AARoads Forum

National Boards => General Highway Talk => Topic started by: hotdogPi on May 09, 2019, 07:57:30 AM

Title: Completely redundant routes
Post by: hotdogPi on May 09, 2019, 07:57:30 AM
Completely overlapped, excluding Interstates over lower-ranked routes.

The two that I can think of are I-894 and the southern portion of ME 4A.
Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: CNGL-Leudimin on May 09, 2019, 08:18:26 AM
I saw the title and I was about to say I-894, but you already said it.

Now for other examples I can think:
All the secret numbers hidden along US routes in some states
I-80 across Indiana (just a ramp when not overlapping another Interstate)

And a couple historical examples:
Either US 6 or US 50 across Utah, before the latter was moved to the San Rafael swell after I-70 was built
Either US 60 or US 70 West of Globe AZ
Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: Beltway on May 09, 2019, 08:28:37 AM
US-220 over I-99.

Revert US-220 back to its original roadways.
Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: Eth on May 09, 2019, 08:32:12 AM
May as well get the inevitable Georgia state routes under US routes out of the way:

GA 1 (US 27)
GA 3 (US 19, US 41)
GA 7 (US 41, US 341)
GA 8 (US 78, US 29)
GA 12 (US 278)
GA 35 (US 319)
GA 38 (US 84)
GA 58 (US 11)
GA 365 (US 23, US 123)

Probably a few more that I missed.
Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: formulanone on May 09, 2019, 09:27:39 AM
Alabama:
- AL 210 around Dothan is always part of a few US Routes

Interstates:
- I-565 is US 72 Alternate throughout all 20 miles
- I-359 is entirely overlapped by US 11 / AL 69 
Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: NE2 on May 09, 2019, 09:29:09 AM
US 192. Suck it, haters of state numbers for state highways.
Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: Avalanchez71 on May 09, 2019, 11:19:19 AM
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on May 09, 2019, 08:18:26 AM
I saw the title and I was about to say I-894, but you already said it.

Now for other examples I can think:
All the secret numbers hidden along US routes in some states
I-80 across Indiana (just a ramp when not overlapping another Interstate)

And a couple historical examples:
Either US 6 or US 50 across Utah, before the latter was moved to the San Rafael swell after I-70 was built
Either US 60 or US 70 West of Globe AZ
What a waste of money four laning I-70 across the swell.
Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on May 09, 2019, 01:04:20 PM
MSR 110 (the CKC corridor)
Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: kphoger on May 09, 2019, 01:51:16 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on May 09, 2019, 01:04:20 PM
MSR 110 (the CKC corridor)

Amen and amen!
Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: webny99 on May 09, 2019, 01:52:26 PM
Quote from: kphoger on May 09, 2019, 01:51:16 PM
Amen and amen!

A very fitting touch of redundancy.  :-P
Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: Big John on May 09, 2019, 01:56:48 PM
Quote from: Eth on May 09, 2019, 08:32:12 AM

Probably a few more that I missed.
The secret state routes coinciding with all Georgia Interstate highways.
Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: formulanone on May 09, 2019, 01:58:34 PM
Quote from: NE2 on May 09, 2019, 09:29:09 AM
US 192. Suck it, haters of state numbers for state highways.

:P

(https://live.staticflickr.com/927/41331596780_dc804a97d3_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/25YkeKA)

Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: dvferyance on May 09, 2019, 02:29:18 PM
Quote from: 1 on May 09, 2019, 07:57:30 AM
Completely overlapped, excluding Interstates over lower-ranked routes.

The two that I can think of are I-894 and the southern portion of ME 4A.
I don't get why everyone thinks that one is redundant and not I-41 south of the zoo interchange. There is no need for I-41 south of the zoo it's a stupid duplex down to the state line that is never ever going to be extended south. It amazes me who came up with that idea in the first place.
Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: Hurricane Rex on May 09, 2019, 04:00:51 PM
I-105 overlapping OR 126

I-182 overlapping US 12

SM-J737T

Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: hotdogPi on May 09, 2019, 04:08:51 PM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on May 09, 2019, 04:00:51 PM
I-105 overlapping OR 126

I-182 overlapping US 12

SM-J737T

I excluded Interstates overlapping lower-ranked routes because often it is useful to do this, giving an Interstate designation to a road that wouldn't otherwise have it. (Also, I-25 isn't redundant by any stretch of the imagination.) On the other hand, Georgia's not-so-secret state routes and the two I mentioned in the OP could just be deleted. AL 210 is an interesting example; it is still useful despite being redundant.
Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: ilpt4u on May 09, 2019, 04:28:25 PM
In Missouri, I-64. US 40 is just fine, to the point the freeway is still commonly known as Highway 40

I saw the "rule"  excluding Interstates over lower designations, but for 64/40 in STL, its an exception to prove the rule
Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: TEG24601 on May 09, 2019, 04:42:02 PM
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on May 09, 2019, 08:18:26 AM
I saw the title and I was about to say I-894, but you already said it.

Now for other examples I can think:
All the secret numbers hidden along US routes in some states
I-80 across Indiana (just a ramp when not overlapping another Interstate)


I was going to say I-90 in Indiana, as it really should be in Michigan.


I-94 from I-90 at Tomah to Madison.  It would be much more logical to run it to Green Bay, and let I-90 take over its route in Michigan.  Then use another number from Cleveland to Buffalo.


I-39 from Portage to Rockford.


US 30 from Pocatello to Portland.





Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: hbelkins on May 09, 2019, 04:45:43 PM
KY 841. Also, US 25 north of the US 42/127 intersection.

Haven't we discussed needless concurrencies before?
Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: kphoger on May 09, 2019, 04:49:57 PM
I think this is a subset of those:  routes that are completely redundant, not just a portion.
Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: thspfc on May 09, 2019, 05:16:26 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on May 09, 2019, 04:42:02 PM
I-39 from Portage to Rockford.
I know US-51 was designated first, but I-39 is an Interstate, and the OP excludes lower routes over Interstates.
Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: US 89 on May 09, 2019, 05:28:02 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on May 09, 2019, 04:42:02 PM
US 30 from Pocatello to Portland.

Except for the 93-mile stretch from Bliss to Heyburn, plus other independent segments near Ontario, Baker City, Pendleton...
Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: Beltway on May 09, 2019, 05:40:04 PM
Quote from: formulanone on May 09, 2019, 01:58:34 PM
Quote from: NE2 on May 09, 2019, 09:29:09 AM
US 192. Suck it, haters of state numbers for state highways.
[...]

Where is FL-192?
Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: CardInLex on May 09, 2019, 05:41:14 PM
US 62 Truck overlaps US 127 Bypass and KY 44 for it's entirety in Lawrenceburg, KY.

https://goo.gl/maps/8ntzpgrbHtiizysp9
https://goo.gl/maps/eKG2zgN3FCezWeTU7

Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: index on May 09, 2019, 07:35:59 PM
Quote from: 1 on May 09, 2019, 04:08:51 PM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on May 09, 2019, 04:00:51 PM
I-105 overlapping OR 126

I-182 overlapping US 12

SM-J737T

I excluded Interstates overlapping lower-ranked routes because often it is useful to do this, giving an Interstate designation to a road that wouldn't otherwise have it. (Also, I-25 isn't redundant by any stretch of the imagination.) On the other hand, Georgia's not-so-secret state routes and the two I mentioned in the OP could just be deleted. AL 210 is an interesting example; it is still useful despite being redundant.


I think that spurs like this being overlaid by routes entirely can still be considered useful for a few more reasons. An Interstate spur implies a direct route to an area. It's also more simple in terms of navigation. "Follow 182 into Pasco to SR 397" is more simple than "Get off 82 to 12 then follow 12 to SR 397." I'm sure you could come up with more, this is just an incredibly basic one I thought of.
Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: roadman65 on May 09, 2019, 07:39:20 PM
FL 24A in Gainesville which is completely overlapped by two other routes.
Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: Eth on May 09, 2019, 07:44:40 PM
Quote from: Big John on May 09, 2019, 01:56:48 PM
Quote from: Eth on May 09, 2019, 08:32:12 AM

Probably a few more that I missed.
The secret state routes coinciding with all Georgia Interstate highways.

I decided to limit it to signed routes only, but yes.

I did miss GA 515: all of it is also one or more of GA 5, US 76, and/or GA 17.
Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: roadman65 on May 09, 2019, 10:51:21 PM
FL 226 is one of the routes I said before is overlapped with SR 24A in Florida. The other being SR 331, however SR 331 is independent of other routes only from SR 226 to SR 24 is it signed with SR 24A.  SR 226 is not solo at all as its whole route is with SR 24A.

So that is more of the redundant route than 24A!  At least 24A offers a bypass for its parent sort of.
Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: Bickendan on May 10, 2019, 03:37:22 AM
Quote from: TEG24601 on May 09, 2019, 04:42:02 PM

US 30 from Pocatello to Portland.


Disagree on the basis of the Astoria-Portland segment, and the fact that US 30 acts as I-84 Bus, AND that arguably, it's also part of the signed Hist US 30 (which it certainly is in the Rowena Crest section).

Quote from: Hurricane Rex on May 09, 2019, 04:00:51 PM
I-105 overlapping OR 126

I-182 overlapping US 12

Nah, those two are fine.

My submission: The entire ORH system :bigass:
Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: CNGL-Leudimin on May 10, 2019, 09:34:58 AM
I've dug up this :sombrero::
Quote from: mcdonaat on November 10, 2012, 11:21:26 PM
How about these two routes? Very, VERY different routes.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8488%2F8174047491_6c16be4384_c.jpg&hash=c9395d65dbfae46cda30461ff11db13321c2a4fe)

The following post by NE2 says this road had even a third number. The maps are unfortunately gone.
Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: Aaron Camp on May 10, 2019, 09:41:03 AM
The IL-133 designation from the IL-133/IL-16 intersection at the west end of Paris, Illinois to the eastern terminus of both routes in Paris is unnecessary.

Additionally, although the routes are only a partial concurrency, usage of IL-13 on the IL-13/IL-15 corridor in St. Clair County, Illinois is effectively redundant from Freeburg westward.
Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: kphoger on May 10, 2019, 01:49:47 PM
Quote from: thspfc on May 09, 2019, 05:16:26 PM
the OP excludes lower routes over Interstates.

Part of the confusion may be that the OP also included an Interstate.  The difference is that it overlaps another Interstate rather than a lower-class road.
Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: hbelkins on May 10, 2019, 06:13:52 PM
Quote from: kphoger on May 10, 2019, 01:49:47 PM
Quote from: thspfc on May 09, 2019, 05:16:26 PM
the OP excludes lower routes over Interstates.

Part of the confusion may be that the OP also included an Interstate.  The difference is that it overlaps another Interstate rather than a lower-class road.

In that case, the section of I-380 that overlaps I-84 in Pennsylvania.
Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: GaryV on May 10, 2019, 08:05:54 PM
I'm not sure what you're considering "completely" overlapped - the routes are the exact same from end to end?

If it's allowable to nominate a route where one end overlaps another route, then the northern end of I-275 overlapping I-96 (Michigan)
Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: thspfc on May 10, 2019, 08:22:52 PM
Quote from: kphoger on May 10, 2019, 01:49:47 PM
Quote from: thspfc on May 09, 2019, 05:16:26 PM
the OP excludes lower routes over Interstates.

Part of the confusion may be that the OP also included an Interstate.  The difference is that it overlaps another Interstate rather than a lower-class road.
I would consider a 3 digit Interstate to be of a lower class than a 2 digit. With I-39, it overlaps US-51, so Interstate classes don't matter.
Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: kphoger on May 10, 2019, 10:19:19 PM
Quote from: GaryV on May 10, 2019, 08:05:54 PM
I'm not sure what you're considering "completely" overlapped

The entirety of a route is multiplexed with another route of equal or higher classification.

The OP, for example, cites I-894.  There's not a single mile of I-894 that isn't also I-41.  So why still sign 894?
Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on May 10, 2019, 10:22:30 PM
Quote from: kphoger on May 10, 2019, 10:19:19 PM
The OP, for example, cites I-894.  There's not a single mile of I-894 that isn't also I-41.  So why still sign 894?

Because WisDOT wanted to maintain a clear marked bypass for I-94. It's really not as egregious as the constant complaints here make it.
Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: roadman65 on May 10, 2019, 10:57:48 PM
US 460 in Norfolk running long side VA 168 is redundant.  Even Mike brought out that only one route was needed from Downtown Norfolk to the HRBT back before I-64.
Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: D-Dey65 on May 11, 2019, 01:38:34 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 09, 2019, 10:51:21 PM
FL 226 is one of the routes I said before is overlapped with SR 24A in Florida. The other being SR 331, however SR 331 is independent of other routes only from SR 226 to SR 24 is it signed with SR 24A.  SR 226 is not solo at all as its whole route is with SR 24A.

So that is more of the redundant route than 24A!  At least 24A offers a bypass for its parent sort of.
I'd agree with you on that, but I've seen GSV views of a stub extension of 16th Avenue east of FL 331. Is there any chance this might've been intended as an extension of FL 226?


Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: US 89 on May 12, 2019, 01:40:05 AM
Because everything Utah maintains must carry a state route number, nearly all business routes have a state route number. Although some of these state routes continue on and serve other purposes, there  are several examples of state routes that are entirely concurrent with a business route. Unless I’ve forgotten one, this should be a complete list of those:
Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: roadman65 on May 12, 2019, 10:44:59 AM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on May 11, 2019, 01:38:34 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 09, 2019, 10:51:21 PM
FL 226 is one of the routes I said before is overlapped with SR 24A in Florida. The other being SR 331, however SR 331 is independent of other routes only from SR 226 to SR 24 is it signed with SR 24A.  SR 226 is not solo at all as its whole route is with SR 24A.

So that is more of the redundant route than 24A!  At least 24A offers a bypass for its parent sort of.
I'd agree with you on that, but I've seen GSV views of a stub extension of 16th Avenue east of FL 331. Is there any chance this might've been intended as an extension of FL 226?



Still presently its redundant. 

Until FDOT extends it (or Gainesville or the county) its redundant as its not independent at all.


BTW is not ME 100 completely overlapped from end to end with other main highways.

Then old news but all of US 23 south of its merge with US 1 in Southeastern GA is been discussed as redundant and even some GA users on here say no one in the Peach State even calls out US 23 by name but rather by other roads its overlapped with.
Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: RobbieL2415 on May 14, 2019, 10:30:18 PM
At this point MA 128 really doesn't need to be signed with I-95 and I-93.  But Bostoninans insist on it.
Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: roadman65 on May 14, 2019, 10:40:33 PM
Also the part where I-93 is solo along it is still referred to as it!  Yes people are bad when it comes to numbers as here in Florida we had officially the number 408 signed in the field to the Holland East- West Expressway, yet everyone adapted real fast to the change of calling it by its hidden designation and quick to drop the East- West name.

Here 40 years or more later they still do not want to stop saying Route 128 like its going to kill them.
Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: dvferyance on May 31, 2019, 11:04:58 PM
Quote from: 1 on May 09, 2019, 07:57:30 AM
Completely overlapped, excluding Interstates over lower-ranked routes.

The two that I can think of are I-894 and the southern portion of ME 4A.
The redundancy is I-41 south of the zoo interchange. It's never going to be extended into Illinois and become a sole route again.
Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: WNYroadgeek on May 31, 2019, 11:49:27 PM
I can think of three interstate highways in NY that are overlapped with other routes for their entire length:

I-99 (US 15)
I-587 (NY 28)
I-790 (NY 5; NY 8 and 12 overlap it as well, but not for its' entire length)

Admittedly, both I-99 and I-790 could/will get extended in the future, but as it currently stands, they count.
Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: Rothman on June 01, 2019, 01:51:53 AM
I-790 should be decommissioned.
Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: TheStranger on June 01, 2019, 02:26:41 AM
Pre-1964, all of US 70 in California was concurrent with either US 60, US 99, or I-10.

I actually mentioned it in another thread, but from 1936-1964, 80% of Route 11 was either part of US 6, US 66, Alternate US 66, or US 99.

US 466 after the 1940s was concurrent with other routes for the entirety of its portions in Arizona (US 93) and Nevada (US 93, US 91/later I-15), with the only truly independent portion being the Morro Bay-Barstow segment in California.

Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: TEG24601 on June 01, 2019, 02:26:29 PM
Quote from: US 89 on May 09, 2019, 05:28:02 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on May 09, 2019, 04:42:02 PM
US 30 from Pocatello to Portland.

Except for the 93-mile stretch from Bliss to Heyburn, plus other independent segments near Ontario, Baker City, Pendleton...


All of which can be state routes or Business routes.
Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: Flint1979 on June 02, 2019, 09:26:19 AM
Quote from: kphoger on May 10, 2019, 10:19:19 PM
Quote from: GaryV on May 10, 2019, 08:05:54 PM
I'm not sure what you're considering "completely" overlapped

The entirety of a route is multiplexed with another route of equal or higher classification.

The OP, for example, cites I-894.  There's not a single mile of I-894 that isn't also I-41.  So why still sign 894?
Probably because I-894 still serves as a bypass of I-94. Why is I-41 even signed south of the Zoo Interchange? Heck why is I-41 signed at all? And then Wisconsin signs it all the way to the Illinois border thinking that IDOT is going to extend it. If IDOT hasn't extended the US-12 freeway then I have no idea why Wisconsin thinks they are going to extend I-41. I-41 actually was a waste of time and money.
Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: Flint1979 on June 02, 2019, 09:28:51 AM
I don't recall any examples in Michigan. There are concurrencies but not for an entire route at least I don't know of any.

Like I-75 and US-23 run together for 73 miles between Flint and Standish but both highways continue on both ends of the concurrency.

Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: Flint1979 on June 02, 2019, 09:35:08 AM
Would NY-5's concurrency with US-20 count? They are together for about 70 miles between Avon and Auburn.
Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: hotdogPi on June 02, 2019, 09:38:49 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on June 02, 2019, 09:35:08 AM
Would NY-5's concurrency with US-20 count? They are together for about 70 miles between Avon and Auburn.

No. NY 5 is not entirely overlapped, even if it is overlapped for a long distance.
Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: MNHighwayMan on June 02, 2019, 11:19:14 PM
I guess the concept of "completely redundant" is kind of difficult for some.
Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: CNGL-Leudimin on June 03, 2019, 04:47:19 AM
Quote from: TheStranger on June 01, 2019, 02:26:41 AM
Pre-1964, all of US 70 in California was concurrent with either US 60, US 99, or I-10.¡

I kind of said this on the very first reply:
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on May 09, 2019, 08:18:26 AMAnd a couple historical examples:
Either US 60 or US 70 West of Globe AZ

Although I believe US 60 and US 70 went their separate ways West of Beaumont CA, as evidenced by CA 60.
Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: webny99 on June 03, 2019, 11:03:11 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on June 02, 2019, 09:35:08 AM
Would NY-5's concurrency with US-20 count? They are together for about 70 miles between Avon and Auburn.

In terms of percentage of route length, the multiplex isn't that long.

Also, five-and-twenty has such a nice ring to it - and it's so well known as the Main Street of the Finger Lakes - that I think it would still get called by both numbers even if one was eliminated.
Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: Kulerage on June 03, 2019, 02:19:56 PM
US 74 in Tennessee is completely overlapped with US 64 and I-75. Tennessee barely even signs it, and it probably only exists to make the highway a multi-state route.
Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: Occidental Tourist on June 06, 2019, 02:04:05 AM
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on June 03, 2019, 04:47:19 AM
Quote from: TheStranger on June 01, 2019, 02:26:41 AM
Pre-1964, all of US 70 in California was concurrent with either US 60, US 99, or I-10.¡

I kind of said this on the very first reply:
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on May 09, 2019, 08:18:26 AMAnd a couple historical examples:
Either US 60 or US 70 West of Globe AZ

Although I believe US 60 and US 70 went their separate ways West of Beaumont CA, as evidenced by CA 60.
They did.  They merged back together in Pomona just east of the Kellogg Pass.
Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: sparker on June 06, 2019, 03:49:54 AM
CA 204, aka the northernmost part of Bakersfield's Business Loop (CA) 99.  Seeing as how Bakersfield is defying statewide trends and actually signing the relinquished part of CA 178 across downtown, CA 204 as a connection from the CA 178 freeway to CA 99 is a bit superfluous (and always has been since its 1968 signage).  If D6 intends to keep maintaining the route, fine -- but signing it as CA 204 is superfluous; just let it be silent (like CA 51) and simply sign it as Business 99. 
Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: TheStranger on June 06, 2019, 12:37:48 PM
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on June 06, 2019, 02:04:05 AM
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on June 03, 2019, 04:47:19 AM
Quote from: TheStranger on June 01, 2019, 02:26:41 AM
Pre-1964, all of US 70 in California was concurrent with either US 60, US 99, or I-10.¡

I kind of said this on the very first reply:
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on May 09, 2019, 08:18:26 AMAnd a couple historical examples:
Either US 60 or US 70 West of Globe AZ

Although I believe US 60 and US 70 went their separate ways West of Beaumont CA, as evidenced by CA 60.
They did.  They merged back together in Pomona just east of the Kellogg Pass.

Part of what makes the 60/70 thing distinct is that 99 and 60 each had portions east of Los Angeles that were not concurrent with anything else (the aforementioned Pomona-Beaumont segment of 60, and 99 along 86/111), but I don't think 70 at any point ever did.  And even when 60 west of Pomona was being proposed for realignment away from I-10, US 70 was then co-signed with I-10 by itself between US 101 and I-5!

Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: TheOneKEA on June 06, 2019, 02:01:16 PM
Maryland doesn't have very many redundant routes. The ones I can think of that may count are MD 180, MD 832, and MD 144A.
Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: hotdogPi on June 06, 2019, 02:10:35 PM
Many of you don't seem to understand the thread.

While I-41 is redundant to US 41, it doesn't count for this thread, as it's an Interstate over a US route, as many Interstates are.

All [route] in [state] examples are not overlapped for their entire length, only some of it. They do not count.
Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: Kulerage on June 06, 2019, 08:57:04 PM
Quote from: 1 on June 06, 2019, 02:10:35 PM
All [route] in [state] examples are not overlapped for their entire length, only some of it. They do not count.
I mean, in some contexts highways are considered to be separate things in a different state :bigass:
Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: thspfc on June 06, 2019, 09:37:24 PM
Quote from: Kulerage on June 06, 2019, 08:57:04 PM
Quote from: 1 on June 06, 2019, 02:10:35 PM
All [route] in [state] examples are not overlapped for their entire length, only some of it. They do not count.
I mean, in some contexts highways are considered to be separate things in a different state :bigass:
In what context? Elaborate.
Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: texaskdog on June 06, 2019, 09:57:43 PM
Iowa 27.  US 85 anywhere south of Denver.  US 62 west of Oklahoma.
Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: thspfc on June 06, 2019, 10:04:51 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on June 06, 2019, 09:57:43 PM
Iowa 27.  US 85 anywhere south of Denver.  US 62 west of Oklahoma.
I think IA-27 was created to keep one number for the Avenue of the Saints corridor (doesn't change the fact that it is redundant).
Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: roadman65 on June 06, 2019, 10:12:29 PM
GA 3 and GA 300 in South Georgia.
Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: TheStranger on June 06, 2019, 11:06:14 PM
california routes which have ALWAYS been entirely concurrent (with no solo sections) -

Route 204 (all of which has been Business 99) in Bakersfield, as mentioned earlier

Business 80 in Sacramento and for that matter Route 51

former Route 194 which existed only as a paper designation for 1974-1982 I-15E (now I-215, previously I-15 and US 395).   Actually pretty similar to the unsigned Route 51 above.

Unsigned Route 164 along a portion of road that has been signed as part of Route 19 since 1934, from north of Pico Rivera to I-210.  Exists because a parallel freeway corridor to replace that segment of 19 was once proposed, though will never be built.

IIRC, all of what had been Alternate US 66 between Los Angeles and Pasadena along Figueroa and Colorado was concurrent with either Route 11 or Route 134 during its existence. 

Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: formulanone on June 07, 2019, 07:19:48 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on June 06, 2019, 10:12:29 PM
GA 3 and GA 300 in South Georgia.

There are sections of GA 300 which are not part of US 19; most of the Cordele - Albany route, for example.
Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: MNHighwayMan on June 07, 2019, 07:44:49 AM
Quote from: thspfc on June 06, 2019, 10:04:51 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on June 06, 2019, 09:57:43 PM
Iowa 27.  US 85 anywhere south of Denver.  US 62 west of Oklahoma.
I think IA-27 was created to keep one number for the Avenue of the Saints corridor (doesn't change the fact that it is redundant).

Also not completely redundant. The first ~10 miles of IA-27 between the Missouri border and the US-218 interchange are independent.
Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: jp the roadgeek on June 07, 2019, 12:58:42 PM
CT 15 over US 5 from Meriden north along the Berlin Turnpike and the Charter Oak Bridge.  If it weren't for the small section in East Hartford between Main St and I-84, CT 15 probably would have been truncated to Meriden in 1980 instead of East Hartford when it was removed from the (then) I-86 concurrency.

US 44 west of Arlington, NY.  Here is a rare case of where the state route (NY 55) would be the non-redundant one, since it stretches to the PA border; US 44 ends at US 209. 
Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: roadman65 on June 07, 2019, 11:26:55 PM
Quote from: formulanone on June 07, 2019, 07:19:48 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on June 06, 2019, 10:12:29 PM
GA 3 and GA 300 in South Georgia.

There are sections of GA 300 which are not part of US 19; most of the Cordele - Albany route, for example.
Which should really truncate that route to Albany or end GA 3 at Albany.  No need to have both go for long way to the FL Border.
Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: ftballfan on June 09, 2019, 02:05:29 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on June 02, 2019, 09:28:51 AM
I don't recall any examples in Michigan. There are concurrencies but not for an entire route at least I don't know of any.

Like I-75 and US-23 run together for 73 miles between Flint and Standish but both highways continue on both ends of the concurrency.



US-223 is concurrent with US-23 into Ohio just to make it go into two states! IMHO, US-23 should be rerouted to follow I-75 and OH 15 from Toledo to Carey with existing US-23 becoming an extended US-223. Also, if this were to happen, OH 15 could easily be truncated to Ottawa.

In Michigan, M-44 used to extend along M-37 to end at M-11 (28th St). M-44 currently ends at I-96, but has extended to M-11 at two separate times (wondering if MDOT ever had plans to reroute M-37 to piggyback on US-131 and M-6 through Grand Rapids instead of piggybacking on I-96)
Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: Flint1979 on June 09, 2019, 02:43:01 PM
Quote from: ftballfan on June 09, 2019, 02:05:29 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on June 02, 2019, 09:28:51 AM
I don't recall any examples in Michigan. There are concurrencies but not for an entire route at least I don't know of any.

Like I-75 and US-23 run together for 73 miles between Flint and Standish but both highways continue on both ends of the concurrency.



US-223 is concurrent with US-23 into Ohio just to make it go into two states! IMHO, US-23 should be rerouted to follow I-75 and OH 15 from Toledo to Carey with existing US-23 becoming an extended US-223. Also, if this were to happen, OH 15 could easily be truncated to Ottawa.

In Michigan, M-44 used to extend along M-37 to end at M-11 (28th St). M-44 currently ends at I-96, but has extended to M-11 at two separate times (wondering if MDOT ever had plans to reroute M-37 to piggyback on US-131 and M-6 through Grand Rapids instead of piggybacking on I-96)
Yep which is stupid IMO, US-223 should just be a state highway not a US highway I know I've mentioned that before. But the idea you have isn't bad at all. It throws you off to have to go NB on I-75 to stay SB on US-23. Since I-475 is already there US-23 could also break off at US-20 and run concurrent with US-20 and use it's old route (OH-199) instead.

MDOT actually still has M-44 extending all the way to M-11 running concurrent with M-37. It's a rather pointless concurrency since M-44 just ends at M-11 and M-37 doesn't end.
Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: ftballfan on June 15, 2019, 02:16:11 PM
I'm in Winchester, VA for a wedding and I just realized that US-17's northern end is concurrent with US-11, US-50, and US-522. IMHO, it should be either truncated to Paris (where it meets US-50) or extended north to replace the northern stretch of US-522 (with US-522 south of Winchester being downgraded to a state highway).
Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: kphoger on June 17, 2019, 01:42:15 PM
Quote from: ftballfan on June 15, 2019, 02:16:11 PM
I'm in Winchester, VA for a wedding and I just realized that US-17's northern end is concurrent with US-11, US-50, and US-522. IMHO, it should be either truncated to Paris (where it meets US-50) or extended north to replace the northern stretch of US-522 (with US-522 south of Winchester being downgraded to a state highway).

So . . . it's not completely redundant.
Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: mrsman on June 28, 2019, 12:46:29 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on May 10, 2019, 10:22:30 PM
Quote from: kphoger on May 10, 2019, 10:19:19 PM
The OP, for example, cites I-894.  There's not a single mile of I-894 that isn't also I-41.  So why still sign 894?

Because WisDOT wanted to maintain a clear marked bypass for I-94. It's really not as egregious as the constant complaints here make it.

Another way of handling the problem would simply be by denoting the route as the Milwaukee bypass or Downtown bypass.  The control cities alone should also help direct traffic to Madison and Chicago without having traffic stay on I-94.
Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: mrsman on June 28, 2019, 01:07:25 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on June 06, 2019, 12:37:48 PM
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on June 06, 2019, 02:04:05 AM
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on June 03, 2019, 04:47:19 AM
Quote from: TheStranger on June 01, 2019, 02:26:41 AM
Pre-1964, all of US 70 in California was concurrent with either US 60, US 99, or I-10.¡

I kind of said this on the very first reply:
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on May 09, 2019, 08:18:26 AMAnd a couple historical examples:
Either US 60 or US 70 West of Globe AZ

Although I believe US 60 and US 70 went their separate ways West of Beaumont CA, as evidenced by CA 60.
They did.  They merged back together in Pomona just east of the Kellogg Pass.

Part of what makes the 60/70 thing distinct is that 99 and 60 each had portions east of Los Angeles that were not concurrent with anything else (the aforementioned Pomona-Beaumont segment of 60, and 99 along 86/111), but I don't think 70 at any point ever did.  And even when 60 west of Pomona was being proposed for realignment away from I-10, US 70 was then co-signed with I-10 by itself between US 101 and I-5!

Was the portion of the San Bernardino Fwy between US 101 and the Golden State Fwy both I-10 and US 70 at one time?  I guess before the Santa Monica Fwy was constructed, this may have been the case.  And once the Santa Monica Fwy was constructed US 70 was decomissioned in California.  But I suppose if there were a time when US 70 existed at the same time as the Santa Monica Fwy, then US 70 was the unique and only highway that straddled the 1/2 mile section of freeway.

Right now, this section of freeway is legislatively within the definition of I-10.  It also is signed as being I-10 eastbound.  Westbound it is signed (erroneously) as US 101 north, but there are not so many signs so it's not so bad.  But since you must use I-5 to connect the two portions of I-10, from my point of view this is technically an unnumbered highway.  (But at one time it was US99-70-60). 

[Don't get me wrong.  The current signage is clear and perfectly reasonable.  We don't need to number this small section as its own highway and the vast majority of motorists pass the section so quickly that they are not even aware that there is any issue.  But in my mind this isn't really part of I-10.]


Here is GSV from the one westbound freeway entrance on this stretch from State Street.  It is signed as TO US 101.  Oddly, there is no "Freeway Entrance" sign here.

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0554978,-118.2116224,3a,75y,341.7h,81.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3hcLPFIH30J_toULi0bcvw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: sparker on June 28, 2019, 06:08:29 PM
^^^^^^^^^^
That short segment that is, in Caltrans parlance, considered a I-10 "spur", was the original CA iteration of I-110.  When the I-5/Golden State Freeway section including the interchange with the San Bernardino (I-10) freeway was opened in early 1960, that section saw WB I-110 signage from I-10 -- but that signage was gone by 1963 and replaced with US 101 trailblazer indication, although the "110" designation persisted through the '64 state renumbering, as did 110's unsigned "doppelganger", I-105 over the Santa Ana Freeway from the ELA interchange to the San Bernardino Split.  When the Century Freeway was added to the Interstate system as part of the 1968 additions, it was planned to move the I-105 designation to that freeway; that process was helped by the fact that the portion previously designated I-105 was built 10-11 years prior to the original Interstate enactment, and was "grandfathered" into the system without any expenditure of chargeable funds.  But the formal designation of either route didn't change until about 1981, when I-110 was proposed to be applied to the Harbor Freeway (then CA 11) south of I-10 to its San Pedro southern terminus.  At that time, Caltrans successfully petitioned FHWA to delete both I-105 and I-110 from those downtown alignments and formally apply them to, respectively, the Century and Harbor freeways; timely, as ROW clearance for the Century Freeway was to commence then.  Caltrans then reverted the former I-105 alignment back to US 101, signage for which had always been retained; I-110, only a mile or so in length, was added to I-10.  The Caltrans mileage calculator for its "Route 10" internal designator for I-10 indicates a section commencing from the route's west terminus in Santa Monica to the point at which the ramps from I-10 cross the Santa Ana Freeway en route to its merge with I-5 up to the San Bernardino Freeway; the second section begins at US 101 at the old "San Bernardino Split" and continues to the AZ state line east of Blythe. 

FYI, the initial abortive Caltrans District 7 effort to post exit numbers dating from about 1970 featured numbered exits on the San Bernardino Freeway from I-5 out to the L.A./San Bernardino county line; those numbers did not reflect the former I-110 mileage, as that single mile wasn't absorbed into I-10 for another dozen years or so.  When the current exit numbering system was being deployed in the '90's, it did reflect that extra mile of former I-110 for all exits east of I-5 -- raising most exit numbers by one or two. 
Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: TheStranger on June 28, 2019, 06:22:00 PM
Quote from: sparker on June 28, 2019, 06:08:29 PM
^^^^^^^^^^
That short segment that is, in Caltrans parlance, considered a I-10 "spur", was the original CA iteration of I-110.  When the I-5/Golden State Freeway section including the interchange with the San Bernardino (I-10) freeway was opened in early 1960, that section saw WB I-110 signage from I-10 -- but that signage was gone by 1963 and replaced with US 101 trailblazer indication, although the "110" designation persisted through the '64 state renumbering, as did 110's unsigned "doppelganger", I-105 over the Santa Ana Freeway from the ELA interchange to the San Bernardino Split.  When the Century Freeway was added to the Interstate system as part of the 1968 additions, it was planned to move the I-105 designation to that freeway; that process was helped by the fact that the portion previously designated I-105 was built 10-11 years prior to the original Interstate enactment, and was "grandfathered" into the system without any expenditure of chargeable funds.  But the formal designation of either route didn't change until about 1981, when I-110 was proposed to be applied to the Harbor Freeway (then CA 11) south of I-10 to its San Pedro southern terminus.  At that time, Caltrans successfully petitioned FHWA to delete both I-105 and I-110 from those downtown alignments and formally apply them to, respectively, the Century and Harbor freeways; timely, as ROW clearance for the Century Freeway was to commence then.  Caltrans then reverted the former I-105 alignment back to US 101, signage for which had always been retained; I-110, only a mile or so in length, was added to I-10. 

Cahighways actually notes that the 1960s I-105/I-110 were deleted in 1965:
https://cahighways.org/itypes.html

So essentially from 1965-1981 there was no Route 110 of any sort in California.  IIRC I-105 was first designated in 1968 for what had originally been proposed as a freeway alignment for Route 42, but specifically only the portion west of I-605 (the portion of what had been 1964-1968 Route 42 east of I-5 ended up becoming part of today's eastern segment of Route 90 towards Yorba Linda). The chargeable Interstate mileage from what had been I-105/I-110 in downtown Los Angeles was applied to the Century Freeway project, as was mileage from what had been I-480 in San Francisco and what has been and still is signed as I-80 since the early 1960s but built as US 40/50 along the San Francisco Skyway.  (Other sources for the chargeable mileage for today's I-105, also per Cahighways.org, include the canceled Junipero Serra Freeway extension into the Sunset District of San Francisco for Route 1/I-280 and the cancelled segment of I-80 that covers the unbuilt Western Freeway and the 1989-2005 extent of the Central Freeway from Fell Street east to the existing section from Market towards the Bayshore Freeway).

I've always been fascinated by the old 105/110 pair in downtown LA as both roads predate the Interstate system and I don't know if any plans to upgrade either route ever commenced (the only change along the former 110/former 60-70-99 portion of the San Bernardino Freeway seems to be the El Monte Busway).
Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: roadman65 on July 24, 2019, 05:14:05 PM
IL 336 is now redundant of IL 110 with the implementation of the Chicago- Kansas City Expressway.
Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: kphoger on July 24, 2019, 06:45:05 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 24, 2019, 05:14:05 PM
IL 336 is now redundant of IL 110 with the implementation of the Chicago- Kansas City Expressway.

I wonder why Google Maps has CKC running through downtown Macomb instead of following Route 336.
Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: ilpt4u on July 24, 2019, 09:21:30 PM
Quote from: kphoger on July 24, 2019, 06:45:05 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 24, 2019, 05:14:05 PM
IL 336 is now redundant of IL 110 with the implementation of the Chicago- Kansas City Expressway.

I wonder why Google Maps has CKC running through downtown Macomb instead of following Route 336.
Cause Google? 110 & 336 are both signed on the new Macomb Bypass

The small portion of Unsigned IL 336 is only signed as an exit/long ramp off I-474 for IL 116, but at this point, who knows if/when the Macomb-Peoria new terrain route for IL 336 will ever be constructed, which leaves this Peoria-area segment an Unsigned Orphan

If it is not built, IL 336 should be Decommissioned
Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: mb2001 on July 31, 2019, 10:08:06 PM
I think a good litmus test is whether anyone would ever say "I'm going to take Route X"  if no one ever says that; then it's generally not a worthwhile concurrency; there are exceptions but that is often the case.

With that logic, here in Massachusetts; I feel like people use I-95 and Rte. 128 often enough so that that concurrency makes sense; but on US 1's long concurrency with I-93; US 1 is almost completely forgotten; therefore I'd say we should return US 1 to it's precious route along the VFW Parkway and Storrow Drive.
Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: roadman65 on July 31, 2019, 10:22:48 PM
What I love is the fact in Fort Smith, they rerouted US 71 on both I-549 and part of I-40 and designated the original route through town as US 71 Business, but don't even sign the freeway overlap.  Why not just revert US 71B back to its mainline status?

US 62 in NW Arkansas as well, be kept through the cities as its not at all signed on I-49.

US 319 south along with US 98 in the FL Panhandle is useless, it should be truncated and the part where both 98 and 319 separate use the secret state number there for it. 
Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: PHLBOS on August 01, 2019, 12:17:50 PM
Quote from: mb2001 on July 31, 2019, 10:08:06 PM
I think a good litmus test is whether anyone would ever say "I'm going to take Route X"  if no one ever says that; then it's generally not a worthwhile concurrency; there are exceptions but that is often the case.

With that logic, here in Massachusetts; I feel like people use I-95 and Rte. 128 often enough so that that concurrency makes sense; but on US 1's long concurrency with I-93; US 1 is almost completely forgotten; therefore I'd say we should return US 1 to it's precious route along the VFW Parkway and Storrow Drive.
The reasoning behind why US 1 was rerouted onto I-93/95 from Boston to Dedham circa 1989 (long before the use of GPS for navigation) was due to the low overpass clearances along Storrow Drive.  Many taller trucks (following US 1) would get stuck on one of the overpasses.  Such action was commonly referred to as Storrowed.

It's worth noting that Storrow Drive wasn't originally US 1.  It became US 1 circa 1971 when Boston eliminated all its C-routes.  Storrow Drive was originally designated as MA C1 although a parallel (some would say redundant routing) was also along Commonweath Ave. (current MA 2).  The latter predated the existence of the former but was likely retained as a truck route for MA C1 when Storrow Drive opened to traffic circa 1951.

Personally, I would've either marked the current US 1 routing as TRUCK US 1 and kept the pre-1989 US 1 routing as is or I would've had US 1 exit off I-93 at Granite Ave. (Exit 11 B) where it would meet & take over/replace MA 203 and meet the VFW Parkway where it would resume its prior routing.  Such would've also resolved the current dangling ends of MA 203 as well as MA 109.
Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: FightingIrish on August 01, 2019, 04:19:57 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on May 10, 2019, 10:22:30 PM
Quote from: kphoger on May 10, 2019, 10:19:19 PM
The OP, for example, cites I-894.  There's not a single mile of I-894 that isn't also I-41.  So why still sign 894?

Because WisDOT wanted to maintain a clear marked bypass for I-94. It's really not as egregious as the constant complaints here make it.
I live near the Bypass, and the locals here still call it I-894. The number still serves a purpose. Otherwise, people might wind up heading southwest toward Beloit on I-43.
Title: Re: Completely redundant routes
Post by: texaskdog on August 01, 2019, 04:27:43 PM
110 from MO to IL, 27 IA/MO