Regional Boards > Northwest
US Route 101 in Washington
Quillz:
--- Quote from: Amaury on September 29, 2022, 06:28:07 PM ---
--- Quote from: Quillz on September 29, 2022, 06:16:55 PM ---You have this on the Port Angeles corridor, I think it gets the point across. You are heading west, but the overall orientation is southbound. This could also be useful in places like the Ventura Freeway + the Gaviota coast, where US-101 runs more than 120 miles east/west before finally turning north. (And in the SF Valley, local signage has actually changed to "101 WEST" or "101 EAST."
--- End quote ---
That's also why I brought up the Washington State Route 20 example in my OP, with some sections running north and south, and one section even "running backwards," similar to US Route 101 in Washington on the Olympia side. However, the difference with Washington State Route 20 is that it's still signed "normally," if you will, in those sections.
--- Quote from: Quillz on September 29, 2022, 06:16:55 PM ---Similar to your I-82 thread, this is another situation where you are not looking at the overall picture. Even though 101 does not truly run north-south through Washington, due to its "northern" terminus being southeast of its northernmost extent, it's still very clearly an overall north/south route that serves the Pacific Coast.
--- End quote ---
Yeah, you are correct. If you don't break it apart by state and view US Route 101 as a whole, then it's very clear what it is. And I certainly don't claim to be an engineering or road expert by any means.
--- End quote ---
That's probably something WDOT might get around to. If they changed the directionality for US-101, they could for appropriate sections of WA-20. That's why I brought up my idea, the upper banner always reflects the overall orientation, while the bottom banner works for short-term direction.
Evan_Th:
If we do truncate 101 (which I don't support), I'd do it this way:
* Truncate 101 to Port Angeles, which's a much more respectable terminus than Sappho.
* Extend US 2 from its current Everett terminus, across the Mukilteo and Fort Casey ferries, to Port Townsend (truncating SR 20 at Fort Casey); then replacing current SR 20 to Discovery Bay; then replacing current US 101 to Port Angeles; then replacing current SR 112 for its entire length, to Neah Bay.
* Create a new highway for the remainder of current US 101, from Discovery Bay to Olympia. I suggest US 399.
Amaury:
--- Quote from: Evan_Th on September 29, 2022, 07:43:42 PM ---Create a new highway for the remainder of current US 101, from Discovery Bay to Olympia. I suggest US 399.
--- End quote ---
As Bruce mentioned above, this would likely be more appropriate in the fictional section. I'm still new here and wasn't necessarily trying to make discussing a fictional routing the central point of this thread. It's just something I wanted to quickly mention, but keep the focus to what I originally said in my OP. Just like in my I-82 thread, where I mentioned something fictional in one post, but then went back to discussing I-82 in reality.
I'll likely create a thread for this in the fictional section to further discuss the fictional aspects in more detail, so all I will say here is that SR 399 would likely be more appropriate, as, for it to be a US route, it would have to travel across two or more states.
Quillz:
--- Quote from: Evan_Th on September 29, 2022, 07:43:42 PM ---* Create a new highway for the remainder of current US 101, from Discovery Bay to Olympia. I suggest US 399.
--- End quote ---
Would not be allowed because AASHTO now requires US highways to either cross state lines or be at least 300 miles in length. More likely Washington would assign a branch route number, perhaps from 2 or 101. And US-399 existed historically in California, today it's CA-33 and US-119.
pderocco:
--- Quote from: Quillz on September 29, 2022, 08:11:11 PM ---Would not be allowed because AASHTO now requires US highways to either cross state lines or be at least 300 miles in length. More likely Washington would assign a branch route number, perhaps from 2 or 101. And US-399 existed historically in California, today it's CA-33 and US-119.
--- End quote ---
This is interesting (though a bit off-topic). I didn't realize that a US route could be entirely within one state as long as it was 300 miles long. I thought they had to be interstate, and that was why US-299 in CA was kicked out of the US highway system back in '64. Although it was under 300 miles, the replacement CA-299 was extended to the Nevada border, making it over 300 miles. Wouldn't that have allowed it to remain a US route? Or did AASHO laugh at the attempt to extend the route, because it terminates at a dirt road in Nevada?
On the other hand, in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Numbered_Highways I see quite a few intrastate US routes that are much shorter than 300 miles. What gives? Were they grandfathered in because they used to be longer and/or interstate?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version