AL: Montgomery outer loop (Future I-85)

[rickmastfan67]

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2016/01/first_leg_of_montgomery_outer.html

So, with this opened back on 01/26/16, do we want to create a 'Future I-85' file now since this future reroute has already been approved by the AASHTO?

I've added the new exit on 'current' I-85 via this Pull Request that also fixed the location for exit 16, and added exit 50 so that we can easily make the 'Future' file if we want to do so.  Only thing I'm not 100% positive is the exit number on current I-85.  The I-685 wikipedia page says #14, but the I-85 page says #12.  I'm more inclined to go with the number from the I-685 page.

That also brings up another thing.  Do we want to create a 'Future I-685' file along I-85?  I mean, it is AASHTO approved, and will happen in the future.

[oscar]

I suggest not bothering with Future I-685, since it would duplicate existing mileage.

I'm also not crazy about a Future I-85 file, both because it's for now pretty short and to avoid overdoing it on Future Interstate routes.

[mapcat]

I agree with Oscar on this. At least wait until "Future I-XX" signs are up.

[si404]

I suggest not bothering with Future I-685, since it would duplicate existing mileage.

Which is pretty much a non-reason to not make it - there's a minor penalty if a change happens on the route, but not a huge one and an unlikely occurrence.


Though sure, wait for signs - not much is missed by not having it.

avoid overdoing it on Future Interstate routes.

I read this as "oh no, my 98.7% will go down slightly." Total non-reason to include it.


I'm a firm "go for it", especially on I-85Fut until the naysayers get better reasons - in part as the naysayers have rubbish reasons for denial. Though isn't froggie the maintainer of AL?

[Jim]

Not directly relevant to the decision at hand whether or not to put a Future I-85 in here, but it gave me an idea of something to put into the data processing: a per-system log of what percentage of its mileage is concurrent with other systems.  So usaif would have lots of concurrency with usaus, some with usany, etc.  I wonder how much total clinchable mileage usaif adds overall. Seems unlikely to be much.

[oscar]

avoid overdoing it on Future Interstate routes.

I read this as "oh no, my 98.7% will go down slightly." Total non-reason to include it.

What I really had in mind are questions raised here and there about whether we should keep the Future Interstates system at all. That suggests we should hesitate to expand a system some of us would like to deprecate.

Otherwise, once Future I-85 signs start showing up, I have no problem adding it. It would be a little weird to have an FI route with the same number as a current Interstate, and not an extension or gap-filler for that Interstate, but that's no biggie.

[yakra]

Count me as a "go for it once signs are up".

[froggie]

Count me as a "go for it once signs are up".

Same here.

[rickmastfan67]

Though isn't froggie the maintainer of AL?

Yes, he is.  But since I didn't see any action on the post about Exit #50 @ the old forums, I thought I'd quickly solve that so there would be one less thread we needed to deal with over there.  That's how I discovered the other new interchange opening with I also quickly fixed the location for Exit #16 which was way north of the correct location.

[compdude787]

So....its been over a year and a half. Have signs gone up along this route yet?

[rickmastfan67]

Well, according to StreetView, it's posted as AL-108 right now.  I checked the entire road in StreetView, and saw no mention of a 'Future I-85 corridor'.

Plus, the correct exit number is '15'.  So, both I-85 & US-80's files will need to be corrected.

[oscar]

Well, according to StreetView, it's posted as AL-108 right now.  I checked the entire road in StreetView, and saw no mention of a 'Future I-85 corridor'.

Worth adding to usansf? That system already has part or all of four other Alabama routes.

[compdude787]

Well, according to StreetView, it's posted as AL-108 right now.  I checked the entire road in StreetView, and saw no mention of a 'Future I-85 corridor'.

Worth adding to usansf? That system already has part or all of four other Alabama routes.

Probably. At least it would allow this topic to be solved.

[oscar]

I drove AL 108 last month. Still no Future Interstate signage in the field.

[froggie]

If it's signed as AL 108, it will eventually get added as such later this year as I work on Alabama routes (after I get Mississippi done).  If there is no Future Interstate signage yet, then I'm not going to bend over backwards to add it early as something else.