MO: I-170 Southern Terminus - For Consideration

[Rothman]

Per MoDOT's Roads/Routes map, I-170 ends at Eager Road (end of the 1C ramp), rather than at I-64 (Exit 1A).

You can see this at this MoDOT link and by clicking on the relevant segments:

https://data-msdis.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/MSDIS::mo-modot-roads-routes/explore?location=38.630060%2C-90.343259%2C17.65

As listed, the segments to I-64 EB and WB are ramps from I-170, while the mainline follows Exit 1C.

Of course, if anyone has any official source to the contrary, so be it, but thought this was something just to be considered.  Have to say that their functional class maps leave much to be desired.

[Markkos1992]

This still looks like 1PPI without an extra point needed to me.

[oscar]

If it weren't an Interstate, our practice would be to ignore the short dangling end south of I-64.

For an Interstate like I-170, we've made exceptions to that practice. For examples, the east end of I-105, and the west end of I-780, in California. However, the dangling ends of both are longer than I-170's, so 1PPI might still apply for I-170.

See https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=4892.msg27361#msg27361

[rickmastfan67]

Signage clearly shows it as a 'ramp'.

However, I did find the 0.4 MM on the 'ramps' to 1A/1B.  Couldn't find a 0.2 or 0.0.

[Rothman]

At the very least, the current setup in TM makes it look like I-170 ends at Exits 1A/1B with 1C being north of it.  So, if someone takes the ramp to I-64 instead of down to Eager Road, they really haven't clinched the entire I-170 route, technically (whether coming to or from I-64 to I-170).

1PPI is all fine and dandy for all the interchanges where Interstates end more ambiguously, including when perusing DOT sources.  Just seems odd that TM wouldn't strive to make the routes as accurate as possible and then let people clinch whatever way they want to ("Eh, close enough"), rather than the other way around: Having TM be inherently inaccurate and therefore causing a little inconvenience for those that are being sticklers about clinching the actual entire route.

[rickmastfan67]

But the problem here is signage in the field clearly shows it as an exit, and not the mainline, and there's 0 MMs along '1C' that says "Hey, I'm still I-170". That's the major sticking point here.

This kinda reminds me of when I extended US-35 in WV beyond I-64.  Signage reflected this south of I-64.

https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=5978.0

[Rothman]

But the problem here is signage in the field clearly shows it as an exit, and not the mainline, and there's 0 MMs along '1C' that says "Hey, I'm still I-170". That's the major sticking point here.

This kinda reminds me of when I extended US-35 in WV beyond I-64.  Signage reflected this south of I-64.

https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=5978.0

Oh dang.  I misread your earlier post.  I see the mile marker now. 

I put so much work into that last post, too...

[vdeane]

FHWA's NHS map also shows it following the exit 1C ramp to Eager Road, but that's less than 0.4 miles from that mile marker.  It seems like this is a case where the official route and the signed route differ (like I-787, where TM uses the official route).

[rickmastfan67]

(like I-787, where TM uses the official route).

However, there is both a 0.1 & 0 MM along the 'route' to I-90.

But I do see the 'conflicting' 0.0 MM along the 'free' route w/ the END shield.

[Duke87]

My vote is this is a 1PPI situation. Eager Rd is way too close to I-64.