Interstates that significantly deviate from their directional trend (signage)

[A.J. Bertin]

As we all know, the Interstate highways are primarily signed as either north/south or east/west. And also... as we obviously know, there are sections of many Interstates that can deviate quite a bit from the overall directional trend of the route. I'm sure we can all come up with many examples of this. My husband and I drove from Grand Rapids MI to Chicago over the New Year's holiday weekend. Sometimes we take I-90/94 (the Skyway), and sometimes we take I-80/94 to I-94 to I-90/94 (the Borman Expy, Kingery Expy, and Bishop Ford Fwy). On this particular trip we took the Borman/Kingery/Bishop Ford route. Every time we go that way, I notice at least one sign that says I-94 North (instead of West). And every time I see the indication of North, I am intrigued and it makes me think of the signage and how it could be different.

Over the last few years, I have noticed a few occasions (particularly in Canada) where a highway sign actually shows two cardinal directions... one in parentheses and the other not. A good example is a sign in Sault Ste. Marie Ontario on Highway 17 where the control city is listed as Thunder Bay and it says 17 North (West). I love that because it's giving motorists an idea of the immediate trend of the highway's direction along with the overall (long-distance) trend. Highway 17 is primarily an east-west highway, but there's a significant stretch in the middle of the province where it trends north-south.

In those instances where the temporary directional trend differs from the overall trend, I think having the two separate directions listed (where the primary trend is in parentheses) is very smart.

I have a few questions that go along with this:

1. Do you like the idea of having both directions on a sign in these instances? Why or why not?
2. Has anyone ever seen any instances of this on any signage in the U.S. (particularly along Interstate highways)? My guess is probably not because I assume it goes against MUTCD or AASHTO (whichever governing body oversees signage).
3. Could the U.S. change its standards to adopt such verbiage on signs when warranted?
4. If the U.S. could allow this, it seems like there would have to be a specific guidelines as to when this could be used. What should the guidelines be? Should there be some minimum number of miles of deviation from the directional trend, and would the deviation have to be a certain number of degrees away from the trend?

I'd love to hear everyone's input on this.

[Quillz]

Not an interstate, but in the SF Valley, on-ramp signage often says "101 West" or "101 East," while reassurance markers on the freeway say "North" or "South."

Frankly, I think its unnecessary. I think cardinal signage should always reflect the overall orientation of any given route.

[wanderer2575]

Not an interstate, but in the SF Valley, on-ramp signage often says "101 West" or "101 East," while reassurance markers on the freeway say "North" or "South."

Frankly, I think its unnecessary. I think cardinal signage should always reflect the overall orientation of any given route.

I second this.

But the one exception I'm okay with is when the end of a route changes direction.  For example, US-24 is mostly an east-west route between Minturn CO and Toledo OH, and is signed as such.  But from Toledo, it turns north into Michigan and continues northward to its terminus.  Because the route never turns back to an east-west orientation, I'm okay with it being signed north-south in Michigan.  Same thing with I-69 between Lansing and Port Huron -- it is oriented east-west and signed as such.  Because the route ends in Port Huron and never turns back to north-south, I'm okay with that stretch being signed as east-west.

[cpzilliacus]

I do not like Interstates "changing direction," for I believe it leads to confusion.

Cases in point - I-95 and I-85. 

In northeastern Maryland and nearby Delaware, I-95 runs east-west for a while.  Same in Connecticut, where it crosses most of the state running east-west, and to a lesser extent New York.  But I still prefer it  be signed N-S.

Same for I-85 across much of North Carolina and South Carolina, where it has long sections that are more E-W than N-S.  But it eventually turns to run the "correct" way and carries N-S signs.

[roadman65]

I always used to like what IDOT did for US 66.  Instead of making it a N-S for its run into Chicago from Missouri it did what the Atlantic City Expressway did and used the cities "Chicago" or "St. Louis." as cardinal directions. 

Anyway, yes if the road changes and never returns like US 54 in Texas leading in to its terminus, US 4 in New York, and US 62 in New York ( Not PA as it does run E-W for a good portion) its okay.  However, Texas was one to do it mid run for US 83.  It is signed (or it was in 1997 at least) N-S with US 77 (now I-69E) from Brownsville to Harligen, then E-W from Harligen to west of the Pharr- McAllen area, and then resuming its N-S from there to the Canadian Border.

Actually the I-69 thing at its other end is the only case of interstate other than three digits that change dramatically.  I-75 almost did on Alligator Alley, but FDOT changed the signs, especially at I-595 that had the interstate toward Naples as "West" but kept the SB as SOUTH.

[NWI_Irish96]

I-69 actually does change signage from N/S to E/W at Lansing, MI. 

[epzik8]

What about beltways? I prefer them to simply be signed "outer loop" and "inner loop" for consistency.

[PHLBOS]

What about beltways? I prefer them to simply be signed "outer loop" and "inner loop" for consistency.

I believe that both the Baltimore (I-695) & Capital (I-95/495) Beltways have Inner/Outer Loop signage posted underneath the respective reassurance I-shields & direction cardinals.

[jeffandnicole]

What about beltways? I prefer them to simply be signed "outer loop" and "inner loop" for consistency.

I believe that both the Baltimore (I-695) & Capital (I-95/495) Beltways have Inner/Outer Loop signage posted underneath the respective reassurance I-shields & direction cardinals.

I agree the supplemental signs are good.  But cardinal directions are still needed because once you're on the loop, it can be a little confusing which direction you're actually traveling.

[hbelkins]

I'm old enough to remember Ohio's N-EAST, N-WEST, S-EAST and S-WEST directional banners. Somewhere I have a photo of one for US 33 in Columbus that Sandor Gulyas sent me years ago (long before he got mad at me for some reason). I don't think any more of these exist in the field, but there may be other photos floating around.

I don't recall seeing them used on interstates, however.

The ones that I have the most trouble with are I-24 and I-26. I tend to think of both as north-south routes.

[frankenroad]

What about beltways? I prefer them to simply be signed "outer loop" and "inner loop" for consistency.

I believe that both the Baltimore (I-695) & Capital (I-95/495) Beltways have Inner/Outer Loop signage posted underneath the respective reassurance I-shields & direction cardinals.

I agree the supplemental signs are good.  But cardinal directions are still needed because once you're on the loop, it can be a little confusing which direction you're actually traveling.

I wish we could get the local people (and traffic reporters) to start using inner- and outer-loop terminology for I-275 here in Cincinnati.  As the interstate is a very odd shape, you can be going in a northwesterly direction on "SOUTH I-275" (which at that point is co-signed with I-74 West and US-52 West). 

[US 41]

Over the last few years, I have noticed a few occasions (particularly in Canada) where a highway sign actually shows two cardinal directions... one in parentheses and the other not. A good example is a sign in Sault Ste. Marie Ontario on Highway 17 where the control city is listed as Thunder Bay and it says 17 North (West). I love that because it's giving motorists an idea of the immediate trend of the highway's direction along with the overall (long-distance) trend. Highway 17 is primarily an east-west highway, but there's a significant stretch in the middle of the province where it trends north-south.

In those instances where the temporary directional trend differs from the overall trend, I think having the two separate directions listed (where the primary trend is in parentheses) is very smart.

I remember seeing this when I was in Sault Ste Marie in October. And yes I liked it. It made it a lot less confusing.

[jwolfer]

I am surprised no one has mebtuoned i4.. Through Seminole county and much or Orange it is NS

LGMS428

[PHLBOS]

Although it wasn't part of its original mileage; the southernmost 6-7 miles of I-93 (MA) between Canton & Braintree runs E-W.

[frankenroad]

Hawaii has always been screwed up.  H-1 and H-3 run east-west and H-2 runs north-south.   I always thought that H-1 and H-2 should be swapped.

[PHLBOS]

I-82 in its entirety (WA & OR) tracks more N-S rather than E-W.

[plain]

What about beltways? I prefer them to simply be signed "outer loop" and "inner loop" for consistency.

I believe that both the Baltimore (I-695) & Capital (I-95/495) Beltways have Inner/Outer Loop signage posted underneath the respective reassurance I-shields & direction cardinals.

I agree the supplemental signs are good.  But cardinal directions are still needed because once you're on the loop, it can be a little confusing which direction you're actually traveling.

I wish we could get the local people (and traffic reporters) to start using inner- and outer-loop terminology for I-275 here in Cincinnati.  As the interstate is a very odd shape, you can be going in a northwesterly direction on "SOUTH I-275" (which at that point is co-signed with I-74 West and US-52 West).

The Hampton Roads Beltway in Virginia uses a beltway sign as well, with white Inner and Outer Loop banners underneath to supplement the trailblazers posted (either I-64 or I-664). This is definitely helpful in the case of I-64 given its arc in the region towards its "eastern" terminus.

In North Carolina the I-485 beltway has Inner and Outer designations signed with blue banners like the ones you would see if it were to be interstate cardinal directions.

I definitely agree with I-275 needing some sort of Inner and Outer Loop designations being emphasized as well

[20160805]

How about, in a case such as US 52 (which changes from N/S to E/W and vice versa several times over its route, but in general is NW/SE), using markers that say "NW" and "SE"?

I wouldn't think "CW"/"CCW" markers on circular loop routes would be a bad idea either.

Edit: 100th post - I'm a county road now!

[coatimundi]

What about beltways? I prefer them to simply be signed "outer loop" and "inner loop" for consistency.

I believe that both the Baltimore (I-695) & Capital (I-95/495) Beltways have Inner/Outer Loop signage posted underneath the respective reassurance I-shields & direction cardinals.

Wasn't the Inner Loop in Rochester also signed like that before it was partially destroyed?

[vdeane]

What about beltways? I prefer them to simply be signed "outer loop" and "inner loop" for consistency.

I believe that both the Baltimore (I-695) & Capital (I-95/495) Beltways have Inner/Outer Loop signage posted underneath the respective reassurance I-shields & direction cardinals.

Wasn't the Inner Loop in Rochester also signed like that before it was partially destroyed?

It was regular directional banners as far as I recall.  It wasn't really signed much on the "overlap" with I-490 anyways.

[pianocello]

I-74 is like that in the Quad Cities: Nominally E-W, but it goes from north to south. I think the stretch north (well, west) of the QC Airport could benefit from N-S signage, but it's not really hurting anyone as it is now. FWIW, people almost always say "north" or "south", or even "Iowa-bound" or "Illinois-bound" when giving directions along that stretch.

Just another directional anomaly in the area to add to the bend in the Mississippi River.

4. If the U.S. could allow this, it seems like there would have to be a specific guidelines as to when this could be used. What should the guidelines be? Should there be some minimum number of miles of deviation from the directional trend, and would the deviation have to be a certain number of degrees away from the trend?

IMO, there shouldn't be any hard-and-fast guidelines for this, since it would be pretty subjective. That said, I think transitions should only happen at concurrencies or junctions with other major highways. There doesn't need to be a minimum distance, as long as it's more than a couple miles (again, it's subjective. I just don't think, for example, that I-287 should switch back to N-S at its eastern end). Same deal with the directional requirements, just don't make it obnoxious (which means for the love of all things that are holy, something should be done about US-321).

For example, if I were to add N-S signage to I-74 in Illinois, I would only do so north (well, west) of the I-280 split at the QC Airport, since a junction with another interstate seems like an obvious transition.

[PHLBOS]

I do not like Interstates "changing direction," for I believe it leads to confusion.

Cases in point - I-95 and I-85. 

In northeastern Maryland and nearby Delaware, I-95 runs east-west for a while.  Same in Connecticut, where it crosses most of the state running east-west, and to a lesser extent New York.  But I still prefer it  be signed N-S.

Same for I-85 across much of North Carolina and South Carolina, where it has long sections that are more E-W than N-S.  But it eventually turns to run the "correct" way and carries N-S signs.

Speaking of I-95:

From the DE-PA state line to just prior to the Walt Whitman Bridge (I-76); I-95 runs more E-W than N-S.

Although such wasn't part of I-95's original mileage in MA; the stretch from Burlington (US 3 North) to Peabody (I-95/MA 128 Split) runs more E-W than N-S as well.

The PA-NJ Turnpike Connector (soon to be signed as I-95 circa 2018) will wind up doing similar as well.

[hotdogPi]

85 should remain signed north-south, or maybe NE/SW. Signing it east-west doesn't make sense when it is one of the major north-south Interstates, ending in 5.

If 85 is signed NE/SW, then 4, 26, 71, and 82 should also be signed diagonally.

[jp the roadgeek]

From Burlington to Montpelier, and from just west of White River Junction to Concord, I-89 runs more E-W than N-S. Southeast of Burlington, it's mostly SE-NW.

[A.J. Bertin]

If 85 is signed NE/SW, then 4, 26, 71, and 82 should also be signed diagonally.

Add 24 to your list.