Author Topic: I-676 in Philadelphia  (Read 495 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline vdeane

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 224
  • Gender: Female
  • Last Login:January 17, 2021, 07:13:31 pm
    • New York State Roads
I-676 in Philadelphia
« on: January 06, 2021, 09:33:24 pm »
The route of I-676 around the Ben Franklin Bridge came up in a thread on AARoads today.  I had thought it was as shown with only PennDOT having it routed to I-95, but it appears that FHWA agrees with them on their map.  They have I-676 going to I-95 in PA; the section in NJ ends at the state line in the middle of the river and the PA side of the Ben Franklin Bridge is marked "S676" as if it was a state route.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

Offline neroute2

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 643
  • Last Login:Today at 08:33:31 pm
Re: I-676 in Philadelphia
« Reply #1 on: January 06, 2021, 10:50:34 pm »
Penndot maps clearly show I-676 leaving SR 0676 to cross the bridge.

Offline Markkos1992

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1101
  • Last Login:Today at 07:10:58 pm
Re: I-676 in Philadelphia
« Reply #2 on: January 07, 2021, 12:56:22 pm »
Since I-676 is signed as a continuous route that crosses the Ben Franklin Bridge, I see no reason to change anything.

I presume that this was settled way back in the days of Clinched Interstate Mapping.

Offline cl94

  • TM Collaborator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 109
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 07:39:21 pm
Re: I-676 in Philadelphia
« Reply #3 on: January 07, 2021, 11:10:58 pm »
Precedent with Interstates is to follow the FHWA definition, not what is signed. The official definition on the PA side is that it ends at I-95.

Offline Duke87

  • TM Collaborator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 438
  • Last Login:Today at 08:41:14 pm
Re: I-676 in Philadelphia
« Reply #4 on: January 07, 2021, 11:37:11 pm »
Precedent with Interstates is to follow the FHWA definition, not what is signed. The official definition on the PA side is that it ends at I-95.

I-695 and 895 in MD plus I-495 in NY say hi.

Offline osu-lsu

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 70
  • Last Login:Today at 07:48:35 pm
Re: I-676 in Philadelphia
« Reply #5 on: January 08, 2021, 09:55:41 am »
Precedent with Interstates is to follow the FHWA definition, not what is signed.

What precedent is that?

Offline osu-lsu

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 70
  • Last Login:Today at 07:48:35 pm
Re: I-676 in Philadelphia
« Reply #6 on: January 08, 2021, 10:10:04 am »
The route of I-676 around the Ben Franklin Bridge came up in a thread on AARoads today.  I had thought it was as shown with only PennDOT having it routed to I-95, but it appears that FHWA agrees with them on their map.  They have I-676 going to I-95 in PA; the section in NJ ends at the state line in the middle of the river and the PA side of the Ben Franklin Bridge is marked "S676" as if it was a state route.

<groans>  ::)
Roadgeeks have been debating I-676/Ben Franklin Bridge since the start of internet time. This topic would come around once a year on MTR...20 YEARS AGO. This isn't a dead horse you're beating, it is its grave you're beating.  :pan:
Nothing has changed in PennDOT's routing, nor has any new ramps, or roads, been built in over 30 years. Nothing has changed since then.
Markkos' observation is correct, the routing for I-676 was sorted out in the 'Clinched Interstate Mapping' days.
Move along to more pertinent needs, like getting Mississippi's state system to preview, or getting Alabama, California, & Louisiana road systems to active.

Online Jim

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1996
  • Last Login:Today at 09:20:32 pm
Re: I-676 in Philadelphia
« Reply #7 on: January 08, 2021, 12:14:44 pm »
Precedent with Interstates is to follow the FHWA definition, not what is signed.

What precedent is that?

For some reason, way back to the CHM days, it was the rule that US Interstates are a special case and were mapped by their legal definitions over signage.  For example, MD I-595 has been in all along despite being a completely hidden designation.

I've never understood or liked that.

Offline Markkos1992

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1101
  • Last Login:Today at 07:10:58 pm
Re: I-676 in Philadelphia
« Reply #8 on: January 08, 2021, 12:56:35 pm »
Precedent with Interstates is to follow the FHWA definition, not what is signed.

What precedent is that?

For some reason, way back to the CHM days, it was the rule that US Interstates are a special case and were mapped by their legal definitions over signage.  For example, MD I-595 has been in all along despite being a completely hidden designation.

I've never understood or liked that.

My thoughts are that I-676 was given an exception to this rule to keep it a continuous route, but I doubt that we have documentation at this point to prove that.

Offline SSOWorld

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 126
  • Last Login:Today at 07:52:21 pm
Re: I-676 in Philadelphia
« Reply #9 on: January 08, 2021, 09:02:18 pm »
Time to treat US Interstates like any other system - and record only those signed?

That can remove the "Future Interstates" too.

However, Popularity might say otherwise.
Completed:
* Systems: WI
* by US State: AR: I; AZ: I; DE: I; IA: I, KS: I; MN: I; MA: I; MO: I; NE: I; RI: I; SD: I; WA: I; WI: I,US,WI;

Offline oscar

  • TM Collaborator
  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1097
  • Last Login:Today at 08:55:10 pm
    • Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: I-676 in Philadelphia
« Reply #10 on: January 08, 2021, 11:08:47 pm »
For some reason, way back to the CHM days, it was the rule that US Interstates are a special case and were mapped by their legal definitions over signage.  For example, MD I-595 has been in all along despite being a completely hidden designation.

I've never understood or liked that.

Might be an artifact of Tim's starting off his project as "Clinched Interstate Mapping", and wanting it to be comprehensive (including unsigned routes like I-595 in Maryland, and all of the Alaska and Puerto Rico Interstates). He kept it that way even after the project expanded to non-Interstate routes, for which he got fussbudgety about omitting unsigned routes rather than trying to be comprehensive.

It would not break my heart to remove completely unsigned Interstates, even if that would reduce my Interstate mileage by over 1300 miles (all covered by non-Interstate systems, including the preview Puerto Rico routes system).

But there are situations like I-676 where the signed route differs from that shown in FHWA maps, and it would make sense to stick with the signed route even if technically inaccurate.

Offline vdeane

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 224
  • Gender: Female
  • Last Login:January 17, 2021, 07:13:31 pm
    • New York State Roads
Re: I-676 in Philadelphia
« Reply #11 on: January 09, 2021, 11:51:36 pm »
The route of I-676 around the Ben Franklin Bridge came up in a thread on AARoads today.  I had thought it was as shown with only PennDOT having it routed to I-95, but it appears that FHWA agrees with them on their map.  They have I-676 going to I-95 in PA; the section in NJ ends at the state line in the middle of the river and the PA side of the Ben Franklin Bridge is marked "S676" as if it was a state route.

<groans>  ::)
Roadgeeks have been debating I-676/Ben Franklin Bridge since the start of internet time. This topic would come around once a year on MTR...20 YEARS AGO. This isn't a dead horse you're beating, it is its grave you're beating.  :pan:
Nothing has changed in PennDOT's routing, nor has any new ramps, or roads, been built in over 30 years. Nothing has changed since then.
Markkos' observation is correct, the routing for I-676 was sorted out in the 'Clinched Interstate Mapping' days.
Move along to more pertinent needs, like getting Mississippi's state system to preview, or getting Alabama, California, & Louisiana road systems to active.
Yes, I think there was a thread on the CHM forum that I remember, but at some point, my memory must have completely reversed who logged what.  My impression had been that PennDOT logged I-676 to I-95, and that FHWA logged it over the bridge.  Then it came up on AARoads, I looked it up, and was surprised to see FHWA log it to I-95.  Clearly I was mistaken, but now I feel I accidentally poked a hornets nest...

For some reason, way back to the CHM days, it was the rule that US Interstates are a special case and were mapped by their legal definitions over signage.  For example, MD I-595 has been in all along despite being a completely hidden designation.

I've never understood or liked that.

Might be an artifact of Tim's starting off his project as "Clinched Interstate Mapping", and wanting it to be comprehensive (including unsigned routes like I-595 in Maryland, and all of the Alaska and Puerto Rico Interstates). He kept it that way even after the project expanded to non-Interstate routes, for which he got fussbudgety about omitting unsigned routes rather than trying to be comprehensive.

It would not break my heart to remove completely unsigned Interstates, even if that would reduce my Interstate mileage by over 1300 miles (all covered by non-Interstate systems, including the preview Puerto Rico routes system).

But there are situations like I-676 where the signed route differs from that shown in FHWA maps, and it would make sense to stick with the signed route even if technically inaccurate.
Not to mention that the interstate system tends to hold some roadgeek mystique, such that keeping track of stats including the unsigned routes has greater interest than with other systems.  But yeah, it all boils down to the fact that, at one time, CHM only had the interstates (heck, I remember when it was nothing more than the Interstate Highway Browser!).

There probably wouldn't be much loss to removing unsigned interstates in the lower 48.  Nearly all of them are co-signed with something else already in TM, though there are a few that aren't; the Bismarck Expressway and Falmouth Spur could arguably be extended and added to usasf, and the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel looks similar to the East River bridges, which aren't in the system.  The portion of I-296 not in TM as anything else could be argued to be a pair of ramps.  Of course, I imagine there are at least a few people who would like to travel on all the given interstates in a given area, even unsigned ones, and this would also leave Alaska and Puerto Rico without Tier 1 systems (in the case of PR, it wouldn't have any system other than the territorial highways once that is activated, which is unusual for something of its size in the US... and finding its interstates would likely not be easy without TM as a reference).  I have to admit, I like having them in, though it does leave little inconsistencies.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

Online Jim

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1996
  • Last Login:Today at 09:20:32 pm
Re: I-676 in Philadelphia
« Reply #12 on: January 10, 2021, 09:45:49 am »
Building off of vdeane's comments, I'm thinking we could remove all unsigned interstates from usai, add freeway segments not otherwise in TM to usasf, and to keep the AK and PR routes that are part of the interstate system as Tier 1 in those regions, create new usaaki and usapri systems for those.  Or just move all of the unsigned ones throughout into usaui.  Users who only care about signed interstates just worry about usai and those who want signed and unsigned would aim to clinch both usai and usaui.  I would also add (unsigned) to the route names for the unsigned routes to prevent user confusion as to why, for example, their clinch of US 50 in Maryland gave them an I-595 they have never heard of and never knew they were on.
 

Offline si404

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1398
  • Last Login:Today at 08:01:03 pm
Re: I-676 in Philadelphia
« Reply #13 on: January 10, 2021, 12:16:22 pm »
What routes would be affected by removing unsigned interstates?

Obviously this list: https://www.interstate-guide.com/unsigned/
AK I-A1, I-A2, I-A3, I-A4
CA I-305
LA I-910
MD I-595
ME I-495
MI I-296
MT I-315
ND I-194
NY I-478, I-878
OK I-444
PR I-PR1, I-PR2, I-PR3
TN I-124
TX I-345

But are there messy ones that need to be truncated? Are there other routes that would need to be removed?

Offline cl94

  • TM Collaborator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 109
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 07:39:21 pm
Re: I-676 in Philadelphia
« Reply #14 on: January 10, 2021, 03:53:35 pm »
I'm against removing unsigned Interstates. That is not what I was suggesting with my comments. MOST of them are entirely concurrent with something else, but others (such as I-478, which technically has one intermediate interchange AND shows up on most maps) are independent and long enough to qualify for usasf.

If you want to split the unsigned Interstates into a separate system, fine. But I'm strongly opposed to removing anything from the system solely on the basis of being "unsigned" if several other sources say they exist.