Jump to content

Talk:Interstate 269

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

SR 385

[edit]

I have driven along I-269 and I-22. Please stop reverting the edits! I am trying to find references. Until I do, Please don't Revert! -EBGamingWiki; 1/29/2016; 12:53PM EDT — Preceding unsigned comment added by EBGamingWiki (talk • contribs) 17:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Using your personal, unpublished, observations from a drive along the road is the definition of original research. The correct procedure would be to find the sources first, and then use them to update the article. Imzadi 1979 → 20:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I-269 between Collierville and Arlington

[edit]

Rather than continue the edit war and continuing to accuse each other of not reading our user:talk pages, or watching the goalposts continue to move.

Has there ever been a discussion up at the WP:USRD level about when a portion of highway should be acknowledged within Wiki as being (part of) an interstate?

The obvious possibilities include:

  1. AASHTO approval
  2. Inclusion in the FHWA route log
  3. Federal legislation (not applicable in this case)
  4. Reference to the highway as an interstate in state DOT documents
  5. Initial posting of signage indicating the highway is an interstate (ignoring situations where temporary covering is accidentally removed)
  6. Posting of the signage indicating the highway is an interstate at one or more major interchanges
  7. DOT press release
  8. DOT Letter to a roadgeek saying (e.g.) "yes, it exists, but we aren't signing it until more of it exists"

The ideal answer is some recognition that the resigning of an existing highway is a process...but I don't think Wikipedia's code is sophisticated enough to fade from one revision to another over a span of months.

In my opinion, the FHWA log should be definitive. Once upon a time, interstate miles mattered when it came to federal highway funding to the states...and thus, if the interstate didn't exist on those miles, the funding would have been incorrect.

We have another opinion that there should be some sort of pronouncement from the DOT. That begs the question of "what kind of pronouncement"? It'd be easy to make a clear distinction in states that maintain formal route logs, but what about other states? Is a reference to the highway under its new number in a weekly construction bulletin sufficient? How about bid specs or state-government-issued directions to offices that reference the new number?

We could say "when it appears to a map", but in general state highway maps are becoming less-frequently issued, and there is a Wikipedia policy that maps are not generally sufficient references. (In the case of this particular stretch of highway, if we were rely on the 2016-2017 state highway map, we would have to say that this stretch of highway has no number. A contact of mine advises they intentionally suppressed a number on the map because of delay between designation and signing.)

A press release certainly would be nice...but what happens if there's never a press release? We could ask someone at the DOT...but such communications are increasingly ephemeral. (E.g., the letter cited in the I-69(TN) article to support the highway's existence in the state is no longer available.)

Signs going up could also work...but then we run into the issue of how that gets supported. If the DOT is quiet about the signage aside from general construction notices, how do we gain documentation sufficient for Wiki-recognition? Does going out, taking a picture, and posting it as evidence count? Or do we need some mention in some kind of recognized publication for it to count?

Precedent would be nice...but there isn't exactly a clear precedent for a case like this. In most jurisdictions interstate designations a DOT's and/or a politician's pet project, so there is plenty of hoopla when a new interstate is born. A road is built and it is designated an interstate upon opening; or, an existing facility is upgraded, AASHTO and FHWA approvals are gained, and the DOT has a party and puts up signs as fast as it can. But TDOT hasn't exactly been enthusiastic about I-69 and I-269, as alluded to in mass-media, lack of activity, etc.

Possible precedents include:

  • I-840(TN), a highway designed to be an interstate, but for which there was drama in securing approval for the interstate shields. Eventually federal approvals were granted, and signs went up. TDOT announced the new designation on 12 August 2016 (the date the wiki page pronounces I-840 as having existed from; no online record of when the FHWA approval referenced was received), the page was moved on 19 August (about the time the first shields went up, don't see documentation as to whether that was intentional) and received its interstate shield in the next edit.
  • I-41, a highway upgraded to interstate status. The current wiki page gives the highway as having existed since 7 April 2015. Cited references indicate final FHWA approval was granted on 7 April 2015. Prior versions of the page mention the Governor's announcement of the designation occurred on 9 April. Pre-placed signage was unveiled within hours of the announcement. Wiki entry changed from "future interstate" to "interstate" on 10 April; it is unclear whether there was an intentional delay.
  • I-14, applied to a current highway slated for extension. The current wiki page gives the highway as having existed since 26 January 2017. Cited references show that to be the date the designation was accepted by state officials, with the FHWA given approval (mandated by legislation) on 19 December 2016. First sign is said to have been erected in a ceremony on 22 April 2017. Wiki page changed from proposed to existing on 27 January.
  • I-69 (TN), which according to Wikipedia (and online lore), currently exists in Tennessee, albeit unsigned. FHWA approval for I-69 being applied to I-55/I-240/I-40/TN 300 was reportedly given on 18 January 2008, but the cited reference is no longer available online, does not appear to be in one of the usual archives, and appears from its URL name to be just an official letter from FHWA to TDOT. There appears to be no primary-source documentation online that TDOT considers that stretch of highway to actually be I-69; just a significant amount of web-lore (much of it citing Wiki) that TDOT is just waiting for more of I-69 to be built to the north before signing it. As of this writing, the info box gives I-69 as having existed since 18 January 2009, for reasons unreferenced.

All four of those precedents are somewhat different. Should we be treating I-269 more like I-41 and I-69, or more like I-14 and I-840? And, if one way is decided, could the non-complying pages be fixed to match?

MikeTheActuary (talk) 04:22, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking down the list: when AASHTO approval is given, it isn't automatic with either state still need to complete the project or it was already completed months or even years ago (see Arkansas's business routes). The FHWA log isn't the most accurate source either thanks to the continued existence of I-181 to Kingsport. I'm a strong believer that the state DOT must begin acknowledging it as an Interstate; difficult with TDOT since it isn't as open like NCDOT which shares a wealth of information and documentation. Usually though, the local media gets involved when a new designation happens, especially interstate; but we haven't seen that for I-269 beyond the stub at north of the state line. Signage, of course, is an obvious indicator, but hidden interstates do exist like I-124. A press release would be great or some sort of confirmation.
Obviously, I-269 should be treated similar to I-14 and I-840; though I know my rational isn't followed by other editors, which erupts these edit battles. --WashuOtaku (talk) 14:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, while it's not the standard I would choose...I like standards when they can be objectively specified, and will sit tight unless a consensus emerges to the contrary.
For whatever it's worth, I made a general inquiry of TDOT about their intention with official recognition of I-269 and the status of SR 385 at that point. I received an email from the Traffic Engineer for TDOT Region 4, who indicated that they would publicly recognize I-269 as such when the re-signing work is complete, inspected, and accepted, and that they were planning to issue a press release at that time.
He also went on to say that the SR 385 designation would be removed at that time, and that 385 would then exist as two disconnected segments, at least until such time as I-269 is extended to Millington (probably not until that stretch of I-69 is built).
I don't suppose there's an Wiki-approved manner of turning an email from a relevant official into a citable reference is there?  :) --MikeTheActuary (talk) 05:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, there isn't, but I am happy they are moving forward with the project, though annoyed they are breaking SR 385 into segments. --WashuOtaku (talk) 13:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just as an FYI update: it appears that the sign work is done (no mention of it in TDOT construction updates for a few weeks), although there is no public information on whether the work has been fully accepted by TDOT. Still waiting on the public announcement.
I would like to propose that if no public announcement is made before then, we should consider recognizing the extension as fact when the final Mississippi stretch opens in a few weeks, since 385 will have appeared to have been 269 to the public for several months at that point. MikeTheActuary (talk) 22:30, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We need an official statement and/or media coverage confirming it; Wikipedia frowns upon self-published work, considering it an unreliable source. --WashuOtaku (talk) 00:53, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Given how long the resigning project ran, and given that the MDOT opening date is a just a few weeks away, it is very plausible that TDOT may be waiting until that time to announce its change, to avoid confusing the public; therefore it makes sense to wait for now. However, I am concerned that if no announcement is made by then, there may never be an actual announcement of the change, and we will be left trying to decide which other references in TDOT public files are sufficient proof of official status.
Other TDOT references do currently exist. Sometime since December, TDOT posted an updated state highway map (e.g. https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/tdot/maps/state-maps/2017-18%20Official%20SMap%20(Front%20Side)092017.pdf) and updated county highway maps (e.g. https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/tdot/maps/county-maps-(us-shields)/o-w/Shelby%20County.pdf) reflecting the renumbering. State highway maps seem like an imperfect source for this kind of thing, but an argument could be made that an intentional update to the county maps is more indicative. The TDOT bridge inventories have also been updated to reflect the I-269 designation (https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/tdot/structures/inventory-and-appraisal/FAYETTE.pdf (dated 27 July 2018; see e.g. the 22nd page of the pdf; prior edition referenced 385). And, of course, all the signs have been changed by TDOT. These are not ideal for our needs, but if if there were no realistic prospect for a specific announcement, we would likely deem them sufficient.
To reiterate, I am NOT proposing making the change yet. I am only proposing a point when the weight of the already-existing evidence could be deemed "the best we're likely to get". MikeTheActuary (talk) 14:20, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TN Exits 1 & 2 / County Line

[edit]

I'm putting this here because I couldn't find a clean way to throw a bunch of references into the mix.

Three sources:

...all show the same information as regards the location of the I-269 right of way and the county line. The USGS map can be considered to be an official map of the federal government, with USGS survey discs forming the basis of non-GPS survey work countrywide, while county assessor data can be considered an official reckoning as to whether a county believes it has the ability to assess taxes over a particular piece of land (and, for our purposes, "official" as long as they don't disagree on where the county line is).

In other words, absent a surveyor's report driven by either physical boundary monuments, legislative descriptions, or some other data source not linked back to the dataset informing these three sources, this information is as official as we're going to get. (Annoyingly, the legal/surveyors' description of the 269 and 385 rights-of-way don't seem to be online.)

(I will acknowledge that the political boundary layer and the property line layer in the assessor GIS renderings online are not perfectly aligned, but it's close enough for our purposes here. The property line vs county line argument can be further supported by comparing parcel numbers in the two assessor systems with those described in the deeds available for the Shelby County properties, particularly for properties that span parcels in both counties.)

It is not possible based just on the above information to know precisely where the county line is with respect to the I-269 pavement at any given point along that stretch of highway - there isn't sufficient precision in that information. However, we can clearly see the following:

  • From the northern ramps of Exit 2 in Tennessee to a point just north of the Mississippi state line, the county line is in the I-269 right-of-way.
  • The county line is close to the northbound roadway between Exits 1 and 2.
  • For Exit 1, the western ramps are mostly in Shelby County, while the eastern ramps are mostly in Fayette County.
  • For Exit 2:
    • The ramp from EB 385 to SB 269 is entirely in Shelby County
    • The ramp from NB 269 to WB 385 is partly in Fayette County, but mostly in Shelby County
    • The ramps from EB 385 to NB 385(269) and from SB 385(269) to WB 385 cross the county line between the two mainlines
    • The I-269 mainline crosses the county line.

All of the above can be corroborated by looking up the county assessor data for abutting properties and observing which parcels appear in which county's database / tax rolls.

The status for exit 1 is debatable. The maps appear to suggest that the county line is a few feet east of the northbound pavement, but that distance is probably within the maps' margin of error. If that were true, however, then we could say that a driver exiting northbound 269 for US 72 would be wholly in Shelby County as they start their movement, but that at least some vehicles could straddle the county line before they have completely left the northbound roadway. Whether Exit 1 is in only Shelby County, or on the line would depend on whether the determination is made by the jurisdiction of the mainline between the ramps, the jurisdiction of the mainline AND the ramps, or the right-of-way as a whole....again assuming the maps are accurate to within a foot or two. As I write this, I'm reverting the exit list to show it on the line, but I would accept it if consensus were for it to be described as just Shelby. (There's not enough evidence for a claim of just Fayette.)

Exit 2 is much simpler. The maps and online property records make it very clear that the county line passes through the interchange. Traffic on the current/future 269 mainline will cross (or begin/cease straddling) the county line between the northern and southern ramps. Even the general public is made aware of the presence of the county line in Exit 2 with the posted signage. (See sheet 5 in https://www.tdot.tn.gov/PublicDocuments//Construction/Design_CADD_Files/October%206,%202017%20Letting/Region%204/125391-00-RoadwayInfoOnly.pdf) On the 269 mainline, the county line signs can be found just north of the overpass carrying traffic from NB 269 to WB 385; and on the 385 mainline, the county line signs are along the roadways between the ramps to/from 269 south and the 269/385 northern mainline. Admittedly, county line signs are not completely definitive as to the precise location of the line; I mention them here as they are more-or-less consistent with the lines shown on the maps, and as evidence of the kind of public-awareness that influences other Wiki-related decisions.

And, while I'm on a roll...county line signs are also semi-consistent with all of the above when it comes to Exit 1. Per the TDOT signing plans, drivers are alerted to the county line at about mile 0.4 (northbound traffic crossing into Shelby County) and then again in the middle of Exit 2 (northbound traffic crossing back into Fayette). The TDOT plans don't indicate the location of the signs on US 72, but Google Streetview indicates that drivers are alerted to the county line as they cross under I-269. (See https://goo.gl/maps/NCF9u2KxmtP2 and https://goo.gl/maps/mLRisaTHhCS2 .) Again, the signage doesn't define the presence of the county line, but it is consistent with the notion of the line being in the right-of-way, and the general public awareness.

MikeTheActuary (talk) 00:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I-269 between Collierville and Arlington (redux)

[edit]

So, the last MS stretch of I-269 is being opened as I type this.

We have in the past discussed that we were not going to recognize the section of TN 385 between Collierville and Arlington until TDOT announced the change was official.

The resigning contract was complete months ago. The state highway map has been changed. TDOT's county highway maps have been changed. TDOT's highway bridge inventory lists have been changed (links to all of these in the prior discussion).

TDOT has been silent on the redesignation.

While it doesn't hurt to wait a few more hours, it seems extremely likely at this point that there will be no public announcement by TDOT on the change in status, and that we have ample evidence that TDOT internally recognizes the change.

I propose updating the I-269 and TN 385 pages to reflect that TN 385 between Collierville and Arlington is now I-269.

The alternative would be continuing to wait for a TDOT announcement, which realistically may not happen until a major construction event on that stretch of highway, or until the northern segment is redesignated (presumably in conjunction with opening of a currently unbuilt section of I-69 near Millington).

MikeTheActuary (talk) 16:38, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to agree at this point, TDOT didn't say it but everything else is now there. --WashuOtaku (talk) 19:54, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge SR 385 into I-269

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Those who wish for a split, please see {{split}}, those who want to gain further consensus on a move, please feel free to renominate to gather more input. Also, nominator has withdrawn and there are no support !votes. (closed by non-admin page mover) TextClick (talk) 00:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As of now I-269 is designated a majority of the route, with the remaining signed as SR 385. Considering it is only a matter of time before the rest is changed over to I-269, I propose incorporating what remains of SR 385 into this article. The article setup would be similar to U.S. Route 23 in Tennessee. I hope others will agree. --WashuOtaku (talk) 20:04, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have to keep SR 385 around. Even after I-69 is built and the northern segment of SR 385 is renumbered, the southern segment (between I-240 and I-269) will continue to live on as a discrete highway. MikeTheActuary (talk) 23:34, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Merge – Did you forget about the section between Germantown and Collierville? There is still a long and distinct section of SR 385 that goes in a completely different direction from I-269 and with a totally separate history. The information on the stretch north of Collierville can be incorporated into the I-269 article, and the two articles for that section can be treated as any other concurrency. Roadsguy (talk) 00:36, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should merge it, because SR 385 between I-240 and I-269 can be considered kind-of a “spur” of the highway. After all, a majority of the highway did replace 385. EBGamingWiki (talk) 00:56, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That "spur" would 15 miles long (about 1/3rd the present length of 269), is a significant part of metro Memphis' highway system, and has higher traffic counts than 269. If future 385 were just going to be a short stub (like SR 300), a merge might make sense (although SR 300 does have its own page); but I think in 20-30-50 years, when 269 is signed to Millington, the remnant segment of 385 will still be significant enough to merit its own page. --MikeTheActuary (talk) 14:58, 27 October 2018 (UTC)}}[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Interstate_269&oldid=1247659391"