Why reroute if they’re not going to sign it?

[roadman65]

Noticed that Iowa removed US 6 from running through Council Bluffs and moved onto both I-80 and I-29. Yet signage along I-80 is non existent to the change.  I understand  that other states like Arkansas, Colorado, New Mexico, and parts of Texas have been known for this too.

I even get the fact a state no longer wants to maintain a certain road through a certain place or places so a city can do as they please with a route now under their jurisdiction. However, if the state is going to reroute a highway to circumvent local maintenance why not sign it or better yet, just allow the municipality to sign the route they opted to take?

Also from what I do understand, Iowa does sign US 275 on I-29 which also is been realigned to be off of local roadways south of Council Bluffs. Same area, but different standards I see.

[Scott5114]

Maintaining a road costs money. Posting signs costs money. Doing neither costs no money.

[Max Rockatansky]

You mean that you don't like when US Routes pop in and out of existence along Interstates?  I always had a good chuckle when my GPS would tell me to pull onto US 85 leaving Truth or Consequences when I worked in New Mexico.

[roadman65]

Maintaining a road costs money. Posting signs costs money. Doing neither costs no money.

My point is leave it to the locals, don't bother to change the route at all unless you plan to make it known. 

In the case of US 6 in Council Bluffs, if someone were to continue on old US 6 they would eventually end up back on US 6 once through the city.  In fact do many, other than us who want to claim we clinched a highway, drive US 6 who aren't local from the east end of the city limits into Omaha or vice versa?

[SkyPesos]

You mean that you don't like when US Routes pop in and out of existence along Interstates?  I always had a good chuckle when my GPS would tell me to pull onto US 85 leaving Truth or Consequences when I worked in New Mexico.

Looking forward to whenever a GPS calls I-465 by one of the however many US routes it's concurrent with

[KeithE4Phx]

Noticed that Iowa removed US 6 from running through Council Bluffs and moved onto both I-80 and I-29. Yet signage along I-80 is non existent to the change.

You'd love Indianapolis, where all surface highways are routed onto I-465, but only the Interstates are signed.  It's been like that for decades.

[Scott5114]

Maintaining a road costs money. Posting signs costs money. Doing neither costs no money.

My point is leave it to the locals, don't bother to change the route at all unless you plan to make it known. 

In some states routes cannot follow locally-maintained roads. The numbered highways in Oklahoma, for instance, are 1:1 with the state-maintained routes.

[amroad17]

Noticed that Iowa removed US 6 from running through Council Bluffs and moved onto both I-80 and I-29. Yet signage along I-80 is non existent to the change.

You'd love Indianapolis, where all surface highways are routed onto I-465, but only the Interstates are signed.  It's been like that for decades.

At some of the interchanges, there are signs that are posted in this way...
https://goo.gl/maps/wS5PY4odNn2rWC3G9

This is one way of getting around posting extra reassurance signs along I-465.

Looking at Google Maps, I see US 6 reassurance shields posted along with the I-80 ones in Iowa, however, there does not seem to be any US 6 shields posted at the interchanges, just I-80 is posted.  I guess US 6 follows I-80 WB, I-29 NB, and then I-480 WB rejoining its original routing, correct?

[Max Rockatansky]

Maintaining a road costs money. Posting signs costs money. Doing neither costs no money.

My point is leave it to the locals, don't bother to change the route at all unless you plan to make it known. 

In some states routes cannot follow locally-maintained roads. The numbered highways in Oklahoma, for instance, are 1:1 with the state-maintained routes.

A lot of states that aren't necessarily that way also end up largely becoming one when local authorities don't want to sign state highways.  That's how it has gone with virtually almost every relinquishment agreement in California in recent decade.  An example I can think of is CA 130 on Alum Rock is San Jose is supposed to be signed as 130.  When the city upgraded the street they didn't put up new 130 shields.

[ran4sh]

You mean that you don't like when US Routes pop in and out of existence along Interstates?  I always had a good chuckle when my GPS would tell me to pull onto US 85 leaving Truth or Consequences when I worked in New Mexico.

Looking forward to whenever a GPS calls I-465 by one of the however many US routes it's concurrent with

Google generally already does this in my experience. "Remain on [route] for X miles" often includes concurrent parts which may or may not be signed. I've seen this on GA 10 Loop, which like I-465 also has a bunch of overlapping US routes.

[roadman65]

I've seen that in many places on Google. Only one of the concurrent routes gets signed, even over street names where the addresses are based from.

[Rothman]

I've seen that in many places on Google. Only one of the concurrent routes gets signed, even over street names where the addresses are based from.

Zoom in...

[kphoger]

I've seen that in many places on Google. Only one of the concurrent routes gets signed, even over street names where the addresses are based from.

Zoom in...

This.  I've found that, if you zoom in enough, all the route shields are there.