Talk:Interstate 169 (Kentucky)

It's not a proposed designation... I think.
Here's my source of I-169. I-57 also got designated, too. https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr244/BILLS-115hr244enr.pdf EBGamingWiki (talk) 23:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You have linked to a copy of the bill, but was this bill passed by Congress and signed by the President? 331dot (talk) 00:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes. EBGamingWiki (talk) 12:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it is an Interstate yet. The law referenced by EBGamingWiki designates the corridor as a Interstate but according to ISTEA Section 1105(e)(5)(A), the highway must still must meet the design criteria of 23 USC 109 and connect to another Interstate (it meets the latter but I doubt that it meets the former). Sec. 1105 is relevant here because the new law referenced above amends Sec. 1105 of ISTEA. 700jn (talk)

Proposed merge with Pennyrile Parkway
If this parkway has now been designated as an Interstate, there should only be one page about it, under the Interstate designation. 331dot (talk) 00:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I was going to do the merge, but I realized it would be alot of work. I do however think its strange it's not "Future Interstate 169", then & then, the parkway is built to Interstate standards.

And what I do like is getting rid of the parkway system in KY. I think its confusing to have 5 types of highways in your state. EBGamingWiki (talk) 00:17, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * So this bill was signed into law by President Trump? 331dot (talk) 00:21, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

He signed a bill, so yes, along with I-57! EBGamingWiki (talk) 00:21, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

To add onto that, now I gotta edit I-57. *sigh* EBGamingWiki (talk) 00:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, is there something indicating that the bill was signed(a statement from the White House, maybe) 331dot (talk) 00:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Link: https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr244/BILLS-115hr244enr.pdf EBGamingWiki (talk) 12:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

It's a long way down the page... Page 66x (the x being 0 to 9) EBGamingWiki (talk) 12:55, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose—you can't merge one page (Pennyrile Parkway) to two targets (I-69, I-169). Also, has the KYTC actually completely stopped using the name? If not, then we should not be marking the designated as decommissioned. An Interstate can have an overlapping name.  Imzadi 1979  →   18:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose-- I have three reasons this article should not be merged. One: There are TWO interstate highways on the original Pennyrile Parkway, plus some of US 41 in Henderson County. Two: I think the article ought to be preserved for historical purposes, and three: the parkway could still exist, but as a secondary name. K-Johnson 127 (talk) 14:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I believe there is work that needs to be done to the portion of the Pennyrile that is future I-169 before it can be officially signed as an Interstate.Froo (talk) 16:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The Pennyrile Parkway encompasses more than just I-169. It also includes sections of highway now designated as I-69 and US-41.  Furthermore, it's premature to call the Pennyrile Parkway a "former" designation simply because it has been designated in law, because driving down the Parkway today you'll still see Pennyrile Parkway signs and not I-169 signs.  Before the remaining section of the Pennyrile can receive I-169 signage (which it hasn't yet), a couple of interchanges must be brought up to interstate standards.132.3.53.79 (talk) 19:38, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The Pennyrile Parkway is longer than I-169, and parts of the Parkway is I-69 too. Merging it into the one page creates controversy that the length is rather 71 miles, not 34. The I-69 portion is larger, so merging it is pretty much unbalanced. ActivBowser9177 (talk) 15:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Unsigned?
I look on Google Streetview, and it seems like I-169 is unsigned and is currently just signed as Pennyrile Parkway. Is there anywhere that has I-169 signed? NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 06:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC)