Comments: TXDOT and the Outer Loop and Sticking It To The Hippies
Comments
It's probably a combination of keeping the flame alive and simple inertia: the route numbers have always been designated as 45, so who's going to go to the trouble of trying to get new ones assigned?
Well, they didn't have any trouble quickly designating SH 130 -- I doubt inertia is the cause, given the amount of confusion these two roads with the same number will generate for out-of-towners.
Well, contrary evidence is given by SH130 - part of which runs on the originally proposed corridor for the "Outer Loop". Of course, now it continues north and south rather than being part of a circle route, but on the "planning maps", it would have been called "Outer Loop", or, if the route was named that far back, "SH45". And yet they had no trouble renaming this part of the road...
I think the "SH45" nomenclature is fairly recent, actually, possibly just barely predating the 2000ish tollway group. I know that maps I had which were printed before that date had "proposed outer loop" in some places, but I never saw one with "proposed SH45". Certainly the "SH45 SE" segment was essentially designed from scratch.
Went to texasfreeway.com, where our friendly road-obsessive Austin-hating highwaygeek has the old freeway planning maps, and indeed all the way back to at least 1994, both north and south segments are marked as "SH45".
It's probably a combination of keeping the flame alive and simple inertia: the route numbers have always been designated as 45, so who's going to go to the trouble of trying to get new ones assigned?
Posted by: DSK | December 13, 2005 07:40 PM
Well, they didn't have any trouble quickly designating SH 130 -- I doubt inertia is the cause, given the amount of confusion these two roads with the same number will generate for out-of-towners.
Posted by: M1EK | December 14, 2005 09:59 AM
I think it's easier to designate a route than *re-*designate a route after you have a bunch of planning maps drawn up.
I have no doubt it will generate much confusion. Just like having a "Loop 1" that isn't a loop. That's Texas roads for you.
Posted by: DSK | December 14, 2005 12:47 PM
Well, contrary evidence is given by SH130 - part of which runs on the originally proposed corridor for the "Outer Loop". Of course, now it continues north and south rather than being part of a circle route, but on the "planning maps", it would have been called "Outer Loop", or, if the route was named that far back, "SH45". And yet they had no trouble renaming this part of the road...
I think the "SH45" nomenclature is fairly recent, actually, possibly just barely predating the 2000ish tollway group. I know that maps I had which were printed before that date had "proposed outer loop" in some places, but I never saw one with "proposed SH45". Certainly the "SH45 SE" segment was essentially designed from scratch.
Posted by: M1EK | December 14, 2005 12:51 PM
This oughta show me...
Went to texasfreeway.com, where our friendly road-obsessive Austin-hating highwaygeek has the old freeway planning maps, and indeed all the way back to at least 1994, both north and south segments are marked as "SH45".
You win this time, wee bull.
Posted by: M1EK | December 14, 2005 12:55 PM