Among all of the other flotsam on Tuesday, 2012-11-05, voters in Puerto Rico decided to seek statehood in the USA. The margin was 61% for full statehood, 33% for a revised territorial status and about 6% for independence.
http://www.ceepur.org/REYDI_NocheDelEvento/index.html#en/default/OPCIONES_NO_TERRITORIALES_ISLA.xml
Interesting.
:hmm:
Mike
Non-road related discussion split to https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=8037.0 -S.]
are PR1 to PR4 all full freeways, or are they in the interstate system the same way that the Alaska ones are?
Alaska-style, but there's a lot more freeway than in Alaska (almost all toll).
Puerto Rico has only three paper Interstates, PRI-1 through PRI-3. Last I drove them, ten years ago, PRI-2 and PRI-3 had some stretches of non-freeway divided highway. Most of the freeway segments are tolled.
Since there no longer is much of a Federal funding advantage to Interstate designation (there was back in 1980, when Alaska's senator Ted Stevens pushed through the Interstate designations for both Alaska and Puerto Rico), there might not be a lot of interest in seeking new designations.
My understanding is that the PR Interstates actually never got transferred off the original surface routes as the freeways (mostly toll roads) were built. I-PR2 is the one particular case where I know this to have happened. I think Oscar Voss's website goes into that. Of course, I'd expect that if they were ever to be signed, the designations would be transferred.
Quote from: Steve on November 07, 2012, 05:56:39 PM
My understanding is that the PR Interstates actually never got transferred off the original surface routes as the freeways (mostly toll roads) were built. I-PR2 is the one particular case where I know this to have happened. I think Oscar Voss's website goes into that. Of course, I'd expect that if they were ever to be signed, the designations would be transferred.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/nhs_maps/puerto_rico/pr_puertorico.pdf
I see the original surface road along the north shore.
Quote from: NE2 on November 07, 2012, 06:22:04 PM
Quote from: Steve on November 07, 2012, 05:56:39 PM
My understanding is that the PR Interstates actually never got transferred off the original surface routes as the freeways (mostly toll roads) were built. I-PR2 is the one particular case where I know this to have happened. I think Oscar Voss's website goes into that. Of course, I'd expect that if they were ever to be signed, the designations would be transferred.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/nhs_maps/puerto_rico/pr_puertorico.pdf
I see the original surface road along the north shore.
Either a) Oscar (I think it was him) is accurate, b) FHWA is accurate, or c) Oscar WAS accurate but the FHWA figured out they needed to transfer designations. I'd like to believe c).
Quote from: NE2 on November 07, 2012, 06:22:04 PM
Quote from: Steve on November 07, 2012, 05:56:39 PM
My understanding is that the PR Interstates actually never got transferred off the original surface routes as the freeways (mostly toll roads) were built. I-PR2 is the one particular case where I know this to have happened. I think Oscar Voss's website goes into that. Of course, I'd expect that if they were ever to be signed, the designations would be transferred.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/nhs_maps/puerto_rico/pr_puertorico.pdf
I see the original surface road along the north shore.
That map shows PRI-2 following the current PR-22 autopista (toll road) bypassing the old PR-2 surface road, to Arecibo where PRI-2 continues to Ponce via Mayaguez where PR-2 apparently hasn't yet been replaced by an autopista. (I don't know what progress if any has been made on extending the PR-22 autopista west of Arecibo, since I haven't been there for a decade and I don't know enough Spanish to comfortably navigate the Puerto Rico DTOP website.) And it also shows PRI-3 following the PR 53 autopista, as well as other highways like PR-3 and PR-26 not yet bypassed/replaced by an autopista.
In the 50 states, don't Interstate designations more or less automatically move from an old alignment to an upgraded new one, without having to get AASHTO approval for every shift? For example, did CalTrans need such approval to move I-15 near the Miramar air station north of San Diego, from the old alignment that is now Kearney Villa Road to the new routing to the east?
Will statehood require Puerto Rico to follow the MUTCD more closely? Currently, a lot of PR's signs seem to resemble the MUTCD, translated to Spanish, but I believe I remember seeing some somewhat significant differences. Conversely, what are the odds of the MUTCD being revised to accommodate PR's unique situations, namely, the addition of options for Spanish or bilingual signage?
Currently the route shield situation in PR is a mess...primary, secondary, and tertiary PR routes exist, with some switching back and forth between systems at random; an urban variant of the primary shield exists for seemingly no reason, the secondary shield looks like a CR marker, while the tertiary marker looks like the default MUTCD circle for state highways. I doubt being a state would do much to change this, but it really needs to be cleaned up somehow.
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 08, 2012, 08:40:26 AM
Will statehood require Puerto Rico to follow the MUTCD more closely? Currently, a lot of PR's signs seem to resemble the MUTCD, translated to Spanish, but I believe I remember seeing some somewhat significant differences. Conversely, what are the odds of the MUTCD being revised to accommodate PR's unique situations, namely, the addition of options for Spanish or bilingual signage?
Currently the route shield situation in PR is a mess...primary, secondary, and tertiary PR routes exist, with some switching back and forth between systems at random; an urban variant of the primary shield exists for seemingly no reason, the secondary shield looks like a CR marker, while the tertiary marker looks like the default MUTCD circle for state highways. I doubt being a state would do much to change this, but it really needs to be cleaned up somehow.
I have heard that PR - were it to become a state - would be asked to be bilingual. At the present time, there's a lot of English here and there, but the vast majority of Puerto Ricans are not proficient in English. If (and it's a big if) PR attains statehood, I'd imagine that bilingual signage would be gradually phased in.
BTW, the statehood vote comes with a great big asterisk. The way in which the ballot was organized was a problem, with one question of "are you happy" about the present status (yes or no) and the second part was "if not, then which of 3 options would you choose". Many left part one blank, some voted yes on part 1, then voted in part 2, others voted vice-versa. Also, the pro-statehood governor of PR (a Republican) lost a close election to a status-quo candidate (aligned with the D's). So, that hurts advocacy for statehood in Washington.
Basically, it's complicated and won't happen as soon as the headlines may imply.
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on November 08, 2012, 09:54:52 AM
I have heard that PR - were it to become a state - would be asked to be bilingual. At the present time, there's a lot of English here and there, but the vast majority of Puerto Ricans are not proficient in English. If (and it's a big if) PR attains statehood, I'd imagine that bilingual signage would be gradually phased in.
I think bilingual signage would be the way to go. I personally have no problem with Puerto Rico having Spanish as the
de facto primary language, though I think English should be at least offered to all students in its public schools.
So most of the signs should be in Spanish and English, with the possible exception of STOP signs, which should just read STOP.
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on November 08, 2012, 09:54:52 AM
BTW, the statehood vote comes with a great big asterisk. The way in which the ballot was organized was a problem, with one question of "are you happy" about the present status (yes or no) and the second part was "if not, then which of 3 options would you choose". Many left part one blank, some voted yes on part 1, then voted in part 2, others voted vice-versa. Also, the pro-statehood governor of PR (a Republican) lost a close election to a status-quo candidate (aligned with the D's). So, that hurts advocacy for statehood in Washington.
Yeah, I read that - seems the voters in P.R. sent a contradictory message to the rest of the United States.
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on November 08, 2012, 09:54:52 AM
Basically, it's complicated and won't happen as soon as the headlines may imply.
Though
I think that they would be better-off as a U.S. state overall, as compared to continuing with the current "commonwealth" status.
And since U.S. citizens from Puerto Rico have been killed and injured in wars fighting for the United States for most of the 20th (and 21st) centuries, it seems very appropriate that they become a state.
I'm all for adding Puerto Rico as a 51st state, since they have been a commonwealth for all those years. And as for the signs, I'd prefer a bilingual set, meaning the signs would be in both English and Spanish.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 08, 2012, 10:57:07 AM
Though I think that they would be better-off as a U.S. state overall, as compared to continuing with the current "commonwealth" status.
And since U.S. citizens from Puerto Rico have been killed and injured in wars fighting for the United States for most of the 20th (and 21st) centuries, it seems very appropriate that they become a state.
On the surface, you'd think that this would be a no-brainer. But that's not so. Because, like most things in life, it's complicated. Although what you've written is true, there is the other side of the issue to be considered. For example, residents of Puerto Rico do not have to pay U.S. Federal Income Tax. They pay tax to the government of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. So, the money stays right there. As far as money goes, they're a net winner as far as government funding is concern.
In fact, the island has been given certain tax breaks and advantages by the U.S. Government. For some industries (for example, pharmaceuticals), it is essentially a Duty-Free zone. That's been successful at creating good-paying jobs. So, there are multiple issues to be considered on each side of the issue. Not the least of which is the fact that Puerto Ricans are a cohesive ethnic group - a "culture", a "people". Of U.S. states only Hawaiians feel that way and they're not nearly as unanimous in percentage as las boricuas. Can you imagine someone telling you that they're half Italian and half Ohioan? No.
So there is a cultural concern to be considered as well. There are many reasons why the commonwealth status has remained popular and in place for so long. For the plurality of Puerto Ricans, it has represented the best of both worlds. And, they'll always be Puerto Rican first and American second - they know this.
It's not quite so cut-and-dried. But I am in favor of the Puerto Rican people making that decision for themselves before doing anything.
Please keep this thread limited to road-related stuff only. There is a thread in Off-Topic (linked from the top of the page) that is for discussing the broader situation Puerto Rico is in.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 08, 2012, 10:57:07 AM
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on November 08, 2012, 09:54:52 AM
I have heard that PR - were it to become a state - would be asked to be bilingual. At the present time, there's a lot of English here and there, but the vast majority of Puerto Ricans are not proficient in English. If (and it's a big if) PR attains statehood, I'd imagine that bilingual signage would be gradually phased in.
I think bilingual signage would be the way to go. I personally have no problem with Puerto Rico having Spanish as the de facto primary language, though I think English should be at least offered to all students in its public schools.
English should be **REQUIRED** to be taught in Puerto Rican schools whether it becomes a state or not. English should be taught from kindergarten all the way to 12th grade, and in colleges. Americans need to be proficient in English just for practicality's sake.
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 08, 2012, 12:19:09 PM
Please keep this thread limited to road-related stuff only. There is a thread in Off-Topic (linked from the top of the page) that is for discussing the broader situation Puerto Rico is in.
So much for that. . .
Don't be too hard on bugo. He can't read purple English.
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 08, 2012, 08:40:26 AM
Will statehood require Puerto Rico to follow the MUTCD more closely?
Probably no more or no less than California.
I'm thinking Puerto Rico will continue to have its own state MUTCD, except it will be asked to be brought into substantial conformance - meaning the same sign dimensions, symbols, and phraseology. The language of the phraseology will be different, but I bet FHWA will allow that within the realm of "substantial" in the interest of not causing accidents.
Are their freeways/tollways up to interstate standard, and what numbers would they get?
Presumably the numbers they already have.
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 08, 2012, 08:40:26 AM
Currently the route shield situation in PR is a mess...primary, secondary, and tertiary PR routes exist, with some switching back and forth between systems at random...
Except for the tertiary system, sounds a lot like Tennessee.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 08, 2012, 10:57:07 AM
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on November 08, 2012, 09:54:52 AM
I have heard that PR - were it to become a state - would be asked to be bilingual. At the present time, there's a lot of English here and there, but the vast majority of Puerto Ricans are not proficient in English. If (and it's a big if) PR attains statehood, I'd imagine that bilingual signage would be gradually phased in.
I think bilingual signage would be the way to go. I personally have no problem with Puerto Rico having Spanish as the de facto primary language, though I think English should be at least offered to all students in its public schools.
So most of the signs should be in Spanish and English, with the possible exception of STOP signs, which should just read STOP.
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on November 08, 2012, 09:54:52 AM
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on November 08, 2012, 09:54:52 AM
Why not allow the continued use of PARE? It gets a bit chauvanistic to question the use of Spanish regulatory signs in a region that is predominantly Spanish-speaking to this day. The shape and color make it unambiguous to English-only speakers.
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on November 08, 2012, 11:16:08 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 08, 2012, 10:57:07 AM
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on November 08, 2012, 09:54:52 AM
I have heard that PR - were it to become a state - would be asked to be bilingual. At the present time, there's a lot of English here and there, but the vast majority of Puerto Ricans are not proficient in English. If (and it's a big if) PR attains statehood, I'd imagine that bilingual signage would be gradually phased in.
I think bilingual signage would be the way to go. I personally have no problem with Puerto Rico having Spanish as the de facto primary language, though I think English should be at least offered to all students in its public schools.
So most of the signs should be in Spanish and English, with the possible exception of STOP signs, which should just read STOP.
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on November 08, 2012, 09:54:52 AM
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on November 08, 2012, 09:54:52 AM
Why not allow the continued use of PARE? It gets a bit chauvanistic to question the use of Spanish regulatory signs in a region that is predominantly Spanish-speaking to this day. The shape and color make it unambiguous to English-only speakers.
Presumably because the Vienna Convention uses STOP regardless of language; every sign in Europe says STOP, even in France, Italy, etc...
Why not a bilingual Pare/Stop sign?
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 08, 2012, 11:58:11 PM
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on November 08, 2012, 11:16:08 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 08, 2012, 10:57:07 AM
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on November 08, 2012, 09:54:52 AM
I have heard that PR - were it to become a state - would be asked to be bilingual. At the present time, there's a lot of English here and there, but the vast majority of Puerto Ricans are not proficient in English. If (and it's a big if) PR attains statehood, I'd imagine that bilingual signage would be gradually phased in.
I think bilingual signage would be the way to go. I personally have no problem with Puerto Rico having Spanish as the de facto primary language, though I think English should be at least offered to all students in its public schools.
So most of the signs should be in Spanish and English, with the possible exception of STOP signs, which should just read STOP.
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on November 08, 2012, 09:54:52 AM
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on November 08, 2012, 09:54:52 AM
Why not allow the continued use of PARE? It gets a bit chauvanistic to question the use of Spanish regulatory signs in a region that is predominantly Spanish-speaking to this day. The shape and color make it unambiguous to English-only speakers.
Presumably because the Vienna Convention uses STOP regardless of language; every sign in Europe says STOP, even in France, Italy, etc...
However, the US (and consequently Puerto Rico) is not a signatory to the Vienna Convention. STOP signs in the Americas tend to use the native language i.e. ARRET, ALTO, etc.
Quote from: Brandon on November 09, 2012, 06:29:23 AM
However, the US (and consequently Puerto Rico) is not a signatory to the Vienna Convention. STOP signs in the Americas tend to use the native language i.e. ARRET, ALTO, etc.
Absolutely correct! Spanish-speaking islands in the Caribbean and almost all of South America (except Guyana, Suriname and French Guiana) use "PARE". Mexico and Central America use "ALTO".
If Puerto Rico were to become a state (an interesting prospect), I suppose it's possible that they would be forced to transition to bilingual or even English STOP signs. Federal highway funding is usually tied to the maintenance of standards. But, an exception could be permitted too.
Hard to guess on this one.
Quote from: bugo on November 08, 2012, 05:47:30 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 08, 2012, 10:57:07 AM
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on November 08, 2012, 09:54:52 AM
I have heard that PR - were it to become a state - would be asked to be bilingual. At the present time, there's a lot of English here and there, but the vast majority of Puerto Ricans are not proficient in English. If (and it's a big if) PR attains statehood, I'd imagine that bilingual signage would be gradually phased in.
I think bilingual signage would be the way to go. I personally have no problem with Puerto Rico having Spanish as the de facto primary language, though I think English should be at least offered to all students in its public schools.
English should be **REQUIRED** to be taught in Puerto Rican schools whether it becomes a state or not. English should be taught from kindergarten all the way to 12th grade, and in colleges. Americans need to be proficient in English just for practicality's sake.
I have friends from PR. English is a required subject at least where they went to school. I would imagine its like French being required in Canada... not too many in Alberta are proficient in French.
To get some road stuff in here.. Most signs are pretty easy to figure out even if you dont know the language especially with symbols
Quote from: sp_redelectric on November 09, 2012, 12:03:47 AM
Why not a bilingual Pare/Stop sign?
Or a blank red octagon -easy to understand ;-)
Quote from: jwolfer on November 10, 2012, 02:01:27 PMTo get some road stuff in here.. Most signs are pretty easy to figure out even if you dont know the language especially with symbols
When we were in PR we rented a car. I think the only sign I couldn't figure out was the one that told me that there might be livestock in the road. Of course, I can't find it. The others were pretty obvious.
Biggest issue relative to road is not what it says on a stop sign.
PR uses the metric system for distance signs, and sells gasoline in metric. But imports US standard cars with "English" measurements. And thus posts "English" speed limit signs. With no notice on the signage that this is the case. So you would see "San Juan 50" and are just supposed to know that that is 50 km, and then US style but in Spanish "55" signs are are just supposed to know that that means miles.
Quote from: SP Cook on November 12, 2012, 07:23:50 PM
Biggest issue relative to road is not what it says on a stop sign.
PR uses the metric system for distance signs, and sells gasoline in metric. But imports US standard cars with "English" measurements. And thus posts "English" speed limit signs. With no notice on the signage that this is the case. So you would see "San Juan 50" and are just supposed to know that that is 50 km, and then US style but in Spanish "55" signs are are just supposed to know that that means miles.
But isn't that true right now? How would statehood affect it?
Quote from: kphoger on November 12, 2012, 09:41:21 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on November 12, 2012, 07:23:50 PM
Biggest issue relative to road is not what it says on a stop sign.
PR uses the metric system for distance signs, and sells gasoline in metric. But imports US standard cars with "English" measurements. And thus posts "English" speed limit signs. With no notice on the signage that this is the case. So you would see "San Juan 50" and are just supposed to know that that is 50 km, and then US style but in Spanish "55" signs are are just supposed to know that that means miles.
But isn't that true right now? How would statehood affect it?
Not at all. There is nothing I know of in the MUTCD that says a state must use the Imperial/English system or the Metric/French system of measurement on its highways.
Quote from: Brandon on November 12, 2012, 10:08:03 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 12, 2012, 09:41:21 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on November 12, 2012, 07:23:50 PM
Biggest issue relative to road is not what it says on a stop sign.
PR uses the metric system for distance signs, and sells gasoline in metric. But imports US standard cars with "English" measurements. And thus posts "English" speed limit signs. With no notice on the signage that this is the case. So you would see "San Juan 50" and are just supposed to know that that is 50 km, and then US style but in Spanish "55" signs are are just supposed to know that that means miles.
But isn't that true right now? How would statehood affect it?
Not at all. There is nothing I know of in the MUTCD that says a state must use the Imperial/English system or the Metric/French system of measurement on its highways.
I believe the MUTCD explicitly allows either or both and has a design for a metric speed limit sign that has the number enclosed in a black circle with "km/h" underneath. An older edition prescribed a standard-looking speed limit sign with a yellow plaque above reading "METRIC" and a white plaque below reading "km/h," but presumably they came to their senses and realized the potential for trouble if the supplemental plaques were blown away in a storm or stolen by pranksters.
^ The current MUTCD no longer includes designs for metric signs.