HI: Lots missing

[pderocco]

Decades ago, I circumnavigated both land masses on Maui. When I just tried to enter the routes I took into travelmapping, I discovered that much of the length of these roads has never been entered into the database. For instance, HI-340 part of the Kahekili Hwy, the roads it splits into, HI-3405 and HI-3400, HI-390, HI-371, HI-365 in the middle of the island, HI-3200 into Iao Valley, and HI-360 and HI-31 in the southern part of the island. Perhaps other Hawaiian Islands have the same issue.

[oscar]

^ Many if not all of the "missing" routes are county rather than state routes. Travel Mapping doesn't include county routes anywhere in the U.S., except for some county-maintained freeways (none of those in Hawaii).

It doesn't help that Hawaii's counties use the same kind of route markers as Hawaii DOT, with only "end state maintenance" signs marking where the state network ends. Hawaii used to have both state and county routes in a single highway system, but in 1968 Hawaii DOT split that system into separate state and county networks. We cover only the state routes defined by Hawaii DOT.

On specific routes you mention, the HI 340 part of the Kahekili Highway, west to the "end state maintenance" sign, is in TM. The rest of it is county 340. HI 3400 is in TM, but not what is signed as route 33 or 330 in Wailuku. "HI-3200" into Iao Valley is county 320. HI 31 from Kihei to Wailua is in TM; the rest of route 31 (including part between Hana and Kipahulu sometimes mis-signed as route 360) is a county route. 390, 365, and 371 are all county routes which were never part of the state highway system.

Kauai, Molokai, and Hawaii (Big Island) have signed county routes not included in TM. Honolulu County doesn't have any numbered county highways, though there are some signs remaining from a few former county routes.

[neroute2]

Is Hawaii the only place we treat identically-signed routes differently based on who maintains them?

[Jim]

Is Hawaii the only place we treat identically-signed routes differently based on who maintains them?

I'm not sure of the answer, but many of us remember the Vermont fights of the late CHM days.  Once TM came along we pretty quickly agreed that we didn't care of a Vermont state route went under town or whatever other maintenance, it should be mapped continuously.  Florida is annoyingly good at signing routes with county vs. state markers so we only map the state.  For Hawaii, is it the case that the routes are intended as a complete system and are signed as such even though it's pretty clear for those who look which are state and which are county?

[oscar]

In Hawaii, it's not just a matter of state vs. county maintenance. There are state routes with some county-maintained segments (which the state would like to replace, someday), but HDOT and TM include those segments in the state route system.

Hawaii originally had one territorial route system, including both territory- and county-maintained routes, which was established by the U.S. Bureau of Public Roads in the mid-1950s. That system was inherited by the new state of Hawaii when it was admitted to the Union in 1959. But in 1968 Hawaii DOT split the unified route system into separate state and county route networks. So whatever BPR had intended before Hawaii became a state, the new state went in a different direction. So did the counties to some extent -- Maui island has some county routes never in the state (or BPR) system, while Honolulu County did away with its county route system (numbered only internally, for GIS or other administrative purposes).

For a non-U.S. example, Quebec often relinquishes highways in whole or in part to local maintenance. But MTQ still considers those relinquished segments as part of the "national" (i.e. provincial) highway system, and they remain signed as such. We follow MTQ's lead.

[oscar]

Is Hawaii the only place we treat identically-signed routes differently based on who maintains them?

I'm not sure of the answer, but many of us remember the Vermont fights of the late CHM days.  Once TM came along we pretty quickly agreed that we didn't care of a Vermont state route went under town or whatever other maintenance, it should be mapped continuously.

I thought the issue was whether differences in signage between town and other state routes required TM to treat them as different systems. IIRC, the state took the position that even with different signage, town routes were still part of the Vermont state route system.

[Duke87]

Yeah, the Vermont situation is not analagous, it's the inverse: routes signed with a different shield part of the same system.

Pretty sure Hawaii is unique within the US of having roads that are officially explicitly county routes signed deliberately and consistently with the same shield as state highways. Florida gets surviving shields when roads are downloaded and occasional oopses, but broadly speaking counties use pentagons. You will not see pentagons in Hawaii.


For the record, I am of the mind that "signage is the final arbiter if signage is consistent" and I would thus include any "county" Hawaii routes that are consistently signed. The casual traveler is not going to recognize any difference because it's exactly the same shield design, and if these routes are omitted this is only going to keep coming up as one by one people go to Hawaii, see a route signed, then wonder why it isn't in the HB and report it as missing.

[neroute2]

Am I missing something, or does the state not even make the distinction between state and county routes?
https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Ahidot.hawaii.gov+"route+365"
https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Ahidot.hawaii.gov+"route+3405"

[oscar]

Am I missing something, or does the state not even make the distinction between state and county routes?
https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Ahidot.hawaii.gov+"route+365"
https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Ahidot.hawaii.gov+"route+3405"

Quick review:

Those seem to refer to Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan entries. The plan has separate categories for state and county projects. The entries for routes 365 and 3405 are for projects by the County of Maui. There are other entries in the state projects category, only for HDOT projects within Maui County and relating to state-maintained highways within the county (including at least one for a highway on Molokai island, most of which is in Maui County).

Do STIPs normally include projects for county highways, with the state DOT incorporating those projects into a statewide plan covering the state's own projects and projects from all counties?

[vdeane]

Do STIPs normally include projects for county highways, with the state DOT incorporating those projects into a statewide plan covering the state's own projects and projects from all counties?

DOTs administer funds for local federal aid projects, so yes, they do list them.  Local roads too.

[neroute2]

My point is that they merely refer to them as Route X. If they were a separate system, one would think they'd be treated differently.

[oscar]

My point is that they merely refer to them as Route X. If they were a separate system, one would think they'd be treated differently.

The STIPs treat them as separate systems, by placing HDOT's projects for the state system under "state", and other projects under county jurisdiction (and being implemented, if at all, by county public works departments) under "County of ____" headings.

[neroute2]

My point is that they merely refer to them as Route X. If they were a separate system, one would think they'd be treated differently.

The STIPs treat them as separate systems, by placing HDOT's projects for the state system under "state", and other projects under county jurisdiction (and being implemented, if at all, by county public works departments) under "County of ____" headings.

But that would be true even if they were state routes under county maintenance. For example, a project on RI 51 would be in the town portion of RIDOT's STIP. But it's still a state route.

[oscar]

My point is that they merely refer to them as Route X. If they were a separate system, one would think they'd be treated differently.

The STIPs treat them as separate systems, by placing HDOT's projects for the state system under "state", and other projects under county jurisdiction (and being implemented, if at all, by county public works departments) under "County of ____" headings.

But that would be true even if they were state routes under county maintenance.

Which is not a common situation in Hawaii -- I think just a few instances on the Big Island -- so this is pretty hypothetical. I don't know how the STIP would handle them, especially if HDOT rather than the county is taking the lead on a project to improve an otherwise county-maintained route segment.

[Jim]

Since it seems that this is a unique situation among state highway systems, what it comes down to for me is what makes the most sense for TM's users.  Putting aside that adding the routes in question means someone has to draft them and maintain them, would TM users rather have them available for mapping?