Print

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

[usends]

...in the Denver area, that is.  The situation there is quite similar to US 41 in Miami (where the signposted directions change to east-west) and US 24 in Michigan (where signs change to north-south).  Full article with maps and photos

[zzcarp]

It's a great article. I agree with you. Through Denver, Kenosha Pass, and I'd argue through CO 9 at Fairplay and maybe even to US 24 at Buena Vista, US 285 is functionally an east-west highway and an alternate route for using the clogged I-70 in the mountains. The highway it mostly supplanted, CO 8, is and was signed as an east-west highway

It's also an odd ending at I-25: no one takes I-25 south to US 285 south to follow the route; it's northbound I-25 to southbound US 285. Signing 285 east-west would alleviate that.

Although fictional, I wish US 285 still followed the curve north to Havana to Colfax to end. When that was so, I think it more justified the north-south routing than the current configuration.

CDOT should promote the directional change and celebrate by putting interchanges at the last two traffic signals between Kenosha Pass and C-470 as well as the Knox Court/Lowell Boulevard and Riverpoint signals in Sheridan.

[SkyPesos]

Also US 62 in Ohio is signed E-W south of Columbus and imo it should be changed to N-S.

[Roadgeekteen]

I saw the title and got super confused for a second.

[US 89]

Although fictional, I wish US 285 still followed the curve north to Havana to Colfax to end. When that was so, I think it more justified the north-south routing than the current configuration.

I agree with that. Plus it's all SH 30 still, so it's not like state maintenance was the reason for truncating it

[dkblake]

Also US 62 in Ohio is signed E-W south of Columbus and imo it should be changed to N-S.

I wish US 62 adopted QEW signage nationwide and replaced north/east and south/west with Niagara Falls and El Paso.

[wanderer2575]

...in the Denver area, that is.  The situation there is quite similar to US 41 in Miami (where the signposted directions change to east-west) and US 24 in Michigan (where signs change to north-south).  Full article with maps and photos

From that US Ends.com article:

In south Florida, US 41 ceases its function as a north-south route.  Instead, it begins functioning as an east-west route, and US 41 ends without ever resuming a north-south direction-of-travel.

This, exactly.  Not so much that the section of US-285 in question runs east-west, but that the route never resumes its predominant north-south orientation.  For that reason, I would be okay with signing this terminating section as east-west.  For the same reason, I'm okay that in Michigan US-24 is signed north-south and I-69 is signed east-west between Lansing and Port Huron. 

On the other hand, I would oppose signing I-94 as north-south between Milwaukee and Chicago (that one BGS on westbound I-94 in Indiana notwithstanding) because the route resumes a predominant east-west orientation on both sides of that section.

[SkyPesos]

On the other hand, I would oppose signing I-94 as north-south between Milwaukee and Chicago (that one BGS on westbound I-94 in Indiana notwithstanding) because the route resumes a predominant east-west orientation on both sides of that section.

How about the entirety of I-26? Clearly much more N-S than E-W, especially in TN and NC.

[JayhawkCO]

Maybe I'm the oddball, but I would leave it alone.  US41 switches directions for upwards of 100 miles.  The true E/W section of US285 is 13 miles.  As it was mentioned upthread, no one is taking I-25 south to US285 south to get to the mountains.  So if they took something like I-25->US85->US285, they'd only be on the E/W portion for less than 9 miles.  In reality, more people probably go I-70->CO470->US285 where it's already heading southwesternly once they get on US285.

Chris

[wanderer2575]

On the other hand, I would oppose signing I-94 as north-south between Milwaukee and Chicago (that one BGS on westbound I-94 in Indiana notwithstanding) because the route resumes a predominant east-west orientation on both sides of that section.

How about the entirety of I-26? Clearly much more N-S than E-W, especially in TN and NC.

How that got an even number, I do not understand.  I agree it should be signed north-south in its entirety.

Maybe I'm the oddball, but I would leave it alone.  US41 switches directions for upwards of 100 miles.  The true E/W section of US285 is 13 miles.  As it was mentioned upthread, no one is taking I-25 south to US285 south to get to the mountains.  So if they took something like I-25->US85->US285, they'd only be on the E/W portion for less than 9 miles.  In reality, more people probably go I-70->CO470->US285 where it's already heading southwesternly once they get on US285.

I can't argue with that; I thought the segment in question was longer in length.  (I didn't look at a state map.)  But if it were changed, I'd still be okay with it for the reason I stated.

[JayhawkCO]

On the other hand, I would oppose signing I-94 as north-south between Milwaukee and Chicago (that one BGS on westbound I-94 in Indiana notwithstanding) because the route resumes a predominant east-west orientation on both sides of that section.

How about the entirety of I-26? Clearly much more N-S than E-W, especially in TN and NC.

How that got an even number, I do not understand.  I agree it should be signed north-south in its entirety.

Well, it originally only routed from Charleston to Asheville, which is only about 30 miles more N/S than E/W.  When it's overall pretty close to 45°, then you have a choice either way.  Once it was extended, then it obviously looks more obvious it should have been an odd 2di.

Chris

[zzcarp]

Although fictional, I wish US 285 still followed the curve north to Havana to Colfax to end. When that was so, I think it more justified the north-south routing than the current configuration.

I agree with that. Plus it's all SH 30 still, so it's not like state maintenance was the reason for truncating it

There's a mile gap between 6th Avenue and Colfax Avenue/US 40-287 that was removed from the state system, so it would have to be readded.

Maybe I'm the oddball, but I would leave it alone.  US41 switches directions for upwards of 100 miles.  The true E/W section of US285 is 13 miles.  As it was mentioned upthread, no one is taking I-25 south to US285 south to get to the mountains.  So if they took something like I-25->US85->US285, they'd only be on the E/W portion for less than 9 miles.  In reality, more people probably go I-70->CO470->US285 where it's already heading southwesternly once they get on US285.

Chris

While the due east-west section is only 13 miles, USEnds's argument is that for the 60 miles from Kenosha Pass to I-25, you go about 42 miles east and 16 miles north between the two points. I don't disagree that it balances it somewhat when you enter/exit from C-470 (which is how I typically access the corridor). And, no matter which way it's signed, you will be traveling the opposite direction for some distance in that corridor.

[JayhawkCO]

While the due east-west section is only 13 miles, USEnds's argument is that for the 60 miles from Kenosha Pass to I-25, you go about 42 miles east and 16 miles north between the two points. I don't disagree that it balances it somewhat when you enter/exit from C-470 (which is how I typically access the corridor). And, no matter which way it's signed, you will be traveling the opposite direction for some distance in that corridor.

I guess I look at it from the perspective of "where are you going".  Other than when I go for a hike around Conifer, I usually end up taking US285 past Fairplay, and I would tend to think the majority of folks coming from the Denver metro area are doing the same.  So while I know I'm heading west to get to the mountains, I'm taking US285 instead of I-70 because I'm going further south.  I don't have a super strong opinion either way I guess, just playing devil's advocate of why it's fine to leave alone.

Chris

[SkyPesos]

On the other hand, I would oppose signing I-94 as north-south between Milwaukee and Chicago (that one BGS on westbound I-94 in Indiana notwithstanding) because the route resumes a predominant east-west orientation on both sides of that section.

How about the entirety of I-26? Clearly much more N-S than E-W, especially in TN and NC.

How that got an even number, I do not understand.  I agree it should be signed north-south in its entirety.

Well, it originally only routed from Charleston to Asheville, which is only about 30 miles more N/S than E/W.  When it's overall pretty close to 45°, then you have a choice either way.  Once it was extended, then it obviously looks more obvious it should have been an odd 2di.

Chris

Were there interstates in the original plan that were completely out of the grid? Asking that because I-73 was available back then if they wanted a N-S number on the route, though I'm not sure a number that's completely out of the grid (I-26 is east of I-75) would be acceptable back then.

[US 89]

A thought about I-26: consider that the entire highway grid in that part of the country is rotated slightly to accommodate the shape of the Carolinas coastline. Look at routes like I-95, I-85, US 1, and US 17 - none of those run exactly north-south in that area, but they're all parallel to the coast. If a route like I-26 is going to cross all of those, it makes some sense that it should have an even number. Also notice the next few parallel interstates to 26 on both sides all have even numbers: I-16 to the south, I-74 and I-40 to the north. As a general rule, in that part of the country, "east" simply means "towards the ocean". (This is also why I'm not too bothered that US 52 isn't signed north-south in South Carolina, despite some areas of "eastbound" 52 running nearly due west.)

As for US 285: every time I'm in Denver, it throws me for a loop that in order to go to the mountains, which follow the west side of I-25 throughout the state, I need to go "south" on 285. If I were CDOT, I would switch the directional banners at Fairplay.

[JayhawkCO]

Were there interstates in the original plan that were completely out of the grid? Asking that because I-73 was available back then if they wanted a N-S number on the route, though I'm not sure a number that's completely out of the grid (I-26 is east of I-75) would be acceptable back then.

Unless I'm missing it, I-26 and I-89 are the only in the original plan that were ever even slightly out of grid (I-26 going south of I-20 and I-89 going east of I-91).

Also, RIP I-31, I-67, I-92, and eastern I-82 (not to mention a bunch of the suffixed routes).

Chris

[Roadgeekteen]

Were there interstates in the original plan that were completely out of the grid? Asking that because I-73 was available back then if they wanted a N-S number on the route, though I'm not sure a number that's completely out of the grid (I-26 is east of I-75) would be acceptable back then.

Unless I'm missing it, I-26 and I-89 are the only in the original plan that were ever even slightly out of grid (I-26 going south of I-20 and I-89 going east of I-91).

Also, RIP I-31, I-67, I-92, and eastern I-82 (not to mention a bunch of the suffixed routes).

Chris

I-75 and I-85 are also out of grid.

[JayhawkCO]

I-75 and I-85 are also out of grid.

Good catch.

Chris

[The Ghostbuster]

The Fairplay-to-Denver segment probably should be signed East-West. But since US 285 has existed since 1936 without confusion on which direction it goes, is this a subject that only we roadgeeks would care about?

[JayhawkCO]

is this a subject that only we roadgeeks would care about?

99 times out of 100, this applies to whatever thread you're reading. 

Chris

[Roadgeekteen]

is this a subject that only we roadgeeks would care about?

yes

[CtrlAltDel]

I disagree. The directions assigned to a route should reflect the route as a whole and not little bits of it. So, except in the weirdest cases, which this is not, routes should be signed EW or NS, with no changes.

[SkyPesos]

So, except in the weirdest cases

Is US 52 one of those "weirdest cases"?

US 62 (the other of what I call the "Grand Diagonal Twins") is mostly E-W in the states it goes through, with the exception of NY. So I think it's fine.

[CtrlAltDel]

So, except in the weirdest cases

Is US 52 one of those "weirdest cases"?

No, that's not nearly weird enough. What I had in mind was something like US-101 in Washington:


That said, what I'd prefer here would be a new route number for that eastern and southern extension. But given that US-101 is a 2dus disguised as a 3dus, that would be tricky.

[Evan_Th]

So, except in the weirdest cases

Is US 52 one of those "weirdest cases"?

No, that's not nearly weird enough. What I had in mind was something like US-101 in Washington:


That said, what I'd prefer here would be a new route number for that eastern and southern extension. But given that US-101 is a 2dus disguised as a 3dus, that would be tricky.

You could divide it you wanted - extend US 101 north to end at Neah Bay (the northwest tip of the peninsula) and institute a new US 599 heading north from Olympia to end at US 101 in Sappho.

On the other hand, that's splitting a natural corridor.  Nearly all the traffic on 101 north of Forks would be continuing east ("south") on 599 to Port Angeles.  Plus, US 599 would still be taking a huge turn from north to west - if you really want to align things to grid, then you'd need to extend US 2 over one of the ferries to meet and terminate US 599 in Discovery Bay.