CBC: Jemseg Bridge closed for repairs after inspection (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/jemseg-bridge-closed-for-repairs-after-inspection-1.3086574)
CBC: Closed Jemseg Bridge may not be repaired, Roger Melanson says (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/closed-jemseg-bridge-may-not-be-repaired-roger-melanson-says-1.3088379)
NB DOT: Bridges to be decommissioned (http://www2.gnb.ca/content/gnb/en/departments/dti/bridges_ferries/content/DecommisionedBridges.html)
CBC: Jemseg Bridge decommissioning set to start (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/jemseg-bridge-decommissioning-1.3758810)
In 2015-2016, The Route 105 Jemseg River Bridge was barricaded and closed to all traffic, spans at each end of the structure were removed, and cul-de-sacs constructed to allow for traffic turning.
What's the present state of signage for Route 105 in the area?
Route 105 is rerouted onto TCH-2.
Streetview is up to date on this.
https://goo.gl/maps/rDstmPNUfz32
https://goo.gl/maps/MjvNT7xU4FJ2
https://goo.gl/maps/fTvP5peyDYv
https://goo.gl/maps/gLeYGqYFnbr
Thanks for the response.
Hm. I'd phrase that as "Route 105 is detoured onto TCH-2" instead.
1st & 4th links:
I've seen the detour routing, yes...
I'd take it as just that, a functional detour for thru traffic on NB105, but not as a clear indication the actual route of 105 has officially changed here.
Note the 105 reassurance shield still standing in the background. (https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.8359661,-66.164971,3a,15y,113.31h,87.87t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sn0Y5sf2uKRVHyMwSIjtdag!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i41)
1st & 2nd links:
Exit 339 guide signage is as it was in 2009: the exit serves NB695, which provides access TO NB105.
3rd link:
Exit 333 served B105 before,and still does, so no new information here.
GeoBase shapefiles, FWIW, dated dated 2016-10-21 have a road segment corresponding to the bridge itself removed, roughly between (45.824958,-66.119589) and (45.828928,-66.113497). The rest of the road is still shown, with RTNUMBER1 = 105.
In any case, good to know there's no nasty surprises, such as renumbering or decommissioning the eastern segment.
Quote from: yakra on August 17, 2017, 02:07:34 PM
1st & 2nd links:
Exit 339 guide signage is as it was in 2009: the exit serves NB695, which provides access TO NB105.
Take a second look. It used to show "to/vers 105"; it now shows "to/vers 105 south/sud".
Quote from: webfil on August 17, 2017, 07:29:30 PM
Take a second look. It used to show "to/vers 105"; it now shows "to/vers 105 south/sud".
Aah yes. The "South/Sud" text has replaced the NB715 shield, which was moved to replace the Gagetown ferry graphic.
Hmph. The south/sud could just be an indication that NB105 north doesn't continue anywhere useful... :-/
I'm trying to decide what to do about the discontinuity for the TravelMapping project. (http://tm.teresco.org/forum/index.php?topic=2178)
My current thinking is to split the route in two, cutting out the smallest segment of the existing route I can, using the endpoints from the shapefiles. It's the (smallest? largest? :coffee:) change from the status quo I can be certain is necessary, until I have better information available.
Seems rather similar to the situation with US 9 in NJ. Officially, the route still continues over the Beesley's Point Bridge that was closed in 2004 and demolished in 2014. The alternative using the Garden State Parkway is signed as a detour and not recognized by AASHTO.
In both cases, when the bridge was initially closed it was not yet determined that the closure would be permanent, so signing the alternative as a detour made sense. And then once the closure was made permanent no one cared enough to do the paperwork officially changing the route or to spend money updating the signs.