Suffix Routes

[AcE_Wolf_287]

So I'm making this because where my other residence is in Albany, NY There is US 9, Then US 9W, why did they remove US 9E, but keep US 9W? I would keep US 9E and have 2 separate US 9's

[vdeane]

I don't know the full story, but I imagine it's something to do with suffixes being used to denote child routes in NY.  US 9/US 9W basically conform to that system pretty well.  Incidentally, the whole "2 separate US 9's" thing is the reason that I don't like suffixes on US and interstate routes.  IMO routes shouldn't split - their should be one mainline and its child routes.

[Verlanka]

From what I know, US 9 was once US 109, then US 9E, and now US 9, with old US 9 being US 9W.

[hbelkins]

I think the suffixes are used for "both of these routes will take you where you want to go in a relatively-equal number of miles, so pick whichever one you want." Much of that functionality has been removed, however, due to some of them paralleling interstates. See US 31E and 31W. Also 25E and 25W. In both cases the W route parallels an interstate, while the E route runs on a separate alignment. In the case of the two 45s, there's no interstate, but all of the E route has been improved, while portions of the W route are still two lanes.

A parent-and-child setup doesn't really work too well under the original intent of the split routes.

[Beltway]

What about US-6N in northwest PA?

It doesn't appear that there was a US-6S.

[fillup420]

I think the suffixes are used for "both of these routes will take you where you want to go in a relatively-equal number of miles, so pick whichever one you want." Much of that functionality has been removed, however, due to some of them paralleling interstates. See US 31E and 31W. Also 25E and 25W. In both cases the W route parallels an interstate, while the E route runs on a separate alignment. In the case of the two 45s, there's no interstate, but all of the E route has been improved, while portions of the W route are still two lanes.

A parent-and-child setup doesn't really work too well under the original intent of the split routes.

US 19's split routes are vastly different

US 19E is its own highway that serves a few towns, but deviates pretty far off the original route. US 19W is half twisty two-lane and half concurrent with I-26. the quickest way is to follow I-26 the whole way, which means leaving US 19 for a while.

[AcE_Wolf_287]

who knows why they left US 9W there, maybe in the 1930's they knew eventually that they're would be a highway coming in the western side of husky river so they kept US 9W

[sparker]

What about US-6N in northwest PA?

It doesn't appear that there was a US-6S.

Apparently US 6N was the original west terminating section of US 6 prior to its extension into Ohio and farther west as the "Grand Army of the Republic" highway.  When US 6 was shunted south on US 19 and then west on former state highway routes, the remainder was deemed to short for a 3dus, so it was redesignated a single-ended US 6N.  That was over 80 years ago, so it's likely to stick around for the foreseeable future.

[hbelkins]

I think the suffixes are used for "both of these routes will take you where you want to go in a relatively-equal number of miles, so pick whichever one you want." Much of that functionality has been removed, however, due to some of them paralleling interstates. See US 31E and 31W. Also 25E and 25W. In both cases the W route parallels an interstate, while the E route runs on a separate alignment. In the case of the two 45s, there's no interstate, but all of the E route has been improved, while portions of the W route are still two lanes.

A parent-and-child setup doesn't really work too well under the original intent of the split routes.

US 19's split routes are vastly different

US 19E is its own highway that serves a few towns, but deviates pretty far off the original route. US 19W is half twisty two-lane and half concurrent with I-26. the quickest way is to follow I-26 the whole way, which means leaving US 19 for a while.

I think there have been some reroutings of the 19 splits over the years, but I don't even know why 19W still exists. I would eliminate it, sign 19E as 19, and turn the non-current parts of 19W into Tennessee and North Carolina state routes.

[sparker]

I think the suffixes are used for "both of these routes will take you where you want to go in a relatively-equal number of miles, so pick whichever one you want." Much of that functionality has been removed, however, due to some of them paralleling interstates. See US 31E and 31W. Also 25E and 25W. In both cases the W route parallels an interstate, while the E route runs on a separate alignment. In the case of the two 45s, there's no interstate, but all of the E route has been improved, while portions of the W route are still two lanes.

A parent-and-child setup doesn't really work too well under the original intent of the split routes.

US 19's split routes are vastly different

US 19E is its own highway that serves a few towns, but deviates pretty far off the original route. US 19W is half twisty two-lane and half concurrent with I-26. the quickest way is to follow I-26 the whole way, which means leaving US 19 for a while.

I think there have been some reroutings of the 19 splits over the years, but I don't even know why 19W still exists. I would eliminate it, sign 19E as 19, and turn the non-current parts of 19W into Tennessee and North Carolina state routes.

Much of US 19W was cobbled up from service roads for the partially-adjacent Clinchfield RR; it's pretty useless as a through route today.  HB's suggestion is spot on; but at this juncture its unlikely that TDOT or NCDOT would do anything about it (the old address-changing issues that have driven more than a few designation details in those two states).

[AcE_Wolf_287]

I think the suffixes are used for "both of these routes will take you where you want to go in a relatively-equal number of miles, so pick whichever one you want." Much of that functionality has been removed, however, due to some of them paralleling interstates. See US 31E and 31W. Also 25E and 25W. In both cases the W route parallels an interstate, while the E route runs on a separate alignment. In the case of the two 45s, there's no interstate, but all of the E route has been improved, while portions of the W route are still two lanes.

A parent-and-child setup doesn't really work too well under the original intent of the split routes.

US 19's split routes are vastly different

US 19E is its own highway that serves a few towns, but deviates pretty far off the original route. US 19W is half twisty two-lane and half concurrent with I-26. the quickest way is to follow I-26 the whole way, which means leaving US 19 for a while.

I think there have been some reroutings of the 19 splits over the years, but I don't even know why 19W still exists. I would eliminate it, sign 19E as 19, and turn the non-current parts of 19W into Tennessee and North Carolina state routes.

Much of US 19W was cobbled up from service roads for the partially-adjacent Clinchfield RR; it's pretty useless as a through route today.  HB's suggestion is spot on; but at this juncture its unlikely that TDOT or NCDOT would do anything about it (the old address-changing issues that have driven more than a few designation details in those two states).

yea its not really a big worry about those states because theyve gotta work on I-69, or I-42,I-87,I-587,I-73,I-74,I-840,I-785 etc

[DJ Particle]

I think the 3-way split of I-69 in Texas is by far the oddest.  I-69E and I-69C are already signed, and I think there's an I-69W coming in the future.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

I think the 3-way split of I-69 in Texas is by far the oddest.  I-69E and I-69C are already signed, and I think there's an I-69W coming in the future.

A fragment of 69W is in operation, connecting I-35 to the border in Laredo.

[Avalanchez71]

I think the suffixes are used for "both of these routes will take you where you want to go in a relatively-equal number of miles, so pick whichever one you want." Much of that functionality has been removed, however, due to some of them paralleling interstates. See US 31E and 31W. Also 25E and 25W. In both cases the W route parallels an interstate, while the E route runs on a separate alignment. In the case of the two 45s, there's no interstate, but all of the E route has been improved, while portions of the W route are still two lanes.

A parent-and-child setup doesn't really work too well under the original intent of the split routes.

US 19's split routes are vastly different

US 19E is its own highway that serves a few towns, but deviates pretty far off the original route. US 19W is half twisty two-lane and half concurrent with I-26. the quickest way is to follow I-26 the whole way, which means leaving US 19 for a while.

I think there have been some reroutings of the 19 splits over the years, but I don't even know why 19W still exists. I would eliminate it, sign 19E as 19, and turn the non-current parts of 19W into Tennessee and North Carolina state routes.

US 19W provides an alternate to I-26 in lieu of a mishap or the like.  They pulled US 23 off the surface route and put it onto I-26.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

Reading through the AASHTO trove, there was a piece of correspondence sent to AASHTO around 1980 about how I-35E should be "kept for now" in Minnesota citing new developments. Minnesota was having a tremendous amount of trouble finishing I-35E between West 7th St and I-94 in St. Paul, and my interpretation of this was that AASHTO was beginning to press for I-35W to be renumbered as I-35 and the 35E designation to be scrapped. It would still be more than a decade before 35E was finished.

[Max Rockatansky]

I think the suffixes are used for "both of these routes will take you where you want to go in a relatively-equal number of miles, so pick whichever one you want." Much of that functionality has been removed, however, due to some of them paralleling interstates. See US 31E and 31W. Also 25E and 25W. In both cases the W route parallels an interstate, while the E route runs on a separate alignment. In the case of the two 45s, there's no interstate, but all of the E route has been improved, while portions of the W route are still two lanes.

A parent-and-child setup doesn't really work too well under the original intent of the split routes.

Looking at some of the traffic volumes in CHPW issues it seems that was the case with US 99W and US 99E north of Sacramento. 

[sparker]

I think the suffixes are used for "both of these routes will take you where you want to go in a relatively-equal number of miles, so pick whichever one you want." Much of that functionality has been removed, however, due to some of them paralleling interstates. See US 31E and 31W. Also 25E and 25W. In both cases the W route parallels an interstate, while the E route runs on a separate alignment. In the case of the two 45s, there's no interstate, but all of the E route has been improved, while portions of the W route are still two lanes.

A parent-and-child setup doesn't really work too well under the original intent of the split routes.

Looking at some of the traffic volumes in CHPW issues it seems that was the case with US 99W and US 99E north of Sacramento. 

Actually, the E/W split on US 99 mirrored the two SP lines that extended north from their E-W main line that functionally followed old US 40.  The main freight line extended from their main (to this day) West Coast switching yard in Roseville along US 99E via Marysville and Chico, while the direct passenger line for their premier San Francisco-Portland trains split from the E-W trunk at Davis, following 99W north from there through Woodland and Willows.  The two rail lines rejoined at Tehama, south of Red Bluff.  Of course, that split was mirrored by the fact that 99E generally traversed a much more populated area of the Sacramento Valley than did 99W.  When the split was instituted in the early '30's, there was a perennial issue in the east portion of the valley regarding Feather River flooding (ameliorated with Oroville Dam in the early '60's), which regularly affected much of 99E from Wheatland north to Richvale (on the original alignment that closely followed the rail line).  The 99W alignment largely avoided the floodplain area that covered much of the eastern valley, so it was deemed wise to maintain the split alignment in order to keep a pathway north to Redding and beyond operating even in flood conditions.  Aside from that, the west Sacramento Valley was beginning to see large-scale agricultural development, primarily with rice and other grain crops; maintaining 99W as a principal N-S artery became an economic necessity.  So until the advent of the Interstate system, which itself was largely causal regarding the '64 renumbering, the split continued as originally aligned with each branch maintaining its own identity and particular characteristics.   

[Max Rockatansky]

I think the suffixes are used for "both of these routes will take you where you want to go in a relatively-equal number of miles, so pick whichever one you want." Much of that functionality has been removed, however, due to some of them paralleling interstates. See US 31E and 31W. Also 25E and 25W. In both cases the W route parallels an interstate, while the E route runs on a separate alignment. In the case of the two 45s, there's no interstate, but all of the E route has been improved, while portions of the W route are still two lanes.

A parent-and-child setup doesn't really work too well under the original intent of the split routes.

Looking at some of the traffic volumes in CHPW issues it seems that was the case with US 99W and US 99E north of Sacramento. 

Actually, the E/W split on US 99 mirrored the two SP lines that extended north from their E-W main line that functionally followed old US 40.  The main freight line extended from their main (to this day) West Coast switching yard in Roseville along US 99E via Marysville and Chico, while the direct passenger line for their premier San Francisco-Portland trains split from the E-W trunk at Davis, following 99W north from there through Woodland and Willows.  The two rail lines rejoined at Tehama, south of Red Bluff.  Of course, that split was mirrored by the fact that 99E generally traversed a much more populated area of the Sacramento Valley than did 99W.  When the split was instituted in the early '30's, there was a perennial issue in the east portion of the valley regarding Feather River flooding (ameliorated with Oroville Dam in the early '60's), which regularly affected much of 99E from Wheatland north to Richvale (on the original alignment that closely followed the rail line).  The 99W alignment largely avoided the floodplain area that covered much of the eastern valley, so it was deemed wise to maintain the split alignment in order to keep a pathway north to Redding and beyond operating even in flood conditions.  Aside from that, the west Sacramento Valley was beginning to see large-scale agricultural development, primarily with rice and other grain crops; maintaining 99W as a principal N-S artery became an economic necessity.  So until the advent of the Interstate system, which itself was largely causal regarding the '64 renumbering, the split continued as originally aligned with each branch maintaining its own identity and particular characteristics.

The East Route definitely fell behind as a through Route when I-5 came into being.  It's interesting to see that CA 99 essentially cut off much of the cities that were part of US 99E by taking a direct short north of Sacramento. 

Some of the other split routes like US 101W and US 101E were also pretty interesting.  Considering how important CA 17 would become it would seem that the concept of 101E was sound.  99W/99E south of Stockton was never much more than a means of reaching US 48 on a US 99 of sorts.

[Avalanchez71]

The US 11 split in TN is a good example of a a split to serve two different population sets and cities.  US 11W serves Morristown and Kingsport.  US 11E serves Greeneville and Johnson City.  Now it looks like on paper that 11W would have been the more logical through choice to get to Bristol and beyond.  However, I am not sure what the conditions of the road was like in the 1930's.

[BridgesToIdealism]

I think the 3-way split of I-69 in Texas is by far the oddest.  I-69E and I-69C are already signed, and I think there's an I-69W coming in the future.

A fragment of 69W is in operation, connecting I-35 to the border in Laredo.

Except the World Trade Toll Bridge (Laredo International Bridge III) is only open to commercial vehicles, so I would bet that the short stub of I-69W is nothing more than a "parking lot" for semi traffic. I've seen aerial photos of the World Trade Bridge that show the entire bridge and its approaches on both sides completely bottlenecked with semi trucks - even though its 14 lanes reserved only for commercial vehicles!

[sparker]

I think the 3-way split of I-69 in Texas is by far the oddest.  I-69E and I-69C are already signed, and I think there's an I-69W coming in the future.

A fragment of 69W is in operation, connecting I-35 to the border in Laredo.

Except the World Trade Toll Bridge (Laredo International Bridge III) is only open to commercial vehicles, so I would bet that the short stub of I-69W is nothing more than a "parking lot" for semi traffic. I've seen aerial photos of the World Trade Bridge that show the entire bridge and its approaches on both sides completely bottlenecked with semi trucks - even though its 14 lanes reserved only for commercial vehicles!

Hardly surprising, considering Laredo regularly sees cross-border commercial traffic off Mexico Federal 85 that dwarfs the other border crossings in TX (Del Rio, Eagle Pass, Hidalgo, Brownsville) largely because of the 5-decade presence of I-35 and its full freeway status (commercial drivers not having to slog through towns and other obstacles encountered on conventional highways).  If given the choice, commercial drivers will utilize that path of least resistance and known quality, since it will eventually get them to their distribution-center destinations.  One of the principal purposes of the other two I-69 "prongs" was and is to provide relief to the Laredo crossing, something that likely won't be fully realized until both I-69E and I-69C are completed.  But until then, the commercial Laredo-area crossing will continue to bear the traffic brunt.   

[kphoger]

Hardly surprising, considering Laredo regularly sees cross-border commercial traffic off Mexico Federal 85 that dwarfs the other border crossings in TX (Del Rio, Eagle Pass, Hidalgo, Brownsville) largely because of the 5-decade presence of I-35 and its full freeway status (commercial drivers not having to slog through towns and other obstacles encountered on conventional highways).  If given the choice, commercial drivers will utilize that path of least resistance and known quality, since it will eventually get them to their distribution-center destinations.  One of the principal purposes of the other two I-69 "prongs" was and is to provide relief to the Laredo crossing, something that likely won't be fully realized until both I-69E and I-69C are completed.  But until then, the commercial Laredo-area crossing will continue to bear the traffic brunt.   

Do you really think commercial traffic will drop in Laredo afterward, though?  I'm not sold on it.

Crossing at Laredo is the shortest route to pretty much everywhere–including Houston and points east–and will be whether the I-69alphabet highways are completed or not.

Then, too, almost all cross-border cargo has to be dropped off at a drayage yard short of the border, picked up by a dedicated border-running drayage driver, dropped off on the other side of the border, then picked up by a national driver and hauled the rest of the way from there.  (Don't get me started on the axing of the Cross-border Trucking Program after its successful pilot.)  In order for cross-border commercial traffic to increase through the Valley, additional drayage facilities would need to be constructed, along with associated resources, and included in trucking companies' networks.

[sparker]

Hardly surprising, considering Laredo regularly sees cross-border commercial traffic off Mexico Federal 85 that dwarfs the other border crossings in TX (Del Rio, Eagle Pass, Hidalgo, Brownsville) largely because of the 5-decade presence of I-35 and its full freeway status (commercial drivers not having to slog through towns and other obstacles encountered on conventional highways).  If given the choice, commercial drivers will utilize that path of least resistance and known quality, since it will eventually get them to their distribution-center destinations.  One of the principal purposes of the other two I-69 "prongs" was and is to provide relief to the Laredo crossing, something that likely won't be fully realized until both I-69E and I-69C are completed.  But until then, the commercial Laredo-area crossing will continue to bear the traffic brunt.   

Do you really think commercial traffic will drop in Laredo afterward, though?  I'm not sold on it.

Crossing at Laredo is the shortest route to pretty much everywhere–including Houston and points east–and will be whether the I-69alphabet highways are completed or not.

Then, too, almost all cross-border cargo has to be dropped off at a drayage yard short of the border, picked up by a dedicated border-running drayage driver, dropped off on the other side of the border, then picked up by a national driver and hauled the rest of the way from there.  (Don't get me started on the axing of the Cross-border Trucking Program after its successful pilot.)  In order for cross-border commercial traffic to increase through the Valley, additional drayage facilities would need to be constructed, along with associated resources, and included in trucking companies' networks.

That certainly places Laredo/Nuevo Laredo, with its existing facilities for such transfer activities, as the presently most logical place to make a border crossing.  Bit it's not as if those facilities can't be duplicated -- likely with less overall capacity, but serviceable -- at Brownsville/Matamoras or Hidalgo at some point for cargo shipments opting for one of the I-69 (C & E) branches (we'll assume both I-35 and I-69W will continue to use the Laredo-area POE's).  And kp is probably correct about the near-term continued prominence of Laredo -- simply because drivers and dispatchers are accustomed to its idioms and vagaries and have likely incorporated those into their schedules and manifests.  But if there's any significant increase in overall cross-border traffic down the line -- and there are adequate facilities in the lower Rio Grande valley -- I'd be willing to wager that a sizeable portion of that increase will shunt over via the MEX-40 expressway to the less-congested crossing points.  Laredo will probably maintain its status as the first-choice option -- but the I-69 crossings are simply "bet-hedging" regarding overflow.  If business ebbs for whatever reason, the situation would likely revert back to Laredo being the proverbial "800-pound-gorilla" of border crossings; even with downriver competition, it'll still be at least a "600-pound-gorilla"!