Among other things, I-69 West and I-49 in Arkansas make their respective initial appearances in the route log:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/routefinder/table1.cfm
Links to the other tables may be found on this page:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/routefinder/#s12
And the Maine entries still reflect the pre-2004 routes of I-295 and 495.
All right, I'm a first-timer to this list (sue me, lol). At the bottom of the Auxiliary Routes tab it mentions I-595 MD and I-910 LA as "not yet been signed" as Interstate highways - does that imply that plans exist to sign (or in I-595's case, I believe re-sign) those routes in the future?
Interesting that I-280 (CA) is listed as serving Mountain View (which it doesn't actually go through) as opposed to Palo Alto, Sunnyvale or Santa Clara (which it does go through, albeit briefly in each case).
Also, I-605 (CA) is listed as serving South Whittier, a CDP (which again, it doesn't go through) as opposed to Whittier (quite a bit larger, incorporated, freeway actually touches).
Also, lots of typos. Minnieapolis? San Fracisco? Couldn't afford to run a spell check on this table?
The entry for I-70 was updated to reflect the new Mississippi River Bridge:
2,151.43 miles now versus 2,153.13 in the December 31, 2013 version.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on January 31, 2015, 11:49:55 PM
All right, I'm a first-timer to this list (sue me, lol). At the bottom of the Auxiliary Routes tab it mentions I-595 MD and I-910 LA as "not yet been signed" as Interstate highways - does that imply that plans exist to sign (or in I-595's case, I believe re-sign) those routes in the future?
I-595 in Maryland has never been signed, save for one mention of it on I-95 southbound the Capital Beltway (Inner Loop) of in the vicinity of U.S. 1 in College Park.
As far as I know, Maryland SHA has no intent of ever signing I-595.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on January 31, 2015, 11:49:55 PM
All right, I'm a first-timer to this list (sue me, lol). At the bottom of the Auxiliary Routes tab it mentions I-595 MD and I-910 LA as "not yet been signed" as Interstate highways - does that imply that plans exist to sign (or in I-595's case, I believe re-sign) those routes in the future?
This post (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3124.msg256854;topicseen#msg256854) discusses how I-910 is also designated as Future I-49; as a result, it is possible (but not certain) that I-910 signage will be bypassed entirely in favor of I-49 signage.
There are lots of errors on the cities list.
For example, on I-205, it says it runs through Parkrose in the suburbs list. Parkrose has been annexed as part of Portland for quite a while. Milwaukie's on the list; nope, doesn't hit Milwaukie. Oregon City, West Linn and Happy Valley are omitted.
I'm pretty sure I-95 should list Trenton as a city served, considering it's on multiple signs (even in New York City there is a sign for it!). If it's going to serve Ewing, it'll most likely serve Trenton.
Did Interstate 910 receive full or conditional approval? It seems that Interstates that have been conditionally approved do not appear in the route log (such as proposed Interstate 905, which was approved to some degree some time ago). I wish there were a list of Interstates that have been previously approved by FHWA that have not yet been built to full standards or are not yet listed in the route log for some reason. Interstate 910 is as close to this standard as I've seen; it seems to be a hidden (not signed) Interstate, whereas Interstate 905 is a partially approved and (I guess) unconstructed Interstate highway. Thoughts?
That list has I-22 in Mississippi at only 31.10 miles. I'm assuming the portion from US 45 at Tupelo to the Alabama line has been or will be signed.
For I-84 in Pennsylvania, they mention Dunmore but not Scranton. Odd.
For I-90 in Massachusetts, they mention Brookline. Even odder.
For I-93 in New Hampshire, they don't mention any communities north of Concord.