...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 (https://www.usends.com/blog/why-us-285-should-be-signed-east-west-in-the-denver-area)
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.
Also US 62 in Ohio is signed E-W south of Columbus and imo it should be changed to N-S.
I saw the title and got super confused for a second.
Quote from: zzcarp on June 28, 2021, 10:32:04 PM
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
Quote from: SkyPesos on June 28, 2021, 10:57:57 PM
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.
Quote from: usends on June 28, 2021, 09:40:33 PM
...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 (https://www.usends.com/blog/why-us-285-should-be-signed-east-west-in-the-denver-area)
From that US Ends.com article:
Quote
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.
Quote from: wanderer2575 on June 29, 2021, 09:58:51 AM
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.
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
Quote from: SkyPesos on June 29, 2021, 10:04:49 AM
Quote from: wanderer2575 on June 29, 2021, 09:58:51 AM
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.
Quote from: jayhawkco on June 29, 2021, 10:12:49 AM
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.
Quote from: wanderer2575 on June 29, 2021, 10:25:26 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on June 29, 2021, 10:04:49 AM
Quote from: wanderer2575 on June 29, 2021, 09:58:51 AM
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
Quote from: US 89 on June 28, 2021, 11:42:39 PM
Quote from: zzcarp on June 28, 2021, 10:32:04 PM
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.
Quote from: jayhawkco on June 29, 2021, 10:12:49 AM
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.
Quote from: zzcarp on June 29, 2021, 11:37:34 AM
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
Quote from: jayhawkco on June 29, 2021, 10:52:16 AM
Quote from: wanderer2575 on June 29, 2021, 10:25:26 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on June 29, 2021, 10:04:49 AM
Quote from: wanderer2575 on June 29, 2021, 09:58:51 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: SkyPesos on June 29, 2021, 11:52:15 AM
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
Quote from: jayhawkco on June 29, 2021, 12:23:36 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on June 29, 2021, 11:52:15 AM
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.
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?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 29, 2021, 03:56:01 PM
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
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 29, 2021, 03:56:01 PM
is this a subject that only we roadgeeks would care about?
yes
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.
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on June 29, 2021, 11:41:54 PM
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.
Quote from: SkyPesos on June 29, 2021, 11:47:57 PM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on June 29, 2021, 11:41:54 PM
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:
(https://i.imgur.com/tIKNpON.png)
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.
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on June 30, 2021, 12:02:54 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on June 29, 2021, 11:47:57 PM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on June 29, 2021, 11:41:54 PM
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:
(https://i.imgur.com/tIKNpON.png)
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.
i want to say i remember back when i was a kid, that i-270 was signed 'north' where you got on it at quebec, back when stapleton airport was still there.
*gets worm can opener*
why not sign things with the other points of the compass... like 'northwest' i-270 or something..?
Quote from: zachary_amaryllis on July 02, 2021, 09:31:11 AM
i want to say i remember back when i was a kid, that i-270 was signed 'north' where you got on it at quebec, back when stapleton airport was still there.
*gets worm can opener*
why not sign things with the other points of the compass... like 'northwest' i-270 or something..?
I feel like North is probably accurate for 270. I would think a good chunk of that traffic is going from I-70 west to I-25 north, not saying on US36 towards Westminster/Boulder.
Chris
The biggest 3di culprit for being signed in a perpendicular cardinal direction compared to most of its routing is I-278. Seems weird that I'm going "east" when the road is bending to the west at a particular moment, and the overall road is much more N-S.
Quote from: zachary_amaryllis on July 02, 2021, 09:31:11 AM
why not sign things with the other points of the compass... like 'northwest' i-270 or something..?
Ohio used to sign the many diagonal US routes in the state like that. For example, US 42 was signed "N-East (northeast)" and "S-West (southwest)" before. Not sure why it was changed.
I can provide another (fictional) alternative to the dilemma. Perhaps US 285 should either end at CO-470 or multiplex with CO-470 to end at I-70. This would keep all of US 285, even in the Denver metro, as a primarily N-S route. C-30 can take over the remaining part of US 285.
Quote from: mrsman on July 21, 2021, 03:58:06 PM
I can provide another (fictional) alternative to the dilemma. Perhaps US 285 should either end at CO-470 or multiplex with CO-470 to end at I-70. This would keep all of US 285, even in the Denver metro, as a primarily N-S route. C-30 can take over the remaining part of US 285.
You could also have US-285 end at parent US-85/Santa Fe Avenue as pretty much the "expressway" portion of US-285 ends there and I would assume the majority of US-285 traffic headed to/from downtown Denver and points north would choose US-85 Santa Fe over I-25.
I dislike it when 3-digit US Highways do not connect with their "parent" routes. Either keep 285's terminus at Interstate 25 or retract it to its junction at US 85. Technically, US 285 does also connect with US 85 in Santa Fe, NM, but since US 85 has long been de-signed in New Mexico (and through much of Colorado south of Castle Rock), I'm not counting it.
Slightly OT(concerning numbering and not directional signage) and late to the party, but...
My first impression driving 285 was that it served as a sort of a rural, secondary, "back side of the rockies" alternative to I-25 between NM and Colorado.I think it would make more sense to route it up to Leadville and terminate on I-70 at Copper Mountain. That way it's easy to understand that if I wanna get off 70 west of eisenhower and go to Santa Fe, the only route I have to follow is 285.
CO 17 from Alamosa up through Hooper should also be 285 since it's a more direct route up the state. Change the section of 285 between Saguache and Monte Vista to an extension of CO 15
The urban part of 285 and the leg between the metro and fairplay would make more sense if it was an extension of CO 30.