route.
Do we have it go all the way south to the TX183 interchange, or pick up at the city line where TXSpr97 leaves off? Edit: Statewide Planning Map has MM 0 at the city line. Which may not mean much in terms of the named route, but why not go with that.
The old TXLp97 AltRouteName is only used in ovoss_old.list.
As noted in another thread, Texas toll roads need a rethink.

When I tried to add Alaska's Johansen Expressway to usasf, the one at-grade in the middle was fatal.

It shouldn't have been, given the following others that have at-grades not at the endpoints:
http://travelmapping.net/hb/index.php?r=ks.turdia (recent downgrading)

I always thought this one was a bit borderline, and it gave me indigestion when the downgrade was proposed like immediately after it was added to the HB. I kinda wanna give it the axe.

http://travelmapping.net/hb/index.php?r=ny.brorivpkwy
http://travelmapping.net/hb/index.php?r=ny.sawmillpkwy
http://travelmapping.net/hb/index.php?r=ny.tacstapkwy

These will be eventually transferred to usanyp upon its activation; it'll then be a moot point in terms of usasf criteria.

http://travelmapping.net/hb/index.php?r=tx.chitrlpkwy

Nolan River Road, eh? Well, crap...
(Might be worth it to dig a little deeper and see if the CTP designation ends farther north)
Edit: This map shows it going all the way to the S edge of the US67 interchange footprint. This map has less detail overall but still shows the CTP all the way down to US67, as well as Future Direct Connect Ramps. Time will take care of this one in theory, so I won't worry about it.

This is especially problematic when you consider the game has already been ongoing for quite some time. I myself have 100% clinches of four states, and for all of them I used what was in CHM/TM as a checklist to determine what I did and did not need to clinch. I would not appreciate losing one of these 100% clinches because someone decided to move the goalposts ex post facto.

To water down this argument a bit, the DOTs will do this themselves, with extensions, relocations, and new designations...

This happens when the road authority makes a change but adding a route just because a TM highway data manager feels like this, is something different.

The end effect is the same, in terms of Duke87's post.

It's one thing to need to go back to clinch a route which simply didn't exist at the time I was last in the area. It's another to need to go back to clinch a route which was physically there but which was just not included on TM at the time.

Or not. Subjective judgment, I guess.

It's also worth noting that the degree to which the goalposts "move on their own" varies greatly from state to state. Within the last decade, there has only been one change each to the signed state/US/interstate highway networks of NJ (the first section of US 206 Bypass opening) and CT (truncation of CT 34). RI has had two (reroute of US 1 onto I-95 in Pawtucket, realignment of I-195), and MA has had none unless you count the creation of the two "historic" US route segments.

NJ: Oi, don't forget I-95!
RI: The Iway's >10 now, I believe.
CT: Do you mean at the E end, to CT10? The full extent is still in the HB, and a recent check of shapefiles & town maps suggest it's still offically CT34, albeit poorly or unsigned. Ecch, I hate these short unsigned segments of otherwise-signed routes...
MA: usaush, that's... yeah. Indigestion.

I had a segment of former MN 101 on my initial drafts of the MN state system, despite it being unsigned MN 801, because it was an important link between two major routes (US 169 and MN 13).  Tim took it out at some point because Tim, but it's something I wouldn't mind putting back in, especially now that it is effectively all-freeway.

Sounds like this is less "because Tim" and more "because unsigned"...

> CT Whitehead Highway (former I-484)
The fact that it's a former (actual? proposed?) interstate shouldn't make a difference IMO. A ~0.58 mi stub, a glorified exit ramp.

> KS Woodie Seat Freeway (Hutchinson)
A glorified city street, that happens to have an interchange in the middle. And some at-grades at the S end. Doesn't even connect to anything else in the system. I'll pass; I'm not down with including every little stub.

> MA Plimoth Plantation Highway (former MA 3)
Sure, why not.

> NE Storz Expressway
> NH Raymond Wieczorek Drive
Not freeways.

> NY 984J (connects I-684 to HRP)
Real damn short. Like CA259, no name to call it?

> NY Adirondack Northway (south of I-90)
> NY Central Westchester Parkway
> NY South Mall Arterial (Albany)
Stubsville

> NY West Street (Syracuse)
Glorified street, mostly non-freeway

> OK Chickasaw Turnpike
Relatively minor, short, not all freeway. I could see this happening if an Oklahoma Turnpikes system was carved out of usasf, similar to what happened with Kentucky Parkways some years back.

> OK LL Tisdale Parkway (special shields)
Hm, ISTR this was considered back in the CHM days; seems it was dropped. Due to length, maybe? (Shorter stuff has since made the cut.) ISTR one of the proposed OK routes being locally maintained; maybe this one if the "CR LL" tag shown on OSM is any indication. There's an at-grade near the N end.

> RI Airport Connector
Proposed before, and tabled. Short, questionably significant, problematic terminus. Pass.

> TX FM 1764
Only freeway between I-45 & TX146. Personally, I'm not a big fan of truncating routes just to include a partial, freeway, segment. Or including non-freeway routes in a nominally freeway system.
This falls within the scope of usatxf / usatxf4.

> TX PA 1502 (Wurzbach Parkway)
This was discussed in the Texas systems thread.

> TX PR 22 (Padre Island)
Largely non-freeway; see above.
Could conceivably fall within the scope of a "Select Park Roads" system, but it'd be very low priority.

[cl94]

Regarding the NY cases, the Central Westchester and stub end of the Northway are major links. I would include them in some fashion.

The Central Westchester, while county maintenance, would be a better fit in usanyp. While it might be a "county route", it's far more major and a real "parkway" than some of the stuff currently in usanyp just because of reference route number (cough...LOSP spur and Cross Bay Parkway). Playland Parkway might belong in the usanyp club as well, being as it is partially grade-separated and there's no doubt that it's a parkway. When it comes to Westchester, state maintenance is not the sole indicator of something being a parkway.

[Duke87]

It's also worth noting that the degree to which the goalposts "move on their own" varies greatly from state to state. Within the last decade, there has only been one change each to the signed state/US/interstate highway networks of NJ (the first section of US 206 Bypass opening) and CT (truncation of CT 34). RI has had two (reroute of US 1 onto I-95 in Pawtucket, realignment of I-195), and MA has had none unless you count the creation of the two "historic" US route segments.

NJ: Oi, don't forget I-95!

Didn't forget it - this is not a goalpost move since no pavement was added to or removed from the system. The same roads just changed designations. Nothing needed to be reclinched as a result of this.

CT: Do you mean at the E end, to CT10? The full extent is still in the HB, and a recent check of shapefiles & town maps suggest it's still offically CT34, albeit poorly or unsigned. Ecch, I hate these short unsigned segments of otherwise-signed routes...

That's what I mean, yes.

Look closely at the state highway map and you will notice that maintenance of the one-way pair of surface streets east of CT 10 has been turned back over to the city of New Haven (as they wanted). What remains of the Oak Street connector is still officially designated CT 34, but is disconnected from the rest.

Signage for CT 34 was deliberately removed from I-91/95 in this area and added to signage for exit 44, because ConnDOT (and the city of New Haven) wants traffic heading to CT 34 west to go that way rather than cutting through downtown.

I do suppose it remains to be seen whether The remaining Oak Street Connector will get redesignated as SR 7xx or whether the status quo of "it sort of is and sort of isn't" CT 34 will remain basically forever.

[neroute2]

Look closely at the state highway map and you will notice that maintenance of the one-way pair of surface streets east of CT 10 has been turned back over to the city of New Haven (as they wanted). What remains of the Oak Street connector is still officially designated CT 34, but is disconnected from the rest.

This is nothing new. 34 has always had a maintenance gap; all that changed is that 706 no longer exists. That state highway map also (correctly) shows the gap on 83 in Manchester.

[oscar]

-- I don't like the idea of adding to usasf routes that would belong in usaca (CA 259) or usanv (NV 171) if their route numbers were signed. EDIT: But then there's Florida's Turnpike, which has two unsigned route numbers, but is also one of the main reasons why we need usasf in the first place -- so let's not get carried away with this as a possible guideline.

I think usasf could be a good landing pad for unsigned routes left out of state systems, as long as they're freeways. Don't know how CA259 or NV171 would qualify here.

Both CA 259 and NV 171 are short (about a mile long each, not counting locally-maintained parts of the Las Vegas airport connector).

neroute2's list for California includes one item (a county freeway in Bakersfield) that is long enough, but rather obscure -- I never heard of it before, even though I'm a frequent visitor to the state and used to live there. On hold until we work out some criteria for usasf additions.

[yakra]

The Central Westchester, while county maintenance, would be a better fit in usanyp. While it might be a "county route", it's far more major and a real "parkway" than some of the stuff currently in usanyp just because of reference route number (cough...LOSP spur and Cross Bay Parkway). Playland Parkway might belong in the usanyp club as well, being as it is partially grade-separated and there's no doubt that it's a parkway. When it comes to Westchester, state maintenance is not the sole indicator of something being a parkway.

usanyp was purposefully restricted to only nysdot routes with a reference number (grandfathering in only the full Bronx River Pkwy, which has a reference number only in New York City). I want to keep the criteria for inclusion pretty restrictive, to avoid "should we add this?" mission creep.

Didn't forget it - this is not a goalpost move since no pavement was added to or removed from the system. The same roads just changed designations. Nothing needed to be reclinched as a result of this.

Aa, sou. RI I-95... new C/D roadway, I'll give it. CT34 is more borderline, only pavement change affecting it TMK is at the terminal interchange; it becomes a question of how precise a given traveler wishes to be.
...But I'm getting off topic.

This is nothing new. 34 has always had a maintenance gap; all that changed is that 706 no longer exists. That state highway map also (correctly) shows the gap on 83 in Manchester.

Interesting. I had thought up toll now that in CT, signed state route -> state maintained, period.

Signage for CT 34 was deliberately removed from I-91/95 in this area and added to signage for exit 44, because ConnDOT (and the city of New Haven) wants traffic heading to CT 34 west to go that way rather than cutting through downtown.

I do suppose it remains to be seen whether The remaining Oak Street Connector will get redesignated as SR 7xx or whether the status quo of "it sort of is and sort of isn't" CT 34 will remain basically forever.

Whether still CT34 on paper, it's unsigned, and the city and state have taken steps to direct thru CT34 traffic away from that corridor.
If this is how I'm going to treat TX364, then I should just cut the procrastination and truncate CT34 already.

Both CA 259 and NV 171 are short (about a mile long each, not counting locally-maintained parts of the Las Vegas airport connector).

Fully freeway?

[yakra]

Edited my earlier post, adding comments on the endpoints of ChiTrlPkwy & IntPkwy/TXSpr97.

[US 89]

Both CA 259 and NV 171 are short (about a mile long each, not counting locally-maintained parts of the Las Vegas airport connector).

Fully freeway?

Nevada 171 consists only of the segment between I-215 and Sunset Rd, which is entirely freeway. The non-freeway portions of the connector north of Sunset are all maintained by Clark County and are not NV 171.

[Eth]

Here are some from the list that stand out for whatever reason:

<snip>

length
GA Sugarloaf Parkway (6 mi)

I drove both this and the nearby Ronald Reagan Pkwy (which is already in the system) today. If RRP is good enough to be included, so is Sugarloaf, the freeway portion of which is of similar length, maintained by the same authority, and built to a slightly higher standard (wider shoulders, and good enough for a speed limit of 55 instead of 50).

[yakra]

I myself have 100% clinches of four states, and for all of them I used what was in CHM/TM as a checklist to determine what I did and did not need to clinch. I would not appreciate losing one of these 100% clinches because someone decided to move the goalposts ex post facto.

I see that MA is one of your 100% clinched states. Have you got the Plimouth Plantation Hwy?
MA3 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=41.932213&lon=-70.641964
SanRd http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=41.933924&lon=-70.629792
RivSt http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=41.936458&lon=-70.623285
MA3A http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=41.938626&lon=-70.613404

[Duke87]

I myself have 100% clinches of four states, and for all of them I used what was in CHM/TM as a checklist to determine what I did and did not need to clinch. I would not appreciate losing one of these 100% clinches because someone decided to move the goalposts ex post facto.

I see that MA is one of your 100% clinched states. Have you got the Plimouth Plantation Hwy?

I don't *think* I do - but having made no deliberate effort to keep track (since it never mattered before), I can't definitively say no.

Don't let me stop you from adding it if I'm the only reason not to, though.

I'd seriously consider marking it off as clinched anyway purely on the grounds that once I have a 100% clinch of MA which was obtained legitimately and in good faith based on the rules in play at the time, I should be entitled to keep it.

[neroute2]

You'd better check the Route 62 realignment in Clinton too.

[Markkos1992]

NY Inner Loop was added in this thread (https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=4110.0).

[mapcat]

Re the LL Tisdale Pkwy in Tulsa: yes, it does have an at-grade intersection at its north end: its intersection with the Gilcrease Expy, which is in the HB. OSM shows both of these routes as county-maintained there (the eastern part of the Gilcrease is OK 11 and the future section will be OTA-controlled). It's about 3 miles long according to Wikipedia, so I wouldn't mind seeing it added in.

[yakra]

How does OSM show maintenance?
Oh -- CR G and CR LL tags.

ETA: I suppose we could follow the "truncate to just the freeway bits" precedent set with GilExpy & numerous other usasf routes.