Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[agentsteel53]

I cannot think of an example offhand in New Mexico, but I seem to recall it being signed in Texas along I-10/US-85 starting from the state line at Anthony.

am I correct in my recollection?

[corco]

I've driven both directions and here is the full assemblage of 180 shields between El Paso and Deming. 180 isn't signed between 62 and 85- there isn't even a 180 sign for 180 west where it gets on I-10. Signs appear after US-85.  In fact, TXDOT even sort of implies that 180 follows 62 into downtown with this sign on 62/180 west, but there aren't any 180 shields on 62 after I-10


Heading west:
After Loop 375

After Spur 37


nothing in New Mexico

heading east:
nothing in New Mexico
After Spur 37

After Loop 375 (nice US-85!)


Also worth nothing that 180 officially splits from I-10 in Deming at the east business loop exit, which gives state maintenance to the chunk between the business loop and the signed 180 exit off I-10. It's only marked as I-10 Business at the loop junction, though.

Long story short- you're exactly right in your recollection.

[The High Plains Traveler]

I've driven both directions and here is the full assemblage of 180 shields between El Paso and Deming. 180 isn't signed between 62 and 85- there isn't even a 180 sign for 180 west where it gets on I-10. Signs appear after US-85.  In fact, TXDOT even sort of implies that 180 follows 62 into downtown with this sign on 62/180 west, but there aren't any 180 shields on 62 after I-10

Also worth nothing that 180 officially splits from I-10 in Deming at the east business loop exit, which gives state maintenance to the chunk between the business loop and the signed 180 exit off I-10. It's only marked as I-10 Business at the loop junction, though.

Long story short- you're exactly right in your recollection.

Last 180 I've seen, as you photographically documented, is at the TX/NM state line. What gives state maintenance to the loop through Deming, though, is its designation on the state route log as Loop 22. It is posted as BL I-10 through Deming, but last time I was there I noted one sign (eastbound, east of downtown) that had, in addition to a BL I-10 sign, a U.S. 70/U.S. 80 sign. No 180. The 70 sign was new enough to have been posted after decommissioning of U.S. 80 and presumed removal of U.S. 70 from the through-city loops. But then, we are all aware of the casual relationship between NMDOT and route posting accuracy.

[corco]

Right, but check AASHTO logs- 180 follows 10 business through Deming and then heads up Loop 22. It's unsigned, but that's New Mexico. Since New Mexico doesn't sign or officially acknowledge it on either route, I'm going with the only governing body that designates it at all in the area.  If there were 180 shields on I-10, I might err toward NMDOT, but not here.

[The High Plains Traveler]

True because NMDOT only designates one route per segment. Loop 22 (aka BL I-10) trumps any U.S. route and so is the dominant route (their terminology). But then why post a different U.S. route and an extinct route on one sign? But that's New Mexico.

[xonhulu]

True because NMDOT only designates one route per segment. Loop 22 (aka BL I-10) trumps any U.S. route and so is the dominant route (their terminology). But then why post a different U.S. route and an extinct route on one sign? But that's New Mexico.

Are you citing an official, written NMDOT policy, or just speculating? There are plenty of instances where I've seen more than one route signed on a road in NM; granted, most are pretty short, but some, like US 56/412 or US 64/87, are fairly lengthy.

Or is the seeming policy more that they give an interstate/interstate business loop priority over the non-interstates and don't co-sign these, while two routes of equal status will be cosigned?

[The High Plains Traveler]

True because NMDOT only designates one route per segment. Loop 22 (aka BL I-10) trumps any U.S. route and so is the dominant route (their terminology). But then why post a different U.S. route and an extinct route on one sign? But that's New Mexico.

Are you citing an official, written NMDOT policy, or just speculating? There are plenty of instances where I've seen more than one route signed on a road in NM; granted, most are pretty short, but some, like US 56/412 or US 64/87, are fairly lengthy.

Or is the seeming policy more that they give an interstate/interstate business loop priority over the non-interstates and don't co-sign these, while two routes of equal status will be cosigned?

I'm not referring to signing practice; rather, I'm referring to the state route log, which has only one route designation per road segment. The log does indicate where a U.S. route is "subordinate" to a "dominant" U.S. or interstate route, such as U.S. 60 through Socorro being subordinate to Loop 12 (BL I-25) and then I-25 north to where 60 takes off eastward. Those subordinate segments only exist where the route later resumes an independent existence. Thus, as far as the route log is concerned, U.S. 84 begins at U.S. 60 in Fort Sumner (this is mile 0 on U.S. 84, a north-south route), U.S. 87 terminates at U.S. 64 in Clayton, and U.S. 412 does not appear on the state route log at all. So, there can be a NM-412 without a route duplication. However, this does not preclude the state from posting these routes on the concurrent sections.

It seems that New Mexico posts the multiple U.S. route concurrencies consistently, but interstate-U.S. route concurrencies more often than not lack the U.S. route posting.

[xonhulu]

I'm not referring to signing practice; rather, I'm referring to the state route log, which has only one route designation per road segment. The log does indicate where a U.S. route is "subordinate" to a "dominant" U.S. or interstate route, such as U.S. 60 through Socorro being subordinate to Loop 12 (BL I-25) and then I-25 north to where 60 takes off eastward. Those subordinate segments only exist where the route later resumes an independent existence. Thus, as far as the route log is concerned, U.S. 84 begins at U.S. 60 in Fort Sumner (this is mile 0 on U.S. 84, a north-south route), U.S. 87 terminates at U.S. 64 in Clayton, and U.S. 412 does not appear on the state route log at all. So, there can be a NM-412 without a route duplication. However, this does not preclude the state from posting these routes on the concurrent sections.

It seems that New Mexico posts the multiple U.S. route concurrencies consistently, but interstate-U.S. route concurrencies more often than not lack the U.S. route posting.

That was my point; they'll co-sign "equals," but not "subordinates."

On your first point about the one route designation per segment: I want to say this isn't an uncommon practice among state DOT's, but I'm not really sure.  My home state (OR) isn't helpful for comparison, since it has the dual highway-route system, but seems to me other state also treat concurrencies this way on their route logs.

[The High Plains Traveler]

I'm not referring to signing practice; rather, I'm referring to the state route log, which has only one route designation per road segment. The log does indicate where a U.S. route is "subordinate" to a "dominant" U.S. or interstate route, such as U.S. 60 through Socorro being subordinate to Loop 12 (BL I-25) and then I-25 north to where 60 takes off eastward. Those subordinate segments only exist where the route later resumes an independent existence. Thus, as far as the route log is concerned, U.S. 84 begins at U.S. 60 in Fort Sumner (this is mile 0 on U.S. 84, a north-south route), U.S. 87 terminates at U.S. 64 in Clayton, and U.S. 412 does not appear on the state route log at all. So, there can be a NM-412 without a route duplication. However, this does not preclude the state from posting these routes on the concurrent sections.

It seems that New Mexico posts the multiple U.S. route concurrencies consistently, but interstate-U.S. route concurrencies more often than not lack the U.S. route posting.

That was my point; they'll co-sign "equals," but not "subordinates."
* * *

The whole dominant/subordinate discussion only relates to the route log, and the subordinate classification was created to document continuity between segments of a U.S. route that have a concurrent U.S. or interstate route in between. There are no equals in any road segment with two or more routes. In any concurrent segment (keeping in mind NM state routes do not run concurrent), the dominant route is the higher classification route (interstate over U.S.), or if there are two U.S. routes, the route with the lower number. So, U.S. 64/84 is posted with both routes but U.S. 64 is dominant. The mileposts in that segment are for U.S. 64. It's mostly an invisible distinction except New Mexico really doesn't like to post concurrent U.S. routes along interstates.

All this talk about domination has me looking for a whip...