I've been looking all over the NMDOT website the entire morning and can't find the Route Logs. Where can I find them?
http://dot.state.nm.us/en/Planning.html#data
Much appreciated NE2. Thank you. "Planning" seems to be an odd place to store such information. Someone correct me if my assumption is wrong.
Yeah, thanks. I think I drilled down into every subcategory of the new NMDOT website layout and never saw it. Unfortunately, it's still the 2010 version, which doesn't show the cutbacks of the routes within the city of Albuquerque.
Quote from: 707 on April 30, 2015, 02:26:43 PM
Much appreciated NE2. Thank you. "Planning" seems to be an odd place to store such information. Someone correct me if my assumption is wrong.
That's what SDDOT does... http://www.sddot.com/transportation/highways/
planning/pavement/Default.aspx (http://www.sddot.com/transportation/highways/planning/pavement/Default.aspx)
I'm sure this has been noted elsewhere, but US 412 isn't listed in the NM US route log at all.
Quote from: andy3175 on April 30, 2015, 11:36:51 PM
I'm sure this has been noted elsewhere, but US 412 isn't listed in the NM US route log at all.
It's filed next to US 85 in the "wasted effort" category. US 412 is at least occasionally signed though, generally in the most WTF possible ways.
http://goo.gl/ICln4y
http://goo.gl/RL0tKU
Quote from: andy3175 on April 30, 2015, 11:36:51 PM
I'm sure this has been noted elsewhere, but US 412 isn't listed in the NM US route log at all.
I wonder if that's related to the reason NMDOT removed the US 412 signs from I-25 in Springer.
Anyway, based on the other entries in the log, I'm assuming 412 isn't included because NMDOT considers the length of the entire route in their state to be "subordinate" to US 56. (On overlaps of routes of the same classification, NMDOT considers the route with the higher number to be "subordinate". The lower number is "dominant", and the route is posted with mile markers of the dominant route.)
Similar examples in the log include US 180 (the segment east of Deming is not acknowledged), and US 87 (only the short independent segment southeast of Clayton is acknowledged). It's inconsistent, though, because for US 84, they did make a special note about its subordinate section between Ft. Sumner and the Texas line.
I do remember reading that New Mexico has a problem with concurrencies following the 1988 highway re-numbering. Though I only that applied to State Roads.
Quote from: 707 on May 01, 2015, 12:55:40 PMI do remember reading that New Mexico has a problem with concurrencies following the 1988 highway re-numbering. Though I only that applied to State Roads.
NMDOT doesn't have an issue with US route overlaps in general, though single-shield signing is not at all uncommon (examples: US 56-64-412 in one shield, US 62-180 in one shield). It also pretends US 85 does not exist in New Mexico at all and does not sign it; there is a section of old US 85 near Socorro that was given an even older number that originally applied to the US 85 corridor statewide--NM 1.
The 1988 renumbering was designed to eliminate even the most trivial state route overlaps.
Quote from: J N Winkler on May 02, 2015, 11:52:10 PM
Quote from: 707 on May 01, 2015, 12:55:40 PMI do remember reading that New Mexico has a problem with concurrencies following the 1988 highway re-numbering. Though I only that applied to State Roads.
NMDOT doesn't have an issue with US route overlaps in general, though single-shield signing is not at all uncommon (examples: US 56-64-412 in one shield, US 62-180 in one shield). It also pretends US 85 does not exist in New Mexico at all and does not sign it; there is a section of old US 85 near Socorro that was given an even older number that originally applied to the US 85 corridor statewide--NM 1.
The 1988 renumbering was designed to eliminate even the most trivial state route overlaps.
Hell, 62/180/285 in another shield
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.corcohighways.org%2Fhighways%2Fnm%2F62%2F524to216%2F2.jpg&hash=d336200db588461e2b9950285302513121d52bc7)
The non-existence of U.S. 412 on an independent alignment, where it would not be "subordinate" to the lower-numbered U.S. route, is the reason why NM-412 is allowed. Otherwise, there are no state-U.S. route number duplications. Although I haven't driven U.S. 56 since 412 was added, a sampling of GSV indicates that the single-shield signs are standard along the route. There are independent U.S. 412 shields at the U.S 64-87 intersection in Clayton. And, there are no single-shield 64-87 signs anywhere along the highway between Raton and Clayton.
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on May 03, 2015, 04:52:48 PMAlthough I haven't driven U.S. 56 since 412 was added, a sampling of GSV indicates that the single-shield signs are standard along the route.
My observation in the field over this last winter can confirm this.
I like that NM doesn't sign US 85 at all. It's redundant south of metro Denver anyway and should be officially canned.
And for those who want to see it back on it's old aligment; I've driven just about all of it (including dead-end portions) and most of it is crap; unworthy of a US shield and barely a suitable alternative for interstate traffic. So many narrow bridges...
Quote from: triplemultiplex on May 07, 2015, 11:26:22 AM
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on May 03, 2015, 04:52:48 PMAlthough I haven't driven U.S. 56 since 412 was added, a sampling of GSV indicates that the single-shield signs are standard along the route.
My observation in the field over this last winter can confirm this.
I like that NM doesn't sign US 85 at all. It's redundant south of metro Denver anyway and should be officially canned.
And for those who want to see it back on it's old aligment; I've driven just about all of it (including dead-end portions) and most of it is crap; unworthy of a US shield and barely a suitable alternative for interstate traffic. So many narrow bridges...
U.S. 85 follows its own alignment between Denver and Castle Rock. In the scheme of things, it could easily be a state-numbered route and not part of a major U.S. route, but there it is. Also, south of Colorado Springs, 85 - as well as invisible 87 - leaves I-25 and goes through Fountain, but the north end of this loop is a hanging end with no interchange at I-25. (Colorado does this in several places where the legacy U.S. route parallels the newer Interstate).
US 85 exists in El Paso (TX) County, from downtown El Paso, follows Paisano Blvd N, and then I-10 from Sunland Park exit 13 north to the New mexico line. It then dissapears until one reaches Colorado. It should be revived in NM, it would be easy to duplex much of it with I-25, except for where it passes through cities and towns - duplexed with the Business 25 corridors. It should be reinstated.
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on May 07, 2015, 10:16:31 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on May 07, 2015, 11:26:22 AM
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on May 03, 2015, 04:52:48 PMAlthough I haven't driven U.S. 56 since 412 was added, a sampling of GSV indicates that the single-shield signs are standard along the route.
My observation in the field over this last winter can confirm this.
I like that NM doesn't sign US 85 at all. It's redundant south of metro Denver anyway and should be officially canned.
And for those who want to see it back on it's old aligment; I've driven just about all of it (including dead-end portions) and most of it is crap; unworthy of a US shield and barely a suitable alternative for interstate traffic. So many narrow bridges...
U.S. 85 follows its own alignment between Denver and Castle Rock. In the scheme of things, it could easily be a state-numbered route and not part of a major U.S. route, but there it is. Also, south of Colorado Springs, 85 - as well as invisible 87 - leaves I-25 and goes through Fountain, but the north end of this loop is a hanging end with no interchange at I-25. (Colorado does this in several places where the legacy U.S. route parallels the newer Interstate).
Quote from: DJStephens on May 31, 2015, 02:33:26 PM
US 85 exists in El Paso (TX) County, from downtown El Paso, follows Paisano Blvd N, and then I-10 from Sunland Park exit 13 north to the New mexico line. It then dissapears until one reaches Colorado. It should be revived in NM, it would be easy to duplex much of it with I-25, except for where it passes through cities and towns - duplexed with the Business 25 corridors. It should be reinstated.
I'm in the "Repurpose US Routes When Replaced" Crowd. I dug this up from my early days of fictional map-making, getting 85 to El Paso anyways:
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/488/18145008608_bc1d1bcddc_h.jpg)
Interesting. You replace US 54, which is an east-west route that runs north - south in most of NM and El Paso County TX with US 85. Thinking I had was to reinstate it by have it duplexed with the I-25 corridor, which overlaid much of it, only having it leave the interstate 25 to pass through cities and towns that have an business 25 loop. And of course route it along / through its historic alignment through Albuquerque - along Isleta Blvd, through downtown, and following either 2nd or 4th street north until it rejoins the interstate in most likely Bernalillo. Mainly for nostalgic and tourist reasons. NM used some real kooky designations when it decommissioned US 66 on the east side of Albuquerque - NM 333 - yeesh. Like your idea better.
Quote from: Rover_0 on June 01, 2015, 12:53:38 AM
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on May 07, 2015, 10:16:31 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on May 07, 2015, 11:26:22 AM
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on May 03, 2015, 04:52:48 PMAlthough I haven't driven U.S. 56 since 412 was added, a sampling of GSV indicates that the single-shield signs are standard along the route.
My observation in the field over this last winter can confirm this.
I like that NM doesn't sign US 85 at all. It's redundant south of metro Denver anyway and should be officially canned.
And for those who want to see it back on it's old aligment; I've driven just about all of it (including dead-end portions) and most of it is crap; unworthy of a US shield and barely a suitable alternative for interstate traffic. So many narrow bridges...
U.S. 85 follows its own alignment between Denver and Castle Rock. In the scheme of things, it could easily be a state-numbered route and not part of a major U.S. route, but there it is. Also, south of Colorado Springs, 85 - as well as invisible 87 - leaves I-25 and goes through Fountain, but the north end of this loop is a hanging end with no interchange at I-25. (Colorado does this in several places where the legacy U.S. route parallels the newer Interstate).
Quote from: DJStephens on May 31, 2015, 02:33:26 PM
US 85 exists in El Paso (TX) County, from downtown El Paso, follows Paisano Blvd N, and then I-10 from Sunland Park exit 13 north to the New mexico line. It then dissapears until one reaches Colorado. It should be revived in NM, it would be easy to duplex much of it with I-25, except for where it passes through cities and towns - duplexed with the Business 25 corridors. It should be reinstated.
I'm in the "Repurpose US Routes When Replaced" Crowd. I dug this up from my early days of fictional map-making, getting 85 to El Paso anyways:
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/488/18145008608_bc1d1bcddc_h.jpg)
I really like your idea, but how would you handle the segment of existing signed US 85 in northwest El Paso? Maybe have US 85 loop around the downtown by way of the border so you could effectively just switch the directions on the existing stretch.
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/488/18145008608_bc1d1bcddc_h.jpg)
[/quote]
I really like your idea, but how would you handle the segment of existing signed US 85 in northwest El Paso? Maybe have US 85 loop around the downtown by way of the border so you could effectively just switch the directions on the existing stretch.
[/quote]
Why not make Paisano from I-10 at Sunland Park to I-10 in Central El Paso into BL-10?