For all I can remember, neither of the Dakotas have designated anything in what seems like ages. Anyone else have a clue?
SD 19 was extended south in 2001.
When was the most recent new piece of ND/SD 1804 or 1806 opened?
Mike
what about all those 4xx series routes in southwest South Dakota? weren't some of those fairly recent designations?
Highways 1804 and 1806 seem to be much older than I thought they were. They show up on what doesn't look very different from their current alignments on my 1976 North Dakota map, and my 1987 South Dakota map has them, too (the next earliest one I have is from all the way back in 1968, and they didn't exist then).
Speaking of that 1987 map, SD 391, 407, and 471 all existed when that map was printed. :-/
Didn't SD 38 east of Sioux Falls to the Iowa border and IA 9 become SD 42 some time in the 1980's or 1990's? I was a kid then, but when I would go to my grandma's in SW Minnesota, we'd go to Sioux Falls, and I vaguely recall somewhere along the way SD 38 became SD 42.
As for North Dakota, wasn't ND 200 a 1970's creation, along with the rest of the 200's?
Quote from: DandyDan on July 06, 2013, 05:02:59 AM
Didn't SD 38 east of Sioux Falls to the Iowa border and IA 9 become SD 42 some time in the 1980's or 1990's? I was a kid then, but when I would go to my grandma's in SW Minnesota, we'd go to Sioux Falls, and I vaguely recall somewhere along the way SD 38 became SD 42.
I wouldn't be surprised if something like that happened, but that isn't really a new designation, per se.
As for ND 200, I'll have to check my maps sometime soon. I have the one from 1976 and a few from the 1980s, but I'm not near them at the moment.
Okay, it seems ND 200 existed on the 1976 map, so that's too old.
Side note, the 1987 map has SD 38 stretching to the Iowa state line where SD 42 is now, so you're right there.
SD 79 is signed all the way down to the Nebraska line now, and I don't think that happened until 2009 or so
QuoteSD 79 is signed all the way down to the Nebraska line now, and I don't think that happened until 2009 or so.
Yes, that's new. Was not that way in 2005.
Also, the recent (2 months ago) AASHTO route numbering committee meeting (covered in another thread) approved a new alignment of US 85 outside Williston, ND.
So from what I'm seeing/hearing here, there have been a lot of recent extensions, but there hasn't been a new designation since the 70s or earlier. That's no fun. :no:
I know, right?... However they signed Highway 249 near Fort Thompson the last time I was there (9/20). I don't remember that ever.
MSR-200 is 1968, if I recall correctly.
as for SD-42 - I seem to recall Jeff Morrison's Iowa Route Ends page showing a Mount Rushmore style (1961-72 or so) SD-42 shield just inside Iowa. it may have been a different number; I just plain don't remember.
never mind, I found it. it is SD-48, at the junction of IA-12 and IA-403.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fiowahighwayends.net%2Fends%2Fnbratney%2F12_403_sb.jpg&hash=0786ee9cdf1f28a7288b2a0907e38c3e76b4da40)
that shield was gone by the time I tried to find it in October, 2009. there is one Rushmore shield left as far as I know... it's a 79.
Holy hell. That's a real design. I thought it was a joke made up for http://www.northernplainshighways.org/sdakota/ .
Blasted Iowa DOT!
Quote from: NE2 on October 07, 2013, 07:40:22 PM
Holy hell. That's a real design. I thought it was a joke made up for http://www.northernplainshighways.org/sdakota/ .
Yes, and there's more in the shield gallery (//www.aaroads.com/shields/thumbs.php?state=SD).
It's a very bad design at that. Too cluttered, you can't tell what it is unless you look closely. I'm glad they got rid of it.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 07, 2013, 06:38:55 PM
that shield was gone by the time I tried to find it in October, 2009. there is one Rushmore shield left as far as I know... it's a 79.
Out of curiosity, where is it?
in one of the towns on the old alignment bypassed by the expressway. Fairburn, IIRC. it's attached to the same post as a yield sign; back to back.
I found it in the middle of the night; I need a daylight photo.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 08, 2013, 12:28:36 PM
in one of the towns on the old alignment bypassed by the expressway. Fairburn, IIRC. it's attached to the same post as a yield sign; back to back.
I found it in the middle of the night; I need a daylight photo.
That looks very amenable to next year's planned travels. If you verify its existence, please keep me/us updated.
Huh, never knew that... but back to the original topic (kinda), the official list of SD highways is found here http://legis.state.sd.us/statutes/DisplayStatute.aspx?Type=Statute&Statute=31-4 (http://legis.state.sd.us/statutes/DisplayStatute.aspx?Type=Statute&Statute=31-4)
Well, hopefully SD 100 will be the newbie soon, by 2018.
http://www.argusleader.com/article/20131009/NEWS/310090035/Green-light-Highway-100 (http://www.argusleader.com/article/20131009/NEWS/310090035/Green-light-Highway-100)
http://www.keloland.com/newsdetail.cfm/sf-city-council-approves-highway-100-completion/?id=154309
Quote from: M86 on October 10, 2013, 04:39:29 AM
Well, hopefully SD 100 will be the newbie soon, by 2018.
Typical long wait for state projects...
Quote from: SD Mapman on October 10, 2013, 09:50:01 AM
Quote from: M86 on October 10, 2013, 04:39:29 AM
Well, hopefully SD 100 will be the newbie soon, by 2018.
Typical long wait for state projects...
And yet SDDOT, in 2015, is planning on spending $36-40 million dollars on two new SPUIs at locations (I-190 Exit 1 and I-90 Exit 14) in which current traffic counts come nowhere close to justifying SPUIs (and likely never will, in the case of I-190 Exit 1). In both instances, the commenting public was presented with options that were significantly deemed acceptable by them that would have cost $5 for each interchange. But some folks in SDDOT can't bear the thought of making I-190 a surface street (current traffic counts easily justify this), and some folks have this weird attitude against roundabouts in Spearfish.
Quote from: Molandfreak on October 08, 2013, 10:08:02 AM
It's a very bad design at that. Too cluttered, you can't tell what it is unless you look closely. I'm glad they got rid of it.
Well that one might just be cluttered because there are two numbers on top of each other. :-P
As for SD 100, there is some progress being made, but it's slow as all hell. SD 11 is still closed here from 26th Street to 57th Street (I think that's about two miles), as it has been for, like, all summer, and there's still some gravel road north of the city they have to pave.
Quote from: brad2971 on October 10, 2013, 07:08:11 PM
And yet SDDOT, in 2015, is planning on spending $36-40 million dollars on two new SPUIs at locations (I-190 Exit 1 and I-90 Exit 14) in which current traffic counts come nowhere close to justifying SPUIs (and likely never will, in the case of I-190 Exit 1). In both instances, the commenting public was presented with options that were significantly deemed acceptable by them that would have cost $5 for each interchange. But some folks in SDDOT can't bear the thought of making I-190 a surface street (current traffic counts easily justify this), and some folks have this weird attitude against roundabouts in Spearfish.
I disagree.
The exit 14 project idea floated around in 2009, and it NEEDS A SPUI!!!! Trust me, I live there. You haven't seen that during the rally. We can't put the roundabouts in because they just repaved that stretch of 14A and the asphalt needs to live out its lifespan (and no one would know how to drive them anyway). I-190 a surface street? What????? Exit 1C is just a mess.
Quote from: SD Mapman on October 10, 2013, 10:53:30 PM
I-190 a surface street? What????? Exit 1C is just a mess.
I drove I-190 when I was in Rapid City in July and it seems like it might be better if they made it a surface street like I-180 in Wyoming. The freeway wasn't that heavily traveled...
How?
It already has frontage roads and is sunk below North Rapid (which no one wants to see anyway).
Quote from: SD Mapman on October 10, 2013, 11:10:31 PM
How?
It already has frontage roads and is sunk below North Rapid (which no one wants to see anyway).
I don't know. Maybe it gets clogged up during rush hour or during different times of the year, but I didn't see many cars on the freeway (I only drove it once on a Friday at about 1 PM).
It's almost certainly less congested than I-229 here. During rush hours, one of the exits is so bad that SDDOT is conducting a corridor study to redesign it.
Quote from: TCN7JM on October 11, 2013, 08:10:37 AM
I don't know. Maybe it gets clogged up during rush hour or during different times of the year, but I didn't see many cars on the freeway
That big building on the left is one of the largest high schools in the state.
Quote from: TCN7JM on October 11, 2013, 08:10:37 AM
It's almost certainly less congested than I-229 here. During rush hours, one of the exits is so bad that SDDOT is conducting a corridor study to redesign it.
Which one? The one with 115 (4, I think)? Or am I just completely off base?
Quote from: SD Mapman on October 11, 2013, 09:24:37 AM
Which one? The one with 115 (4, I think)? Or am I just completely off base?
SD 115/Minnesota Avenue is actually exit 3, but I digress. The exit they need to fix is exit 5 with 26th Street. The exit ramp northbound gets backed up all the way to the Interstate seemingly every day at rush hour, and it's a pretty long exit ramp (https://maps.google.com/?ll=43.52702,-96.699783&spn=0.004551,0.010568&t=h&z=17). Not helping is the fact that 26th Street will get backed up for blocks and blocks.
Quote from: TCN7JM on October 11, 2013, 04:03:52 PM
Not helping is the fact that 26th Street will get backed up for blocks and blocks.
Sounds like Exit 14 during the Rally! But worse!
Quote from: brad2971 on October 10, 2013, 07:08:11 PM
Typical long wait for state projects...
And yet SDDOT, in 2015, is planning on spending $36-40 million dollars on two new SPUIs at locations (I-190 Exit 1 and I-90 Exit 14) in which current traffic counts come nowhere close to justifying SPUIs (and likely never will, in the case of I-190 Exit 1). In both instances, the commenting public was presented with options that were significantly deemed acceptable by them that would have cost $5 for each interchange. But some folks in SDDOT can't bear the thought of making I-190 a surface street (current traffic counts easily justify this), and some folks have this weird attitude against roundabouts in Spearfish.
Typical long wait for state projects...
And yet SDDOT, in 2015, is planning on spending $36-40 million dollars on two new SPUIs at locations (I-190 Exit 1 and I-90 Exit 14) in which current traffic counts come nowhere close to justifying SPUIs (and likely never will, in the case of I-190 Exit 1). In both instances, the commenting public was presented with options that were significantly deemed acceptable by them that would have cost $5 for each interchange. But some folks in SDDOT can't bear the thought of making I-190 a surface street (current traffic counts easily justify this), and some folks have this weird attitude against roundabouts in Spearfish.
I can't shake the feeling that you're with an engineering firm used by SDDOT. I know they used engineering firms in Denver. Hey, if I'm wrong, call me out.
Also, SDDOT isn't really hemorrhaging money, compared to other states. SD 100 isn't critical, but will be needed in the future. I give SDDOT kudos to implement interchanges that make sense and will in the future. I wish I could say the same about the state I live in now.
And, if you are with an engineering firm that was hired by SDDOT, I really hope they do not hire your organization again.
Edit: Yeah, the interchange justification report on SDDOT.com for Exit 14 in Spearfish confirms what I thought. At least they're planning for the very far future.
Quote from: M86 on October 12, 2013, 03:07:01 AM
I give SDDOT kudos to implement interchanges that make sense and will in the future.
Thank you (even though I am not associated with DOT whatsoever)! Ever since Wal-Mart moved out to Exit 14 (2005), congestion has been rabid.
Quote from: SD Mapman on October 12, 2013, 05:11:42 PM
Ever since Wal-Mart moved out to Exit 14 (2005), congestion has been rabid.
Not sure if you've heard about this or not, but there's a possibility for similar stuff to go on in Sioux Falls that would definitely increase traffic on SD 38 and SD 115 in Sioux Falls. Walmart wants one location at N 60th Street (SD 38) and Marion Road, and another at Minnesota Avenue (SD 115) and 85th Street. This would raise the grand total for Walmarts in Sioux Falls to four...
Quote from: TCN7JM on October 12, 2013, 09:01:31 PM
Quote from: SD Mapman on October 12, 2013, 05:11:42 PM
Ever since Wal-Mart moved out to Exit 14 (2005), congestion has been rabid.
Not sure if you've heard about this or not, but there's a possibility for similar stuff to go on in Sioux Falls that would definitely increase traffic on SD 38 and SD 115 in Sioux Falls. Walmart wants one location at N 60th Street (SD 38) and Marion Road, and another at Minnesota Avenue (SD 115) and 85th Street. This would raise the grand total for Walmarts in Sioux Falls to four...
Yeah, I have... Why the heck would they want one by the University Center? There's nothing out there!
Quote from: SD Mapman on October 13, 2013, 12:46:19 AM
There's nothing out there!
Not in the immediate vicinity but, similar to how the one on the eastern edge of the city is mainly used by residents of Brandon, this one is expected to be used by residents of Hartford.
Ah... That's logical thinking for you!
For what it's worth, here's a list of South Dakota's officially designated state highways from its codified laws (Chapter 31-4, State Trunk Highway System). Each statute contains the effective date or last revision date for each listed highway. Note that some designated routes such as overlaps between two routes and certain business routes aren't listed here but are still signed when concurrent with something else. The most surprising route in my review of this list is South Dakota 248, an unsigned state route that follows Old U.S. 16 east of the Badlands area for 100+ miles!
http://legis.state.sd.us/statutes/DisplayStatute.aspx?Statute=31-4&Type=Statute
Regards,
Andy
I posted that... in another forum earlier in this forum. One of the statutes listed gives the DOT authority to extend signage even where the highway is not. The business loop thing is because they turned them over to the cities. BTW, that's not surprising as the street signs list the road as "SD 248" in places.
Quote from: SD Mapman on October 15, 2013, 04:05:37 PM
I posted that... in another forum earlier in this forum. One of the statutes listed gives the DOT authority to extend signage even where the highway is not. The business loop thing is because they turned them over to the cities. BTW, that's not surprising as the street signs list the road as "SD 248" in places.
Thanks! Missed that.
Andy
SD has stripped a lot of designations lately... as evidenced by the [deleted] lines on the statute page.
I don't think they were that recently. There were a lot of smaller routes that seem to have disappeared sometime in the 70s or 80s, according to the few maps I have.
Just based off the last time I looked in the spring, and then looked last week, they removed a bunch of pointless unsigned 3-di's... but the last real decomission was probably in the 70's. Although, do you know when SD 134 went away?
Quote from: SD Mapman on October 18, 2013, 12:07:00 AM
Although, do you know when SD 134 went away?
Must be pretty recently, Google Maps says it still exists (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=mina,+sd&hl=en&ll=45.453568,-98.739882&spn=0.035222,0.084543&sll=35.180727,-97.493969&sspn=0.001291,0.002642&hnear=Mina,+Edmunds,+South+Dakota&t=m&z=14). :-D
I have no clue on the exact date, though.
Yeah, because I remember looking on street view in that area and in Brown County, you could see signs. When you crossed the county line, though, they went away.
Quote from: TCN7JM on October 18, 2013, 02:06:05 AM
Quote from: SD Mapman on October 18, 2013, 12:07:00 AM
Although, do you know when SD 134 went away?
Must be pretty recently, Google Maps says it still exists (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=mina,+sd&hl=en&ll=45.453568,-98.739882&spn=0.035222,0.084543&sll=35.180727,-97.493969&sspn=0.001291,0.002642&hnear=Mina,+Edmunds,+South+Dakota&t=m&z=14). :-D
I have no clue on the exact date, though.
Google maps is notorious for showing dead alignments as still active.
Quote from: Alex on October 18, 2013, 03:15:01 PM
Quote from: TCN7JM on October 18, 2013, 02:06:05 AM
Quote from: SD Mapman on October 18, 2013, 12:07:00 AM
Although, do you know when SD 134 went away?
Must be pretty recently, Google Maps says it still exists (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=mina,+sd&hl=en&ll=45.453568,-98.739882&spn=0.035222,0.084543&sll=35.180727,-97.493969&sspn=0.001291,0.002642&hnear=Mina,+Edmunds,+South+Dakota&t=m&z=14). :-D
I have no clue on the exact date, though.
Google maps is notorious for showing dead alignments as still active.
Yeah, I know. I've already reported a couple to GMaps and
most of the time, they get fixed. However, no matter how many times I report it, they insist SD 11 overlaps SD 48 and I-29 en route to SD 50 and Elk Point when, in reality, it exists in two segments: one from the Minnesota state line south to SD 48 and a shorter one from SD 50 to Elk Point.
You know, according to SD law, they(DOT) could extend the signage through the gap. It could happen...
Some of my beef with SD 100 is the lack of signage. Signage like the "Next Signal" signage I see in Missouri would be great.
And why they decided to keep Arrowhead Parkway (SD 42) & future SD 100 (current SD 11/Powder House Road) as an at grade intersection... Big flop.
You think that's bad... you should see some of the signage in the Hills. Atrocious!
Quote from: M86 on October 25, 2013, 05:36:18 AM
Some of my beef with SD 100 is the lack of signage. Signage like the "Next Signal" signage I see in Missouri would be great.
And why they decided to keep Arrowhead Parkway (SD 42) & future SD 100 (current SD 11/Powder House Road) as an at grade intersection... Big flop.
It's perfectly fine as an at-grade intersection. If you've been here recently, the traffic there isn't actually that bad, even during rush hours.
It's kinda like the last bypass they did around Rapid. Some intersections are at-grade, while others are not.
Quote from: SD Mapman on October 26, 2013, 11:11:48 PM
It's kinda like the last bypass they did around Rapid. Some intersections are at-grade, while others are not.
Aren't all of SD 100's connections supposed to be at-grade? I heard there would be mostly traffic lights.
Quote from: TCN7JM on October 26, 2013, 02:35:17 PM
Quote from: M86 on October 25, 2013, 05:36:18 AM
Some of my beef with SD 100 is the lack of signage. Signage like the "Next Signal" signage I see in Missouri would be great.
And why they decided to keep Arrowhead Parkway (SD 42) & future SD 100 (current SD 11/Powder House Road) as an at grade intersection... Big flop.
It's perfectly fine as an at-grade intersection. If you've been here recently, the traffic there isn't actually that bad, even during rush hours.
I'm very familiar with Sioux Falls... I guess you don't understand future growth?
The SD 100 study wants interchanges at Benson Road and 57th Street... You can't tell me the Arrowhead/SD 100 will be a low traffic area.
Quote from: M86 on October 27, 2013, 01:27:28 AM
Quote from: TCN7JM on October 26, 2013, 02:35:17 PM
Quote from: M86 on October 25, 2013, 05:36:18 AM
Some of my beef with SD 100 is the lack of signage. Signage like the "Next Signal" signage I see in Missouri would be great.
And why they decided to keep Arrowhead Parkway (SD 42) & future SD 100 (current SD 11/Powder House Road) as an at grade intersection... Big flop.
It's perfectly fine as an at-grade intersection. If you've been here recently, the traffic there isn't actually that bad, even during rush hours.
I'm very familiar with Sioux Falls... I guess you don't understand future growth?
The SD 100 study wants interchanges at Benson Road and 57th Street... You can't tell me the Arrowhead/SD 100 will be a low traffic area.
True, but... I wonder where the majority of people commute to and from in Sioux Falls?
Quote from: SD Mapman on October 27, 2013, 11:45:48 PM
Quote from: M86 on October 27, 2013, 01:27:28 AM
Quote from: TCN7JM on October 26, 2013, 02:35:17 PM
Quote from: M86 on October 25, 2013, 05:36:18 AM
Some of my beef with SD 100 is the lack of signage. Signage like the "Next Signal" signage I see in Missouri would be great.
And why they decided to keep Arrowhead Parkway (SD 42) & future SD 100 (current SD 11/Powder House Road) as an at grade intersection... Big flop.
It's perfectly fine as an at-grade intersection. If you've been here recently, the traffic there isn't actually that bad, even during rush hours.
I'm very familiar with Sioux Falls... I guess you don't understand future growth?
The SD 100 study wants interchanges at Benson Road and 57th Street... You can't tell me the Arrowhead/SD 100 will be a low traffic area.
True, but... I wonder where the majority of people commute to and from in Sioux Falls?
I'll put it this way. Years ago, before SDDOT and the city of Sioux Falls actually worked with each other, the city of Sioux Falls built up developments at I-29 & 57th Street. This would be a logical area for an interchange, between 41st and I-229, and it would work... but the lack of coordination failed... and members of the Sioux Falls City Council have acknowledged this. As a result, the 57th/Louise/Western area is very congested.
It's a right of way thing... Maybe they could put a SPUI or Diverging Diamond in at Arrowhead and Highway 100, in the future. Just secure enough right of way. And hopefully SDDOT thought of this.
Quote from: Molandfreak on October 26, 2013, 11:25:30 PM
Aren't all of SD 100's connections supposed to be at-grade? I heard there would be mostly traffic lights.
SD 100 will have interchanges at Benson Road and 57th Street.
Quote from: M86 on November 01, 2013, 02:17:16 AM
As a result, the 57th/Louise/Western area is very congested.
Too true... even at 9 at night!
Quote from: M86 on November 01, 2013, 02:17:16 AM
And hopefully SDDOT thought of this.
Knowing them, they probably didn't. They repaved US 14A in Spearfish city limits a couple years ago, then promptly decided to put roundabouts in. But because they just repaved it, they now have to wait until the end of the asphalt's lifespan for it to be cost-effective.
Quote from: SD Mapman on November 01, 2013, 02:17:43 PM
Knowing them, they probably didn't. They repaved US 14A in Spearfish city limits a couple years ago, then promptly decided to put roundabouts in. But because they just repaved it, they now have to wait until the end of the asphalt's lifespan for it to be cost-effective.
Where are these roundabouts in Spearfish? I was there 2 years ago, and there were no roundabouts at all. I remember seeing ideas for roundabouts at the ramp terminals on I-90 in Spearfish via SDDOT.
If it's Exit 14, then yes... A roundabout is the best choice.
They work great with lower traffic... People just have to become accustomed to it... Much like a SPUI or Diverging Diamond.
Quote from: M86 on November 02, 2013, 01:32:20 AM
Quote from: SD Mapman on November 01, 2013, 02:17:43 PM
Knowing them, they probably didn't. They repaved US 14A in Spearfish city limits a couple years ago, then promptly decided to put roundabouts in. But because they just repaved it, they now have to wait until the end of the asphalt's lifespan for it to be cost-effective.
Where are these roundabouts in Spearfish? I was there 2 years ago, and there were no roundabouts at all. I remember seeing ideas for roundabouts at the ramp terminals on I-90 in Spearfish via SDDOT.
If it's Exit 14, then yes... A roundabout is the best choice.
They work great with lower traffic... People just have to become accustomed to it... Much like a SPUI or Diverging Diamond.
Maybe I said it wrong. Roundabouts are not going to be put in for several years on that stretch due to DOT incompetence. That was the point I was trying to make. Sorry if I confused you!
Quote from: M86 on November 01, 2013, 02:17:16 AM
It's a right of way thing... Maybe they could put a SPUI or Diverging Diamond in at Arrowhead and Highway 100, in the future. Just secure enough right of way. And hopefully SDDOT thought of this.
I don't think I'd be against this, but it would cost a lot of money and time, reconfiguring the entire road and whatnot. Also, the land to the east of the intersection seems pretty crowded, so something might need to be done there.
QuoteKnowing them, they probably didn't. They repaved US 14A in Spearfish city limits a couple years ago, then promptly decided to put roundabouts in. But because they just repaved it, they now have to wait until the end of the asphalt's lifespan for it to be cost-effective.
Not necessarily. One nice thing about asphalt is that it can be recycled.
Quote from: froggie on November 03, 2013, 10:09:57 PM
QuoteKnowing them, they probably didn't. They repaved US 14A in Spearfish city limits a couple years ago, then promptly decided to put roundabouts in. But because they just repaved it, they now have to wait until the end of the asphalt's lifespan for it to be cost-effective.
Not necessarily. One nice thing about asphalt is that it can be recycled.
Huh, you learn something new every day. What do you need to recycle it?
To oversimplify, it gets broken up, then can be reapplied just like new aggregate in the paving machine. BTW, asphalt actually refers to the oily substance (a byproduct of oil refining) that holds the aggregate rocks together to form the driving surface.
I guess DOT just didn't want to do that, then.
Quote from: brad2971 on October 10, 2013, 07:08:11 PM
And yet SDDOT, in 2015, is planning on spending $36-40 million dollars on two new SPUIs at locations (I-190 Exit 1 and I-90 Exit 14) in which current traffic counts come nowhere close to justifying SPUIs (and likely never will, in the case of I-190 Exit 1). In both instances, the commenting public was presented with options that were significantly deemed acceptable by them that would have cost $5 for each interchange. But some folks in SDDOT can't bear the thought of making I-190 a surface street (current traffic counts easily justify this), and some folks have this weird attitude against roundabouts in Spearfish.
I found a study (http://www.sddot.com/transportation/highways/planning/specialstudies/docs/I90Exit14IMJRFinalRevised.pdf) about this.