News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

Unnecessarily-numbered roads

Started by txstateends, July 03, 2017, 12:31:38 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

JJBers

Quote from: kurumi on July 05, 2017, 02:13:43 AM
Quote from: JJBers on July 04, 2017, 11:37:57 PM
CT 97 north of US 44, all it does is curve back to US 44, and don't tell me it's because of CT 244, that can just go to US 44 directly.

That's a consequence of the long shadow of history and the state's reluctance to change things.

The "stairstep" part of CT 97 north of US 44 was originally not part of 97; it was called CT 201. In 1934, CT 97 absorbed CT 201, leading to the alignment you have today.

CT 244 was a local road until 1963, and an unsignposted "secret route" until 1988.
I guess that's why Connecticut is the state of steady...pointless habits.
*for Connecticut
Clinched Stats,
Flickr,
(2di:I-24, I-76, I-80, I-84, I-95 [ME-GA], I-91)


freebrickproductions

A lot of counties in Alabama seems to arbitrarily sign every road they maintain with a county route number. IMHO, County Routes should be used to designate the most important roads that aren't state maintained within the county.
It's all fun & games until someone summons Cthulhu and brings about the end of the world.

I also collect traffic lights, road signs, fans, and railroad crossing equipment.

(They/Them)

CYoder

US 19W.  Here is the only portion not multiplexed with any other route number.

US 89

Quote from: CYoder on July 05, 2017, 05:12:21 PM
US 19W.  Here is the only portion not multiplexed with any other route number.

I'm surprised that's still around, since it's a suffixed US route. It probably served a purpose before I-26 was built.

Mapmikey

#29
Quote from: roadguy2 on July 05, 2017, 06:50:44 PM
Quote from: CYoder on July 05, 2017, 05:12:21 PM
US 19W.  Here is the only portion not multiplexed with any other route number.

I'm surprised that's still around, since it's a suffixed US route. It probably served a purpose before I-26 was built.

US 19W was rendered obsolete when US 23 was moved from it to its pre-I-26 routing through Sams Gap about 1952.

US 19W is a difficult, winding, slow drive and should be downgraded to NC 36 and TN 36.

oscar

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 04, 2017, 07:55:23 PM
If anything the I-580 ought to be silent and just have US 395/US 50 signed.  I've never understood what makes a 3d designation so much better than a US of State Route?

At least members of the general public, unaware of the silent designation, won't include Nevada on the short list of states whose capitals aren't on the Interstate system.

But in the same spirit, Interstate H-201 was for a long time unsigned, and HDOT didn't really need to put up Interstate signs that perplexed the locals who long knew it as HI 78 or by its name the Moanalua Freeway.
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

Charles2

Quote from: freebrickproductions on July 05, 2017, 02:51:51 AM
A lot of counties in Alabama seems to arbitrarily sign every road they maintain with a county route number. IMHO, County Routes should be used to designate the most important roads that aren't state maintained within the county.

There are several counties in north Alabama where it seems like they went hog-wild in designating county roads.

The most needless state route here in Alabama might be SR-151.  It was the designation given to the connector road between AL-75 and AL-79 in Pinson.  I don't think it's more than 3/4 mile long.

Second on my list of needlessly numbered roads: the (mainly) secret state routes assigned to U.S. routes.  Given that Alabama doesn't duplicate U.S. and state route numbers, why don't they just make U.S. 31's partner AL-31, U.S. 78, AL-78, etc.   Nah, that would make too much sense.  That also would free up low route numbers to avoid the Interstate-state route duplications (10, 20, 22, 59, 65, 85 and 165).

US 89

Quote from: Charles2 on July 05, 2017, 08:54:22 PM
Second on my list of needlessly numbered roads: the (mainly) secret state routes assigned to U.S. routes.  Given that Alabama doesn't duplicate U.S. and state route numbers, why don't they just make U.S. 31's partner AL-31, U.S. 78, AL-78, etc.   Nah, that would make too much sense.  That also would free up low route numbers to avoid the Interstate-state route duplications (10, 20, 22, 59, 65, 85 and 165).

Utah made the change you describe in 1977, but they haven't used the lowest (1-5) numbers.

hbelkins

US 19W is not a through route to anywhere. It should either stay on the US 23/I-26 routing or be decommissioned.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

MikeTheActuary

I remember when Coffee County, Alabama got E911 service.

To make that happen, everyone needed a conventional street address.

Since most of the roads in the county lacked formal names, the county numbered them all, and slapped blue pentagons everywhere.

It makes sense in a way, but it feels excessive.

Mapmikey

Quote from: Mapmikey on July 05, 2017, 08:35:58 PM
Quote from: roadguy2 on July 05, 2017, 06:50:44 PM
Quote from: CYoder on July 05, 2017, 05:12:21 PM
US 19W.  Here is the only portion not multiplexed with any other route number.


I'm surprised that's still around, since it's a suffixed US route. It probably served a purpose before I-26 was built.
US 19W was rendered obsolete when US 23 was moved from it to its pre-I-26 routing through Sams Gap about 1952.

US 19W is a difficult, winding, slow drive and should be downgraded to NC 36 and TN 36.

kkt

Quote from: vdeane on July 03, 2017, 09:22:32 PM
Quote from: doorknob60 on July 03, 2017, 03:21:42 PM
This one may be controversial, but I'd say I-580 in Nevada. I am 100% in favor of the new sections of freeway they have built between Reno and Carson City (and currently in progress around Carson City), however the I-580 number is unnecessary. US-395 was (and still is) perfectly adequate. It's a major highway from California to the USA/Canada Border, it doesn't need another number. You could completely remove the I-580 number and nothing would change.
I would have made the freeway I-580 alone and left US 395 where it was.  Problem solved.

I disagree.  The US route should be following the best and fastest route, not a business route.  I understand the old route is now signed US 395A?  That's good.

In retrospect, I think it was a mistake to number the interstates with different numbers from their old US routes.  Should have kept the numbers and just had freeway segments and nonfreeway segments.

vdeane

Quote from: kkt on July 06, 2017, 04:12:02 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 03, 2017, 09:22:32 PM
Quote from: doorknob60 on July 03, 2017, 03:21:42 PM
This one may be controversial, but I'd say I-580 in Nevada. I am 100% in favor of the new sections of freeway they have built between Reno and Carson City (and currently in progress around Carson City), however the I-580 number is unnecessary. US-395 was (and still is) perfectly adequate. It's a major highway from California to the USA/Canada Border, it doesn't need another number. You could completely remove the I-580 number and nothing would change.
I would have made the freeway I-580 alone and left US 395 where it was.  Problem solved.

I disagree.  The US route should be following the best and fastest route, not a business route.  I understand the old route is now signed US 395A?  That's good.

In retrospect, I think it was a mistake to number the interstates with different numbers from their old US routes.  Should have kept the numbers and just had freeway segments and nonfreeway segments.

I've never understood the point of having a secondary route that overlaps with the primary route while a tertiary route covers the secondary corridor.  But then I never did see the point in having US routes once the interstate system came to be.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

Max Rockatansky

Quote from: vdeane on July 06, 2017, 09:54:27 PM
Quote from: kkt on July 06, 2017, 04:12:02 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 03, 2017, 09:22:32 PM
Quote from: doorknob60 on July 03, 2017, 03:21:42 PM
This one may be controversial, but I'd say I-580 in Nevada. I am 100% in favor of the new sections of freeway they have built between Reno and Carson City (and currently in progress around Carson City), however the I-580 number is unnecessary. US-395 was (and still is) perfectly adequate. It's a major highway from California to the USA/Canada Border, it doesn't need another number. You could completely remove the I-580 number and nothing would change.
I would have made the freeway I-580 alone and left US 395 where it was.  Problem solved.

I disagree.  The US route should be following the best and fastest route, not a business route.  I understand the old route is now signed US 395A?  That's good.

In retrospect, I think it was a mistake to number the interstates with different numbers from their old US routes.  Should have kept the numbers and just had freeway segments and nonfreeway segments.

I've never understood the point of having a secondary route that overlaps with the primary route while a tertiary route covers the secondary corridor.  But then I never did see the point in having US routes once the interstate system came to be.

Multiplexes aside, there is still a lot of "Interstate" corridors covered primarily by the US Route system instead of the Interstate System itself...US 50 in Nevada and California come to mind.   With I-580, is it really worth adding signage to an already existing through route just to sign with Interstate shields?  Would it not be easier to take any state maintained highway (which I believe US 395A still is) and have US 395 signed on that instead?  That would be a decent solution to breaking the two routes apart...I'm fairly certain a lot old alignment of US 395/50 has already been relinquished in Carson City though.

jp the roadgeek

Quote from: JJBers on July 05, 2017, 02:16:40 AM
Quote from: kurumi on July 05, 2017, 02:13:43 AM
Quote from: JJBers on July 04, 2017, 11:37:57 PM
CT 97 north of US 44, all it does is curve back to US 44, and don't tell me it's because of CT 244, that can just go to US 44 directly.

That's a consequence of the long shadow of history and the state's reluctance to change things.

The "stairstep" part of CT 97 north of US 44 was originally not part of 97; it was called CT 201. In 1934, CT 97 absorbed CT 201, leading to the alignment you have today.

CT 244 was a local road until 1963, and an unsignposted "secret route" until 1988.
I guess that's why Connecticut is the state of steady...pointless habits.

Add CT 361 to that list.  Vey rural 3 1/2 mile road that was a former piece of CT 4 but was renumbered to match NY 361.  NYSDOT subsequently handed over maintenance of its road to Dutchess County, and it is now CR 62.  Another unnecessary number is CT 272 north of US 44.  MA doesn't number the road north of the border.
Interstates I've clinched: 97, 290 (MA), 291 (CT), 291 (MA), 293, 295 (DE-NJ-PA), 295 (RI-MA), 384, 391, 395 (CT-MA), 395 (MD), 495 (DE), 610 (LA), 684, 691, 695 (MD), 695 (NY), 795 (MD)

US 89

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 06, 2017, 10:12:42 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 06, 2017, 09:54:27 PM
Quote from: kkt on July 06, 2017, 04:12:02 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 03, 2017, 09:22:32 PM
Quote from: doorknob60 on July 03, 2017, 03:21:42 PM
This one may be controversial, but I'd say I-580 in Nevada. I am 100% in favor of the new sections of freeway they have built between Reno and Carson City (and currently in progress around Carson City), however the I-580 number is unnecessary. US-395 was (and still is) perfectly adequate. It's a major highway from California to the USA/Canada Border, it doesn't need another number. You could completely remove the I-580 number and nothing would change.
I would have made the freeway I-580 alone and left US 395 where it was.  Problem solved.

I disagree.  The US route should be following the best and fastest route, not a business route.  I understand the old route is now signed US 395A?  That's good.

In retrospect, I think it was a mistake to number the interstates with different numbers from their old US routes.  Should have kept the numbers and just had freeway segments and nonfreeway segments.

I've never understood the point of having a secondary route that overlaps with the primary route while a tertiary route covers the secondary corridor.  But then I never did see the point in having US routes once the interstate system came to be.

Multiplexes aside, there is still a lot of "Interstate" corridors covered primarily by the US Route system instead of the Interstate System itself...US 50 in Nevada and California come to mind.   With I-580, is it really worth adding signage to an already existing through route just to sign with Interstate shields?  Would it not be easier to take any state maintained highway (which I believe US 395A still is) and have US 395 signed on that instead?  That would be a decent solution to breaking the two routes apart...I'm fairly certain a lot old alignment of US 395/50 has already been relinquished in Carson City though.

If the old alignments are still state maintained, I prefer to have the US route signed on the old alignments.

CNGL-Leudimin

Any designation that is either just a ramp, unsigned or concurrent with another route for its entire length is unnecessary for me.
Supporter of the construction of several running gags, including I-366 with a speed limit of 85 mph (137 km/h) and the Hypotenuse.

Please note that I may mention "invalid" FM channels, i.e. ending in an even number or down to 87.5. These are valid in Europe.

DandyDan

Iowa 27 and Iowa 163 east of Oskaloosa
MORE FUN THAN HUMANLY THOUGHT POSSIBLE

ekt8750

I think with all of its concurrencies and the fact that Camden County maintains the majority of it, NJ 41 seems pretty unnecessary.

jp the roadgeek

Oh, let me count the places where US 202 is unnecessarily numbered:

1. On DE 141 and on I-95 in DE
2. Pretty much anywhere in NJ from Somerville Circle north (US 206 and many CR concurrencies)
3. Haverstraw, NY to New Milford, CT (many concurrencies, and standalone pieces can be replaced with extensions of state routes)

4. Canton, CT to Westfield, MA
5. Pretty much anywhere from Hillsborough, NH north.
Interstates I've clinched: 97, 290 (MA), 291 (CT), 291 (MA), 293, 295 (DE-NJ-PA), 295 (RI-MA), 384, 391, 395 (CT-MA), 395 (MD), 495 (DE), 610 (LA), 684, 691, 695 (MD), 695 (NY), 795 (MD)

Ian

Not sure if this would count, but there are a lot of concurrencies I've seen around Maine that exist for the sole purpose of both routes ending at a larger/more important highway. ME 125/136 north of US 1 in Freeport, ME 127/197 south of ME 27 in Dresden, ME 6/15 east of Jackman to name a few.

ME 6 is actually another crazy one; only about 61 of its 207-mile-long length (the eastmost segment, Lincoln to Vanceboro/Canadian border) isn't concurrent with another numbered route. The state wanted a continuous numbered road connecting Quebec and New Brunswick, and thus ME 6 was born. While it only spends a smaller percentage by itself, it at least makes more sense than some of the other very long "concurrency" routes around the state. ME 9, I'm looking at you...
UMaine graduate, former PennDOT employee, new SoCal resident.
Youtube l Flickr

hotdogPi

Quote from: Ian on July 07, 2017, 04:52:31 PM
While it only spends a smaller percentage by itself, it at least makes more sense than some of the other very long "concurrency" routes around the state. ME 9, I'm looking at you...

100 is worse. In fact, 100 and 202 can both be removed without (almost) anything happening.
Clinched, minus I-93 (I'm missing a few miles and my file is incorrect)

Traveled, plus US 13, 44, and 50, and several state routes

I will be in Burlington VT for the eclipse.

SFalcon71


WillWeaverRVA

#48
VA 162, which is only about 900 feet long and ends at the Williamsburg city limits just off US 60. It was truncated and removed from the city years ago, leaving the stub that's barely in York County.

Too many to list but all the "I-81 to US 11 connectors" in central and western Virginia could easily be secondary.

VA 98 transitions to SR 605 just outside Bland...SR 605 is a dead-end road.

VA 73 in Henrico County doesn't need a number either (it began as a US 1 to I-95 connector). Either extend it along East Parham Road from US 250 to US 301 (and make North Parham Road an extension of VA 150), or drop it.
Will Weaver
WillWeaverRVA Photography | Twitter

"But how will the oxen know where to drown if we renumber the Oregon Trail?" - NE2

TheHighwayMan3561

MN 308, which is just a glorified leg of a Y-intersection between MN 11 and MN 89 in Roseau County. Keep it on the state highway system but take the number away and just sign it as "TO MN 89" and "TO MN 11".
self-certified as the dumbest person on this board for 5 years running



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.