Author Topic: MS: Removal of US51SprJac and possible replacement in usasf?  (Read 8804 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline froggie

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 858
  • Last Login:November 23, 2024, 10:02:59 pm
MS: Removal of US51SprJac and possible replacement in usasf?
« on: September 28, 2021, 02:32:32 pm »
As part of my Mississippi Interstate/US route cleanup, I'm looking at US51SprJac and believing that I can now remove it (which would neatly solve some other problems cited by yakra in threads earlier this year).  While MDOT maps indicate it's still state-maintained, recent GMSV (done after completion of the I-55 South widening project) no longer shows any US 51 shields along the route, which was the main impetus for me keeping it as a spur route.

The question is whether I can (or should) replace part of it with a named "State Street" freeway spur in usasf.  It is technically a freeway spur with a partial interchange at Gallatin St, though the freeway segment does not cover the entire length of the state-maintained former US 51 spur (freeway ends before reaching US 80).

Looking for thoughts from the TM hive mind.

Offline rlee

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 88
  • Last Login:November 22, 2024, 05:59:49 pm
Re: MS: Removal of US51SprJac and possible replacement in usasf?
« Reply #1 on: September 28, 2021, 06:31:02 pm »
State Street remains MDOT maintained from I-20/55 to the south end of the creek bridge north of US 80.

Switching State St to a named freeway would be okay. It is significant as a downtown access route and a connection from the interstates to/from US 80.

Offline yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4422
  • Last Login:November 11, 2024, 12:50:03 pm
  • I like C++
Re: MS: Removal of US51SprJac and possible replacement in usasf?
« Reply #2 on: September 28, 2021, 08:37:50 pm »
Don't think I'd justify extending it all the way to Town Creek, past the at-grade intersections along the way.
That interchange at US80 makes me think... Indiana has two different examples of how an endpoint like this is handled.
Though along the way, there's the I-20 Exit 45B interchange, with its left turn across traffic, and the at-grade RxR thrown into the mix. Some might rightly consider that the end of the freeway too.

If I were making all of MS from scratch right now... it might not even strike me as enough of its own thing outside the 20/55/local streets interchange complex to be worth of inclusion. Even if it has a name and is a continuation of the surface road...
Sri Syadasti Syadavaktavya Syadasti Syannasti Syadasti Cavaktavyasca Syadasti Syannasti Syadavatavyasca Syadasti Syannasti Syadavaktavyasca

Offline bejacob

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 233
  • Last Login:November 23, 2024, 08:28:05 pm
Re: MS: Removal of US51SprJac and possible replacement in usasf?
« Reply #3 on: September 29, 2021, 11:01:43 am »
Despite having clinched this route, my preference is to remove it.

Online Markkos1992

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3301
  • Last Login:Today at 11:30:40 am
Re: MS: Removal of US51SprJac and possible replacement in usasf?
« Reply #4 on: September 29, 2021, 03:58:36 pm »
Question for yakra, is froggie's reasoning for having kept US51SprJac in MS your reasoning for keeping US64SprMar in AR?

Offline froggie

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 858
  • Last Login:November 23, 2024, 10:02:59 pm
Re: MS: Removal of US51SprJac and possible replacement in usasf?
« Reply #5 on: October 08, 2021, 12:06:01 pm »
I dug through existing usasf entries and found precedent for named freeway routes that include at-grade intersections.  For that reason, I've decided to include this spur in usasf.  The existing US51SprJac will be removed.

Offline yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4422
  • Last Login:November 11, 2024, 12:50:03 pm
  • I like C++
Re: MS: Removal of US51SprJac and possible replacement in usasf?
« Reply #6 on: October 08, 2021, 12:35:59 pm »
Although, should that precedent have been set in the first place?
Sri Syadasti Syadavaktavya Syadasti Syannasti Syadasti Cavaktavyasca Syadasti Syannasti Syadavatavyasca Syadasti Syannasti Syadavaktavyasca

Offline compdude787

  • TM Collaborator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 298
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:November 08, 2024, 12:26:51 pm
Re: MS: Removal of US51SprJac and possible replacement in usasf?
« Reply #7 on: October 08, 2021, 01:48:23 pm »
I dug through existing usasf entries and found precedent for named freeway routes that include at-grade intersections.  For that reason, I've decided to include this spur in usasf.  The existing US51SprJac will be removed.

Which routes have at grade intersections? Are there any besides some of the parkways in NY that have at grade intersections that are currently in usasf?

Offline osu-lsu

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 169
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 10:58:09 pm
Re: MS: Removal of US51SprJac and possible replacement in usasf?
« Reply #8 on: October 08, 2021, 02:20:55 pm »
I dug through existing usasf entries and found precedent for named freeway routes that include at-grade intersections.  For that reason, I've decided to include this spur in usasf.  The existing US51SprJac will be removed.

Which routes have at grade intersections? Are there any besides some of the parkways in NY that have at grade intersections that are currently in usasf?

Sam Cooper in Memphis

Offline yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4422
  • Last Login:November 11, 2024, 12:50:03 pm
  • I like C++
Re: MS: Removal of US51SprJac and possible replacement in usasf?
« Reply #9 on: October 08, 2021, 02:36:22 pm »
Question for yakra, is froggie's reasoning for having kept US51SprJac in MS your reasoning for keeping US64SprMar in AR?
I'm not sure how US51SprJac was inventoried by MS DOT, if was considered a spur or US51 proper or what.

AR US64SprMar, I'm not familiar with; that was added by mapcat in 2018 when he maintained AR. Looking into it...
Shapefiles show this as section 170 with no letter suffix, same as US64 west of I-55. So it appears, internally, it's part of US64 proper. Signed as such too.
Meaning, US64 is and is not concurrent with I-55.
Lovely.
Sri Syadasti Syadavaktavya Syadasti Syannasti Syadasti Cavaktavyasca Syadasti Syannasti Syadavatavyasca Syadasti Syannasti Syadavaktavyasca

Offline osu-lsu

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 169
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 10:58:09 pm
Re: MS: Removal of US51SprJac and possible replacement in usasf?
« Reply #10 on: October 08, 2021, 04:27:46 pm »
Question for yakra, is froggie's reasoning for having kept US51SprJac in MS your reasoning for keeping US64SprMar in AR?
I'm not sure how US51SprJac was inventoried by MS DOT, if was considered a spur or US51 proper or what.

AR US64SprMar, I'm not familiar with; that was added by mapcat in 2018 when he maintained AR. Looking into it...
Shapefiles show this as section 170 with no letter suffix, same as US64 west of I-55. So it appears, internally, it's part of US64 proper. Signed as such too.
Meaning, US64 is and is not concurrent with I-55.
Lovely.

Going by the signage, you'd think US 64 ends in Marion

(Photo taken by me in January, 2019)

Offline froggie

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 858
  • Last Login:November 23, 2024, 10:02:59 pm
Re: MS: Removal of US51SprJac and possible replacement in usasf?
« Reply #11 on: October 09, 2021, 01:02:58 am »
There's also a route in Indiana (don't recall which one offhand) in usasf with at-grade intersections.

MDOT data is a bit ambiguous when it comes to what I had labeled US51SprJac.  It was part of the former US 51 route through Jackson, but most of State St was turned back to the city and US 51 rerouted onto I-55 sometime in the 1980s.  However, the southernmost leg (that area covered by US51SprJac) remained on the state highway system...and EVERYTHING on the state highway system has a route number, whether it's signed or not.  I used US51SprJac because for many years, it continued to be signed as "US 51" (albeit without any banners).  Given our general policy of not including numbered routes if they're not signed, I opted to remove US51SprJac now that it is no longer signed as "US 51".

Hope that clears things up.

Offline rickmastfan67

  • TM Collaborator (A)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2064
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 11:00:40 pm
Re: MS: Removal of US51SprJac and possible replacement in usasf?
« Reply #12 on: October 09, 2021, 02:12:40 am »
I dug through existing usasf entries and found precedent for named freeway routes that include at-grade intersections.  For that reason, I've decided to include this spur in usasf.  The existing US51SprJac will be removed.

Which routes have at grade intersections? Are there any besides some of the parkways in NY that have at grade intersections that are currently in usasf?

Sam Cooper in Memphis


When I crafted that route, we decided that since it was a continuation of the named freeway, less than 1.5 miles of non-freeway, it was logical to put in the entire thing.

Offline yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4422
  • Last Login:November 11, 2024, 12:50:03 pm
  • I like C++
Re: MS: Removal of US51SprJac and possible replacement in usasf?
« Reply #13 on: October 09, 2021, 01:55:34 pm »
EVERYTHING on the state highway system has a route number, whether it's signed or not.
I wanna say ARDOT operates the same way; CMIIW.

I used US51SprJac because for many years, it continued to be signed as "US 51" (albeit without any banners).
This specifically sounds similar to AR US64SprMar.

Though while the 80s were quite a while ago, seems that this hasn't been US64 for even longer.
Sri Syadasti Syadavaktavya Syadasti Syannasti Syadasti Cavaktavyasca Syadasti Syannasti Syadavatavyasca Syadasti Syannasti Syadavaktavyasca

Offline mapmikey

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1227
  • Last Login:Today at 11:15:31 am
    • Co-curator Virginia Highways Project
Re: MS: Removal of US51SprJac and possible replacement in usasf?
« Reply #14 on: October 10, 2021, 11:26:06 am »
There's also a route in Indiana (don't recall which one offhand) in usasf with at-grade intersections.

MDOT data is a bit ambiguous when it comes to what I had labeled US51SprJac.  It was part of the former US 51 route through Jackson, but most of State St was turned back to the city and US 51 rerouted onto I-55 sometime in the 1980s.  However, the southernmost leg (that area covered by US51SprJac) remained on the state highway system...and EVERYTHING on the state highway system has a route number, whether it's signed or not.  I used US51SprJac because for many years, it continued to be signed as "US 51" (albeit without any banners).  Given our general policy of not including numbered routes if they're not signed, I opted to remove US51SprJac now that it is no longer signed as "US 51".

Hope that clears things up.

Spent some time trying to find anything useful to clear the US 51 onto State St question.

US 51 South posting in 2011 on State St approaching US 80 - https://goo.gl/maps/mXBCyS48bzJViqm96 - changed to TO US 49 by 2013
US 51 north leaving I-20/55 had a US 51 north BGS in 2011 - https://goo.gl/maps/wCGHSwxkvv1GVitx5 - removed by 2013
US 51 South was explicit on the BGS from US 51 south approaching I-20/55 in 2011 and removed by 2013
US 80 WB has had no route marker at all for State St in the GMSV era and the same is true at the bottom of its ramp.
US 80 EB has a US 51 South marker on its most recent GMSV of June 2018 - https://goo.gl/maps/nqqasxdenmiSJND27.  The ramp at the bottom has had only a US 51 shield sans banner pointing to the right during the GMSV era

I-20 WB had a US 51 North BGS up through 2011 - https://goo.gl/maps/2ykibtcPU2G8qTd67 - changed to just State St by 2013.  Same is true for I-55 NB approaching I-20.

I-20 EB had a US 51 North BGS up through 2007 and was removed by 2011.

There were no US 51 south references on either direction of I-20 in the GMSV era, despite US 51 being well posted on I-55 south of Jackson.

On the north end, there are also Begin/End maintenance signs on State street a little south of County Line Rd.  There is a sole US 51 south trailblazer to leave State at County Line but no indication to get on I-55 south and US 51 does not appear to be posted anywhere on I-55 north of I-20.

I checked a bunch of MDOT resources and found no designation for State St where still maintained as anything other than US 51.  Their county and city maps are terrible.  One map that color codes US routes still has State St colored that way.

This leaves the possibility that US 51 is discontinuous in Jackson (from an MDOT maintenance point of view) and they have chosen not to sign the portion on State St anywhere that they still maintain to presumably discourage through traffic on it.

Of course there is no AASHTO action and the MDOT Commission doesn't seem to have prior meetings available on its website - only the current one.  Annual reports exist but unless a project was done on the specific segment in question that won't be helpful.  The state highway log which is not all that old also has no designation for this.