US routes ending at seemingly random locations

[PHLBOS]

US 20 ends at MA 2 in Boston, not at any other US route or Interstate. (And not at the ocean; there are still a few miles of land.)

Prior to 1964, US 20 went east of Kenmore Square & ran along Commonwealth Ave. (current MA 2) to its eastern end.

US 3 turns into MA 3 at MA 2A in Cambridge. While it is one continuous route, it is a bit strange that the US designation ends there.

Such may have something to do with Memorial Drive east of Mass Ave. having overheight vehicle restrictions.  It should be noted that the US/MA 3 hand-off locations moved a couple times.  Its original location was at the intersection of Commonwealth Ave. (US 20) & Essex St./B.U. Bridge; the latter was US/MA 3 and US 1 prior to 1971.

For some reason, US 44 has a mile-long overlap with MA 3 and then continues to the ocean for another mile instead of just ending when it reaches MA 3. (The last one mile segment of US 44 is not a freeway; US 44 immediately west of MA 3 and the relevant segment of MA 3 are both freeways.)

That one's more recent.  The freeway portion of US 44 has only been around since 2005.  Prior to that, US 44 did multiplex w/MA 3.

[74/171FAN]

US 92 ends at US 19 ALT and FL 687 in downtown St Petersburg (near I-375) from what I saw last weekend.  What makes this random IMO is that US 19 ALT was extended here east of US 19 along 4th and 5th Ave N to replace FL 595 (or at least a section).  I just do not get why US 92 was never extended west to end at US 19 instead.

[US 89]

U.S. 212 ends at a junction with some random road in Yellowstone Natl. Park.

Not really, it ends at the northeast entrance to the park.  US 14 is the real oddity given it multiplexes US 20 to the park gate and ends.  US 189 does the same thing multiplexing US 89 and 26 to Grand Teton only to end.

US 16 does the same thing. US 16 should end at US 20 in Worland, and 14 should end at US 20 in Greybull.
US 189's north end could be in a few places. It could be at US 26/89 at Hoback Jct, but that still requires a multiplex with 191 to get there (and 189 already connects to its parent 89 in Provo UT). If multiplexes are to be avoided, the end should be at US 191 at Daniel Jct.

Another route I don't think has been mentioned: US 277. The north end is at I-44 after a useless multiplex with US 62.

[Max Rockatansky]

U.S. 212 ends at a junction with some random road in Yellowstone Natl. Park.

Not really, it ends at the northeast entrance to the park.  US 14 is the real oddity given it multiplexes US 20 to the park gate and ends.  US 189 does the same thing multiplexing US 89 and 26 to Grand Teton only to end.

US 16 does the same thing. US 16 should end at US 20 in Worland, and 14 should end at US 20 in Greybull.
US 189's north end could be in a few places. It could be at US 26/89 at Hoback Jct, but that still requires a multiplex with 191 to get there (and 189 already connects to its parent 89 in Provo UT). If multiplexes are to be avoided, the end should be at US 191 at Daniel Jct.

Another route I don't think has been mentioned: US 277. The north end is at I-44 after a useless multiplex with US 62.

Another multiplex is US 180 with AZ 64 to the South Rim of the Grand Canyon.  AZ 64 actually makes sense since it continues outside the park boundary to US 89.  Really I understand why there ought to be a US Route going to the Grand Canyon but it ought to be US 160 replacing all of AZ 64 instead.  Even the signage looks like US 180 was just tacked alongside AZ 64 at the last minute:

64AZc by Max Rockatansky, on Flickr

64AZc by Max Rockatansky, on Flickr

Just my opinion but I don't think a US Route should be beneath a state route, seems contrary to the hierarchy of highway systems to me.

[ColossalBlocks]

Just my opinion but I don't think a US Route should be beneath a state route, seems contrary to the hierarchy of highway systems to me.

Thank god I'm not the only one sharing the same opinion.

[Max Rockatansky]

Just my opinion but I don't think a US Route should be beneath a state route, seems contrary to the hierarchy of highway systems to me.

Thank god I'm not the only one sharing the same opinion.

The situation with US 180 is odd.  It exactly clear when US 180 was signed up to the Grand Canyon as it was originally only signed to AZ 64 in Valle up until the early 2000s.  The signs in place now are obviously newer which is why I'm not getting why they have AZ 64 stacked on top of US 180.  Really Arizona in general has a really poor record with US Routes making logical sense or just having poor continuity.  Hell at one point US 60/70/80/89 along with AZ 93 were all multiplexed in downtown Phoenix.  I'm sure if the AASHTO would have approved it Arizona would have had US 93 multiplex US 89 to the border from Tucson southward. 

[hbelkins]

At both ends of US 48, it is signed with concurrent routes that continue. At the eastern end, it ends at I-81 after having been concurrent with VA 55 from the WV/VA state line.

At the western end, it stops at I-79 while US 33 and US 119 continue. Of course, US 48 is the route designation given to Corridor H, which only runs between the two interstates, to give the entire route one number. I would extend US 48 eastward to US 11 and then truncate VA 55 in downtown Strasburg. On the western end, I would either extend US 48 to US 19 in downtown Weston, or I would truncate it in Elkins.

[SD Mapman]

U.S. 212 ends at a junction with some random road in Yellowstone Natl. Park.

Not really, it ends at the northeast entrance to the park.  US 14 is the real oddity given it multiplexes US 20 to the park gate and ends.  US 189 does the same thing multiplexing US 89 and 26 to Grand Teton only to end.

US 16 does the same thing. US 16 should end at US 20 in Worland, and 14 should end at US 20 in Greybull.
US 189's north end could be in a few places. It could be at US 26/89 at Hoback Jct, but that still requires a multiplex with 191 to get there (and 189 already connects to its parent 89 in Provo UT). If multiplexes are to be avoided, the end should be at US 191 at Daniel Jct.

Another route I don't think has been mentioned: US 277. The north end is at I-44 after a useless multiplex with US 62.

189's even more random than that; it doesn't even make it to Grand Teton, but just ends in downtown Jackson where 26/89/191 turn north. I think the idea behind the 14/16 multiplex with 20 is to have several cohesive routes to Yellowstone; there's even a billboard outside my hometown for "16 to Yellowstone": https://www.google.com/maps/@44.52303,-103.9052473,3a,34.5y,318.72h,90.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spi7FdCAVB1qu6g5PrxIY8w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (it's since been updated but the sign error is still there... I've wanted to fix that myself for years but have never had the material).


I still think the AASHTO end point of US 183 is at Exit 212 on I-90 after a pointless concurrency; SD wisely has not signed this.

[Flint1979]

U.S. 212 ends at a junction with some random road in Yellowstone Natl. Park.

Not really, it ends at the northeast entrance to the park.  US 14 is the real oddity given it multiplexes US 20 to the park gate and ends.  US 189 does the same thing multiplexing US 89 and 26 to Grand Teton only to end.

US 16 does the same thing. US 16 should end at US 20 in Worland, and 14 should end at US 20 in Greybull.
US 189's north end could be in a few places. It could be at US 26/89 at Hoback Jct, but that still requires a multiplex with 191 to get there (and 189 already connects to its parent 89 in Provo UT). If multiplexes are to be avoided, the end should be at US 191 at Daniel Jct.

Another route I don't think has been mentioned: US 277. The north end is at I-44 after a useless multiplex with US 62.

US 277 seems pretty useless for it's entire route. It's multiplexed with several different US routes.

[JKRhodes]

US 191 used to end at AZ 80 outside of Douglas and several miles from the Mexican border. This gap in route continuity was fixed in 2010.

[andy3175]

Just my opinion but I don't think a US Route should be beneath a state route, seems contrary to the hierarchy of highway systems to me.

Thank god I'm not the only one sharing the same opinion.

The situation with US 180 is odd.  It exactly clear when US 180 was signed up to the Grand Canyon as it was originally only signed to AZ 64 in Valle up until the early 2000s.  The signs in place now are obviously newer which is why I'm not getting why they have AZ 64 stacked on top of US 180. 

Another consideration is how far US 180 shares alignment with Interstate 40 to get to Flagstaff and makes its way north toward the Grand Canyon. It seems to me that the segment of US 180 north of Flagstaff should be considered for downgrading to a state highway ... and AZ 64 makes a logical extension of US 160 (or even US 64 should there be appetite to replace US 160 with US 64 west of their current intersection).

[andy3175]

U.S. 212 ends at a junction with some random road in Yellowstone Natl. Park.

Not really, it ends at the northeast entrance to the park.  US 14 is the real oddity given it multiplexes US 20 to the park gate and ends.  US 189 does the same thing multiplexing US 89 and 26 to Grand Teton only to end.

US 16 does the same thing. US 16 should end at US 20 in Worland, and 14 should end at US 20 in Greybull.
US 189's north end could be in a few places. It could be at US 26/89 at Hoback Jct, but that still requires a multiplex with 191 to get there (and 189 already connects to its parent 89 in Provo UT). If multiplexes are to be avoided, the end should be at US 191 at Daniel Jct.

Another route I don't think has been mentioned: US 277. The north end is at I-44 after a useless multiplex with US 62.

189's even more random than that; it doesn't even make it to Grand Teton, but just ends in downtown Jackson where 26/89/191 turn north. I think the idea behind the 14/16 multiplex with 20 is to have several cohesive routes to Yellowstone; there's even a billboard outside my hometown for "16 to Yellowstone": https://www.google.com/maps/@44.52303,-103.9052473,3a,34.5y,318.72h,90.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spi7FdCAVB1qu6g5PrxIY8w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (it's since been updated but the sign error is still there... I've wanted to fix that myself for years but have never had the material).


I still think the AASHTO end point of US 183 is at Exit 212 on I-90 after a pointless concurrency; SD wisely has not signed this.

US 14, 16, and 20 are signed as they are in order to provide distinct routes to Yellowstone. As you noted, US 14 and US 16 are openly advertised for vacationers as competing routes to get from Rapid City to Yellowstone. For example, US 14 (and US 14A) goes to Sturgis, Spearfish Canyon, Deadwood, and Devils Tower while US 16 (and US 16A) goes through Custer State Park and Jewel Cave National Monument while connecting to Wind Cave National Park. Perhaps the idea is to take one route east and the other route west. Many people visiting from the Midwest intend to go through the Black Hills to Yellowstone, so I can see the benefit of having both US 14 and US 16 signed (plus they offer scenic routes through the Bighorns). As for US 20, it is the through route leading from Casper and points east through Yellowstone west toward Idaho Falls and Boise, but most traffic from the Midwest does not come into Yellowstone having followed US 20. From what I've seen, most vacationing traffic from the Midwest comes in via I-90 and then takes US 14 or US 16 through the Black Hills and between the Bighorns and Yellowstone. Think of US 14, 16, and 20 as touring routes in this example.

I have always thought US 189 should be transferred onto WYO 22 into Idaho, then follow Idaho 33 (and Idaho 32?) northwest to join US 20. Then US 189 could extend over ID 87 and MT 87 (linking to US 287) to provide a bypass for north-south travel to the west of Yellowstone National Park, which is not possible through the park during winter months.

Thanks for the info on US 183. While I appreciate the concept of having the child route connecting with the parent route (US 83), it doesn't seem necessary to extend it signed on I-90. The currently signed endpoint makes sense.

[Max Rockatansky]

Just my opinion but I don't think a US Route should be beneath a state route, seems contrary to the hierarchy of highway systems to me.

Thank god I'm not the only one sharing the same opinion.

The situation with US 180 is odd.  It exactly clear when US 180 was signed up to the Grand Canyon as it was originally only signed to AZ 64 in Valle up until the early 2000s.  The signs in place now are obviously newer which is why I'm not getting why they have AZ 64 stacked on top of US 180. 

Another consideration is how far US 180 shares alignment with Interstate 40 to get to Flagstaff and makes its way north toward the Grand Canyon. It seems to me that the segment of US 180 north of Flagstaff should be considered for downgrading to a state highway ... and AZ 64 makes a logical extension of US 160 (or even US 64 should there be appetite to replace US 160 with US 64 west of their current intersection).

Not only that but the multiplexes with I-10 and US 62 are absolutely huge.  Pretty much all of them could be eliminated and section between I-10 to I-40 could be reassigned something in the US X60 family.  It would be a pretty handy connection to have US 160 routed over the alignment of AZ 64 entirely.  I like the concept of US 64 but I tend to like Rover's idea about having that extend to US 395 in California via various connections in Arizona, Utah, and Nevada.

[Flint1979]

How about the eastern end of US 12 in Detroit? It just stops at Cass Avenue while Michigan Avenue keeps going about five blocks further east to end at Woodward. Why couldn't US 12 just end at Woodward? At least there is an END US 12 sign there now though. Detroit use to do a terrible job with signage downtown. And the first WEST US 12 sign is just after First Street.

[Max Rockatansky]

How about the eastern end of US 12 in Detroit? It just stops at Cass Avenue while Michigan Avenue keeps going about five blocks further east to end at Woodward. Why couldn't US 12 just end at Woodward? At least there is an END US 12 sign there now though. Detroit use to do a terrible job with signage downtown. And the first WEST US 12 sign is just after First Street.

Really Michigan in general has done a shitty job in terms of breaking up US Routes that ought to be around still.  US 10 ought to still go to downtown either on Woodward or the Lodge.  US 27 should have been a simple reroute and swap of US 127.

[Flint1979]

How about the eastern end of US 12 in Detroit? It just stops at Cass Avenue while Michigan Avenue keeps going about five blocks further east to end at Woodward. Why couldn't US 12 just end at Woodward? At least there is an END US 12 sign there now though. Detroit use to do a terrible job with signage downtown. And the first WEST US 12 sign is just after First Street.

Really Michigan in general has done a shitty job in terms of breaking up US Routes that ought to be around still.  US 10 ought to still go to downtown either on Woodward or the Lodge.  US 27 should have been a simple reroute and swap of US 127.

I think most of the issue with US 10 was that it was multiplexed with other highways like I-75 and US 23. Right now where US 10 ends isn't the worst of locations but then your putting an east-west highway running north-south too but it could at least still be the Lodge, that was switched to M-10 and Detroit kept the US 10 signs up well after US 10 no longer went to Detroit, they really meant M-10. If it was on Woodward it could have just split with I-75 at exit 93 (US 24) and ran with US 24 to Pontiac then Woodward down to Detroit. As with US 27 that would have made perfect sense.

[dvferyance]

US -258's east end is a culd du sac. I guess though for  Virginia that is not unusual given how many dead end state highways they have.

[US 89]

Just my opinion but I don't think a US Route should be beneath a state route, seems contrary to the hierarchy of highway systems to me.

Thank god I'm not the only one sharing the same opinion.

The situation with US 180 is odd.  It exactly clear when US 180 was signed up to the Grand Canyon as it was originally only signed to AZ 64 in Valle up until the early 2000s.  The signs in place now are obviously newer which is why I'm not getting why they have AZ 64 stacked on top of US 180. 

Another consideration is how far US 180 shares alignment with Interstate 40 to get to Flagstaff and makes its way north toward the Grand Canyon. It seems to me that the segment of US 180 north of Flagstaff should be considered for downgrading to a state highway ... and AZ 64 makes a logical extension of US 160 (or even US 64 should there be appetite to replace US 160 with US 64 west of their current intersection).

Not only that but the multiplexes with I-10 and US 62 are absolutely huge.  Pretty much all of them could be eliminated and section between I-10 to I-40 could be reassigned something in the US X60 family.  It would be a pretty handy connection to have US 160 routed over the alignment of AZ 64 entirely.  I like the concept of US 64 but I tend to like Rover's idea about having that extend to US 395 in California via various connections in Arizona, Utah, and Nevada.

One idea I have had was to follow Rover's idea of extending US 64 west to St George and replacing US 160 with 164, which would run from the AZ 98 junction west on US 160, south on 89, and west replacing 64 to end at Williams at I-40. That has a few more benefits, including that 164 was a historical number for part of this road, and it would make for a better endpoint of US 180.

[Max Rockatansky]

Just my opinion but I don't think a US Route should be beneath a state route, seems contrary to the hierarchy of highway systems to me.

Thank god I'm not the only one sharing the same opinion.

The situation with US 180 is odd.  It exactly clear when US 180 was signed up to the Grand Canyon as it was originally only signed to AZ 64 in Valle up until the early 2000s.  The signs in place now are obviously newer which is why I'm not getting why they have AZ 64 stacked on top of US 180. 

Another consideration is how far US 180 shares alignment with Interstate 40 to get to Flagstaff and makes its way north toward the Grand Canyon. It seems to me that the segment of US 180 north of Flagstaff should be considered for downgrading to a state highway ... and AZ 64 makes a logical extension of US 160 (or even US 64 should there be appetite to replace US 160 with US 64 west of their current intersection).

Not only that but the multiplexes with I-10 and US 62 are absolutely huge.  Pretty much all of them could be eliminated and section between I-10 to I-40 could be reassigned something in the US X60 family.  It would be a pretty handy connection to have US 160 routed over the alignment of AZ 64 entirely.  I like the concept of US 64 but I tend to like Rover's idea about having that extend to US 395 in California via various connections in Arizona, Utah, and Nevada.

One idea I have had was to follow Rover's idea of extending US 64 west to St George and replacing US 160 with 164, which would run from the AZ 98 junction west on US 160, south on 89, and west replacing 64 to end at Williams at I-40. That has a few more benefits, including that 164 was a historical number for part of this road, and it would make for a better endpoint of US 180.

The main issue there is that at this point the AASHTO likely wouldn't approve a new Intrastate US Route designation that was under 300 miles.  Really a somewhat long multiplex of two route branching at AZ 98 would probably more feasible.

[froggie]

US -258's east end is a culd du sac. I guess though for  Virginia that is not unusual given how many dead end state highways they have.

It wasn't a cul de sac...it was a ferry landing.  And the current ending by VHP accounts is at the VA 143 intersection on the edge of Fort Monroe.

[US 89]

Just my opinion but I don't think a US Route should be beneath a state route, seems contrary to the hierarchy of highway systems to me.

Thank god I'm not the only one sharing the same opinion.

The situation with US 180 is odd.  It exactly clear when US 180 was signed up to the Grand Canyon as it was originally only signed to AZ 64 in Valle up until the early 2000s.  The signs in place now are obviously newer which is why I'm not getting why they have AZ 64 stacked on top of US 180. 

Another consideration is how far US 180 shares alignment with Interstate 40 to get to Flagstaff and makes its way north toward the Grand Canyon. It seems to me that the segment of US 180 north of Flagstaff should be considered for downgrading to a state highway ... and AZ 64 makes a logical extension of US 160 (or even US 64 should there be appetite to replace US 160 with US 64 west of their current intersection).

Not only that but the multiplexes with I-10 and US 62 are absolutely huge.  Pretty much all of them could be eliminated and section between I-10 to I-40 could be reassigned something in the US X60 family.  It would be a pretty handy connection to have US 160 routed over the alignment of AZ 64 entirely.  I like the concept of US 64 but I tend to like Rover's idea about having that extend to US 395 in California via various connections in Arizona, Utah, and Nevada.

One idea I have had was to follow Rover's idea of extending US 64 west to St George and replacing US 160 with 164, which would run from the AZ 98 junction west on US 160, south on 89, and west replacing 64 to end at Williams at I-40. That has a few more benefits, including that 164 was a historical number for part of this road, and it would make for a better endpoint of US 180.

The main issue there is that at this point the AASHTO likely wouldn't approve a new Intrastate US Route designation that was under 300 miles.  Really a somewhat long multiplex of two route branching at AZ 98 would probably more feasible.

In that case, then it can also extend northeastward and replace US 163.

[capt.ron]

Just my opinion but I don't think a US Route should be beneath a state route, seems contrary to the hierarchy of highway systems to me.

Thank god I'm not the only one sharing the same opinion.

The situation with US 180 is odd.  It exactly clear when US 180 was signed up to the Grand Canyon as it was originally only signed to AZ 64 in Valle up until the early 2000s.  The signs in place now are obviously newer which is why I'm not getting why they have AZ 64 stacked on top of US 180. 

Another consideration is how far US 180 shares alignment with Interstate 40 to get to Flagstaff and makes its way north toward the Grand Canyon. It seems to me that the segment of US 180 north of Flagstaff should be considered for downgrading to a state highway ... and AZ 64 makes a logical extension of US 160 (or even US 64 should there be appetite to replace US 160 with US 64 west of their current intersection).

The way US 64 ends in Arizona is so unceremonious it's pitiful. Out in the middle of nowhere at a T intersection with US 160. It made more sense when it used to terminate in Farmington, NM.

[OCGuy81]

US 6 seems like it should go further west, at least to I-5, maybe?

For such a long, transcontinental route, Bishop, CA is a bit anti-climactic.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

US 6 seems like it should go further west, at least to I-5, maybe?

For such a long, transcontinental route, Bishop, CA is a bit anti-climactic.

It did go further southwest, to LA and Long Beach. It was another casualty of the infamous 1964 renumberings.

Unless you know that and are just suggesting a new route for it.

[Max Rockatansky]

US 6 seems like it should go further west, at least to I-5, maybe?

For such a long, transcontinental route, Bishop, CA is a bit anti-climactic.

It did go further southwest, to LA and Long Beach. It was another casualty of the infamous 1964 renumberings.

Unless you know that and are just suggesting a new route for it.

CA 120 is there if seasonal closures aren't an issue.  There no way post renumbeirng Caltrans would allow a huge multiplex like US 6 had on US 395.