Highways with the same number that intersect

[LM117]

I-42 & NC-42 will cross once I-shields start popping up on US-70 near Clayton.

[dmr37]

A future instance is I-69 and US 69 around Lufkin, TX.

Which is against interstate rules. I remember reading that Interstates and US highways with the same number can't be in the same state. I 69 was amusing enough before but this gives it a little extra value.

It is sort of like a foursome

[GaryV]

A future instance is I-69 and US 69 around Lufkin, TX.

Which is against interstate rules. I remember reading that Interstates and US highways with the same number can't be in the same state. I 69 was amusing enough before but this gives it a little extra value.

It's more what you'd call guidelines than an actual rule.

[kphoger]

A future instance is I-69 and US 69 around Lufkin, TX.

Which is against interstate rules. I remember reading that Interstates and US highways with the same number can't be in the same state. I 69 was amusing enough before but this gives it a little extra value.

It's more what you'd call guidelines than an actual rule.

Is it even a guideline?

Hurricane Rex:  Where did you read that?

[Charles2]

I-59 and Tuscaloosa County (AL) Road have an interchange at Exit 86 between Birmingham and Tuscaloosa, but there are no CR 59 shields on I-20/59.

[jakeroot]

There's a few states where this isn't possible. Washington and Utah come to mind. I thought Oregon was the same way, but ^^ evidently not.

Also California and Massachusetts.

Yes and no for Massachusetts.  The only exception to the no duplication rule in MA is I-295 and MA 295.  Of course, they're at opposite ends of the state and both are continuations of routes from another state.  CT, RI, VT, ME, and NJ have no duplication at all. NH only has 1: US/NH 4 as the result of a continuation of ME 4, and they come within 5 miles of each other.   PA only has 3 duplicates (86, 99, and 380); the first 2 were the result of interstates that came much later, and the last one are routes that are over 300 miles apart.  DE only has 1 exception that qualifies (US/DE 202 doesn't): US 9 and DE 9.

Also "yes and no" for California. They have a tendency to label future/potential interstate extensions with state route designations. SR-710, SR-215, SR-110, and SR-15 come to mind, all now (or previously) being duplicates of existing interstate designations. That said, California (like Washington) uses state route designations for all routes, so technically these aren't duplicates, as each is legally one continuous (or discontinuous route) with some different shields. So, the 15, 110, or 710 would never intersect themselves. And there would never be a State Route 5 paralleling I-5.

[Max Rockatansky]

There's a few states where this isn't possible. Washington and Utah come to mind. I thought Oregon was the same way, but ^^ evidently not.

Also California and Massachusetts.

Yes and no for Massachusetts.  The only exception to the no duplication rule in MA is I-295 and MA 295.  Of course, they're at opposite ends of the state and both are continuations of routes from another state.  CT, RI, VT, ME, and NJ have no duplication at all. NH only has 1: US/NH 4 as the result of a continuation of ME 4, and they come within 5 miles of each other.   PA only has 3 duplicates (86, 99, and 380); the first 2 were the result of interstates that came much later, and the last one are routes that are over 300 miles apart.  DE only has 1 exception that qualifies (US/DE 202 doesn't): US 9 and DE 9.

Also "yes and no" for California. They have a tendency to label future/potential interstate extensions with state route designations. SR-710, SR-215, SR-110, and SR-15 come to mind, all now (or previously) being duplicates of existing interstate designations. That said, California (like Washington) uses state route designations for all routes, so technically these aren't duplicates, as each is legally one continuous (or discontinuous route) with some different shields. So, the 15, 110, or 710 would never intersect themselves. And there would never be a State Route 5 paralleling I-5.

Or 238....

[ColossalBlocks]

I-255/IL 255 if that counts.

[kphoger]

I-255/IL 255 if that counts.

Did you even read the OP?

Interstates that "turn into" state highways like I-440 and AR 440 do not count.

[jwolfer]

A future instance is I-69 and US 69 around Lufkin, TX.

Which is against interstate rules. I remember reading that Interstates and US highways with the same number can't be in the same state. I 69 was amusing enough before but this gives it a little extra value.

It is sort of like a foursome

Z981

[froggie]

I-59 and Tuscaloosa County (AL) Road have an interchange at Exit 86 between Birmingham and Tuscaloosa, but there are no CR 59 shields on I-20/59.

Since you mention that one, the I-20/59 interchange at Exit 23 (near Epes) is signed as Sumter CR 20.

[jakeroot]

There's a few states where this isn't possible. Washington and Utah come to mind. I thought Oregon was the same way, but ^^ evidently not.

Also California and Massachusetts.

Yes and no for Massachusetts.  The only exception to the no duplication rule in MA is I-295 and MA 295.  Of course, they're at opposite ends of the state and both are continuations of routes from another state.  CT, RI, VT, ME, and NJ have no duplication at all. NH only has 1: US/NH 4 as the result of a continuation of ME 4, and they come within 5 miles of each other.   PA only has 3 duplicates (86, 99, and 380); the first 2 were the result of interstates that came much later, and the last one are routes that are over 300 miles apart.  DE only has 1 exception that qualifies (US/DE 202 doesn't): US 9 and DE 9.

Also "yes and no" for California. They have a tendency to label future/potential interstate extensions with state route designations. SR-710, SR-215, SR-110, and SR-15 come to mind, all now (or previously) being duplicates of existing interstate designations. That said, California (like Washington) uses state route designations for all routes, so technically these aren't duplicates, as each is legally one continuous (or discontinuous route) with some different shields. So, the 15, 110, or 710 would never intersect themselves. And there would never be a State Route 5 paralleling I-5.

Or 238....

Sure. I'm just more readily familiar with Southern California than other parts of California.

[kphoger]

In Baja California, state highway 2 intersects federal highway 2 at two points–once near Mexicali and once near San Luis Río Colorado.

GSV of a sign gantry at the eastern junctionhere
GSV of a sign gantry at the western junction here
Route number confirmed on SCT website (.pdf warning)

[kphoger]

In Baja California Sur, state highway 1 intersects federal highway 1 in the town of Ciudad Insurgentes.  This is a T-intersections; and federal highway 1 (the Trans-peninsular Highway) makes the bend.  Unfortunately, all sign assemblies I could find on GSV have errors–either using all federal blanks or lacking the number inside the state blank.  I note also that Google Maps incorrectly identifies state highway 1 as another iteration of federal highway 1, apparently relying on street view of error signs.

Routing confirmed on SCT website (.pdf warning)

[Max Rockatansky]

There's a few states where this isn't possible. Washington and Utah come to mind. I thought Oregon was the same way, but ^^ evidently not.

Also California and Massachusetts.

Yes and no for Massachusetts.  The only exception to the no duplication rule in MA is I-295 and MA 295.  Of course, they're at opposite ends of the state and both are continuations of routes from another state.  CT, RI, VT, ME, and NJ have no duplication at all. NH only has 1: US/NH 4 as the result of a continuation of ME 4, and they come within 5 miles of each other.   PA only has 3 duplicates (86, 99, and 380); the first 2 were the result of interstates that came much later, and the last one are routes that are over 300 miles apart.  DE only has 1 exception that qualifies (US/DE 202 doesn't): US 9 and DE 9.

Also "yes and no" for California. They have a tendency to label future/potential interstate extensions with state route designations. SR-710, SR-215, SR-110, and SR-15 come to mind, all now (or previously) being duplicates of existing interstate designations. That said, California (like Washington) uses state route designations for all routes, so technically these aren't duplicates, as each is legally one continuous (or discontinuous route) with some different shields. So, the 15, 110, or 710 would never intersect themselves. And there would never be a State Route 5 paralleling I-5.

Or 238....

Sure. I'm just more readily familiar with Southern California than other parts of California.

Interesting to consider the point you made often doesn't come up often.  As far as the legislature is concerned stuff like 238, 210, 15, etc are presently continuous routes, what kind isn't relavent.   That's how things like I-238 happen out here. 

[US 89]

There's a few states where this isn't possible. Washington and Utah come to mind. I thought Oregon was the same way, but ^^ evidently not.

Also California and Massachusetts.

Yes and no for Massachusetts.  The only exception to the no duplication rule in MA is I-295 and MA 295.  Of course, they're at opposite ends of the state and both are continuations of routes from another state.  CT, RI, VT, ME, and NJ have no duplication at all. NH only has 1: US/NH 4 as the result of a continuation of ME 4, and they come within 5 miles of each other.   PA only has 3 duplicates (86, 99, and 380); the first 2 were the result of interstates that came much later, and the last one are routes that are over 300 miles apart.  DE only has 1 exception that qualifies (US/DE 202 doesn't): US 9 and DE 9.

Also "yes and no" for California. They have a tendency to label future/potential interstate extensions with state route designations. SR-710, SR-215, SR-110, and SR-15 come to mind, all now (or previously) being duplicates of existing interstate designations. That said, California (like Washington) uses state route designations for all routes, so technically these aren't duplicates, as each is legally one continuous (or discontinuous route) with some different shields. So, the 15, 110, or 710 would never intersect themselves. And there would never be a State Route 5 paralleling I-5.

Or 238....

Sure. I'm just more readily familiar with Southern California than other parts of California.

Interesting to consider the point you made often doesn't come up often.  As far as the legislature is concerned stuff like 238, 210, 15, etc are presently continuous routes, what kind isn't relavent.   That's how things like I-238 happen out here.

Utah used to do this with route 163, it followed US 163 but it continued through a US 191 concurrency and became UT 163, which went southeast to CO. It may have been in case they ever wanted apply to AASHTO to extend US 163 east. Eventually, UDOT decided the confusion was more trouble than that future possibility was worth, and so they changed UT 163 to 162.

[kphoger]

According to the SCT website (.pdf warning), the free road between Jiménez and Camargo, Chihuahua, is state highway 49–which means it qualifies for this thread because its southern terminus is at federal highway 49.  However, every sign gantry I can find on GSV has it as state highway 69, which is also how Google and OSM and Bing Maps number it.  Not sure what to make of that.

FWIW, Mapquest thinks it's number 329 for some reason.............



Edit to add:  The official SCT state map of Chihuahua (2014 edition) confirms that the number is indeed 49.

[formulanone]

FL 17 and US 17 in Haines City.

https://www.google.com/maps/@28.1066015,-81.6241152,3a,72.4y,82.09h,94.24t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sI593WWNr6Bf1MXWCm_lCEw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

[bugo]

Loop 762 ends at FM 762 in Richmond, Texas.

[bugo]

I just found a historic example. WY 287 was a shortcut for US 287 traffic. It's now a part of US 287.

[kphoger]

Loop 762 ends at FM 762 in Richmond, Texas.

Reference?  I don't see any mention of Loop-762 on the TxDOT website.

[bugo]

[kphoger]

This is interesting.  I can find signs for Loop-762 in several locations on GSV.  But, in searching the TxDOT website by route number, FM-762 is the only one that contains a file.  The only references to Loop-762 I can find on TxDOT pages are related to improvement studies for US-90-Alt.  Where the heck did this route come from?  Is it even an official highway?

[hotdogPi]

Does QC 132 count? It intersects itself. (MA 127 used to.)

[bugo]

This is interesting.  I can find signs for Loop-762 in several locations on GSV.  But, in searching the TxDOT website by route number, FM-762 is the only one that contains a file.  The only references to Loop-762 I can find on TxDOT pages are related to improvement studies for US-90-Alt.  Where the heck did this route come from?  Is it even an official highway?

I found this on the Texas Highway Designation File website:

Minute Order 053437, dated 08/27/1963, Adm. Cir. 146-1963, dated 10/01/1963
From US 59 in Richmond, southeastward to Crabb, then southward to FM 1462, with a spur connection of approximately 0.7 mile in Richmond eastward along Austin Street and northward on 2nd Street to US 59, a total distance of approximately 22.0 miles. (Ft. Bend County)  Spur connection in Richmond added.

Apparently it is a spur from FM 762. What is listed as "US 59" is now Alt US 90.