What highway would be the biggest pain in the ass to clinch?

[MNHighwayMan]

So what I'm getting out of this, is if I want to clinch MN-310 and MN-313 entirely, I should probably spend a night in Winnipeg between driving them.

[froggie]

^ Or spend a night at Angle Inlet in the Northwest Angle.  Something I'd actually like to do sometime....

Regarding this:

They won't turn you away without better reason, but they can subject you to a vehicle search, which is not a pleasant beginning for your visit to Canada.

After an implausibly short visit to Canada, U.S. border agents might wonder what you were really doing up there, and whether you're bringing back drugs, kiddie porn, etc. (border agents on both sides of the border seem to think that stuff is more abundant on the other side of the border), so you might draw a PITA vehicle search on your return to the U.S.

Whether such a vehicle search is "not a pleasant beginning" is in the eye of the beholder.  The other day, I took a short jaunt up to Quebec to test some theories (and do some route clinching), namely being honest about "taking a roadtrip" and "driving new roads".  That did raise enough red flags (the border patrol officer agreed with me using that term) that they performed a full vehicle search, though they seemed more interested in questioning me as to whether I had court convictions....Oscar mentioned this upthread but Canada has a particular disdain for allowing convicted DUI/DWI drivers into their country.  The border officer was still courteous through this all, and was simply doing his job and following due diligence.  My total border crossing time was about 20 minutes.

Coming back into the U.S., I was also subject to vehicle search, but this was a much smaller search (I didn't even have to exit my car) and my total crossing time was less than 3 minutes.  Though in fairness, I mentioned I was just up in Sherbrooke for the morning (not a lie) and was taking a scenic route back to avoid A-55/I-91.  A 3 minute crossing is actually long given my past experience coming back from Quebec day trips.  I've had as little as 30 seconds on the return.

[Inyomono395]

I've always wanted to clinch US 6 but I believe it would be very difficult due to all the concurrencies, because of all the concurrencies US 6 isn't even signed in a lot of areas. I would still love to clinch it someday due to the fact that I live at the Western terminus.

[SSOWorld]

I've always wanted to clinch US 6 but I believe it would be very difficult due to all the concurrencies, because of all the concurrencies US 6 isn't even signed in a lot of areas. I would still love to clinch it someday due to the fact that I live at the Western terminus.

US-6 has been moved onto Interstates in some states (UT, CO, IA (still in-progress I believe)) so as long as you have that Interstate you're good.  Travel Mapping is tracking historic routes in some states - IA - in sections - marked old US-6 as a historic route where applicable and fundable.

[oscar]

]US-6 has been moved onto Interstates in some states (UT, CO, IA (still in-progress I believe)) so as long as you have that Interstate you're good.  Travel Mapping is tracking historic routes in some states - IA - in sections - marked old US-6 as a historic route where applicable and fundable.

Travel Mapping is a good guide to what parts of current US 6 have, and haven't, moved onto Interstates. This helps in CO, which has lately screwed up relocations of US 6. At least UT is not confusing, with US 6 on a mostly non-Interstate routing from the Nevada state line (where it's concurrent with US 50) to near Green River.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

I've never crossed an international border, so forgive me if this is a dumb question. But, for example, if you're just trying to clinch a route that crosses into Canada, do the Canadian border patrol actually ask why you're crossing into Canada? I mean, aside from the time hassle, is there any other reason to not cross the border for maximum completeness?

In addition to what oscar said, there's also no way to "withdraw" your intent to enter, so even if you tell them you do not actually want to enter the country they're either not legally allowed or not interested in simply letting you turn around and come back without a valid reason as to why you came to the border crossing in the first place. (Mom and I discovered this the hard way a number of years ago)

I was partially wrong about this, but even if you say "I have no intent to enter"  the relevant border agency is under no obligation to grant your immediate return to your country if they have reason to believe you're up to something, and they get the final say in when to let you go.

[paulthemapguy]

AK 7? Multiple segments with ferries connecting their midpoints.

Excellent suggestion.  This is the best one so far imo.  I was going to suggest US9 or US10 because of the ferry crossings, but AK-7 takes the cake.  I'd also suggest any highway going through a mountain pass seeing seasonal closures, like WA-20 or CA-120, for example.  CA-1 would be incredibly frustrating right now because of the mudslides wiping out a segment of that highway.

[Max Rockatansky]

AK 7? Multiple segments with ferries connecting their midpoints.

Excellent suggestion.  This is the best one so far imo.  I was going to suggest US9 or US10 because of the ferry crossings, but AK-7 takes the cake.  I'd also suggest any highway going through a mountain pass seeing seasonal closures, like WA-20 or CA-120, for example.  CA-1 would be incredibly frustrating right now because of the mudslides wiping out a segment of that highway.

120 actually has two closure zones.  The road closes west of US 395 before the Tioga Pass entrance station of Yosemite but it also closed between US 395 to US 6.  168 might be the most difficult route as it exists on both sides of the Sierras in remote terrain with no through route.

[Eth]

Relative to its length, GA 177 is probably up there thanks to its discontinuity through Okefenokee Swamp. It's less than 30 miles long, but requires nearly 100 miles of driving.

[formulanone]

Relative to its length, GA 177 is probably up there thanks to its discontinuity through Okefenokee Swamp. It's less than 30 miles long, but requires nearly 100 miles of driving.

Was there ever a plan in the far-flung past to connect them?

[Eth]

Relative to its length, GA 177 is probably up there thanks to its discontinuity through Okefenokee Swamp. It's less than 30 miles long, but requires nearly 100 miles of driving.

Was there ever a plan in the far-flung past to connect them?

Not that I can tell. Looking through historic GDOT maps, only the northern segment was on the state highway system until either 1962 or '63. When the southern segment was added, it was given the same number, but there's no indication of even a proposed alignment to link them.

[Bruce]

WA 339, which is still on the books but is no longer under state jurusdiction.

It's actually a short passenger ferry that runs six times during the AM and PM commutes. So you have to catch it at the right time of the day (missing a run means an hour of waiting at the dock) and then take the same boat back or navigate a different transit option.

[NE2]

WA 339, which is still on the books but is no longer under state jurusdiction.

How is that different from other legislated highways that are not maintained, like the unbuilt tunnel in the Cascades?

[jakeroot]

WA 339, which is still on the books but is no longer under state jurusdiction.

How is that different from other legislated highways that are not maintained, like the unbuilt tunnel in the Cascades?

At least it exists. You can't clinch Hwy 168 because it physically doesn't exist (obviously).

[Flint1979]

Considering the north end (WTF that happens to be at the time!) features toll facilities, some of them regularly congested; the middle end passes through the center of cities (Richmond, Petersburg) before jumping on and off a neighboring Interstate but generally slogging through small/medium-sized towns, and once away from the Interstate, passes through one speed trap after another -- I'd have to say US 301.  An old friend of mine who originally hailed from the NYC area and who, with his family, regularly schlepped down 301 to Florida and back at least once a year in the early '60's to visit relocated family around St. Petersburg, has horror stories about either being pulled over or tailed for miles on end (apparently NY, NJ, or CT license plates triggered such activity along 301) during those travels.  Of course, the cash cow ceased giving milk (for the most part) when I-95 was completed.     

US-301 in Florida was always notorious for the speed traps in towns like Waldo, Starke and Lawtey but 301 is somewhat of a shortcut going NE to SW or vice versa.

[Flint1979]

I deliberately turned around as far away from the booths as I could and still see to the border when I did them to minimize the changes of this.

By most regards, that's not an actual clinch then.  But I suppose there are different definitions of such just as there are different definitions amongst some regarding county visitation.

Eh, the community is pretty evenly split on border clinches. Among the chat regulars, the opinion is that sight clinches count for borders if you can see the border from where you turn around AND you turn around at the last legal location. Of course, I have crossed the border at all locations where an NY route currently ends at the border, so I do have NY clinched without any fudging.

I'd argue that US 5 can be done legitimately without crossing the border (I literally walked the last 50 yards and stuck my hand out to clinch it back in September). But other than those cases, I accept fudging with an asterisk if an international border or military installation (NJ 68, for example) prevents one from getting the last ~1/4 mile or less without entering.

I have entered the US on US-5 before and could never figure out the Customs situation on the US side. It's in a building on the side of the street after another street that stays in the US has already intersected it (Caswell Avenue). The Canadian customs you can't miss but the US customs it seems like you could drive right on by without clearing customs.

[Flint1979]

I've never crossed an international border, so forgive me if this is a dumb question. But, for example, if you're just trying to clinch a route that crosses into Canada, do the Canadian border patrol actually ask why you're crossing into Canada? I mean, aside from the time hassle, is there any other reason to not cross the border for maximum completeness?

I haven't crossed the Canadian border in about 15 years and I live within 2 hours of 3 border crossings. This is at least how it was the last time I went across the border, they'll ask for your citizenship and you'd say US and then they'll ask you what your purpose for being in Canada is, I'd just tell them I'm passing through to re-enter the US or going to a Canada city most of the time for me it'd be Toronto. Now you need a passport though from what I understand and I don't have one but would like to get one because I'd like to travel in Canada again. It was always harder to re-enter the US than it was to enter Canada even as a US citizen.

[froggie]

Now you need a passport though from what I understand and I don't have one but would like to get one because I'd like to travel in Canada again.

An Enhanced Drivers License (EDL) will also suffice for ground travel (air travel to Canada requires passport).

[adventurernumber1]

To some extent, two contenders might be US Highway 9 and US Highway 10. This is because both of them go on ferries over a body of water. US 9 goes on a ferry in the waters between Delaware and New Jersey, and US 10 crosses Lake Michigan between the states of Wisconsin and Michigan. If I recall correctly, it is quite expensive to put your car on a ferry, if that is what it takes to technically clinch these routes, so this would be rather complicated to do if you wanted to clinch US 9 or US 10. I would be interested to hear if anyone has ever clinched either or both of these routes in their entirety before. 

[oscar]

To some extent, two contenders might be US Highway 9 and US Highway 10. This is because both of them go on ferries over a body of water. US 9 goes on a ferry in the waters between Delaware and New Jersey, and US 10 crosses Lake Michigan between the states of Wisconsin and Michigan. If I recall correctly, it is quite expensive to put your car on a ferry, if that is what it takes to technically clinch these routes, so this would be rather complicated to do if you wanted to clinch US 9 or US 10. I would be interested to hear if anyone has ever clinched either or both of these routes in their entirety before. 

I have clinched US 9, including taking my car on the ferry a few years ago. I took the SS Badger auto ferry taking US 10 across Lake Michigan in 1996, but still have a lot of unclinched mileage elsewhere on that route.

[NE2]

WA 339, which is still on the books but is no longer under state jurusdiction.

How is that different from other legislated highways that are not maintained, like the unbuilt tunnel in the Cascades?

At least it exists. You can't clinch Hwy 168 because it physically doesn't exist (obviously).

You could clinch 168 by foot, just like 339. Does WSDOT consider 339 to exist on the ferry? If not, it no longer exists.

[cl94]

To some extent, two contenders might be US Highway 9 and US Highway 10. This is because both of them go on ferries over a body of water. US 9 goes on a ferry in the waters between Delaware and New Jersey, and US 10 crosses Lake Michigan between the states of Wisconsin and Michigan. If I recall correctly, it is quite expensive to put your car on a ferry, if that is what it takes to technically clinch these routes, so this would be rather complicated to do if you wanted to clinch US 9 or US 10. I would be interested to hear if anyone has ever clinched either or both of these routes in their entirety before. 

I'm one of the handful that has clinched US 9. Ferry is $28 for a car and driver if you go in the off season. Jumps up to $47 on summer weekends, where reservations are a necessity. You could also park your car at the terminal and do a round trip by foot for $18, because you'd technically be traveling the entire route.

Do note that not all routes involving ferries require the ferry for a clinch. With NY 114, for example, the ferries are NOT part of the route and you can clinch by only using one ferry (and save a pretty penny) if you don't need stuff on one of the forks.

[Flint1979]

To some extent, two contenders might be US Highway 9 and US Highway 10. This is because both of them go on ferries over a body of water. US 9 goes on a ferry in the waters between Delaware and New Jersey, and US 10 crosses Lake Michigan between the states of Wisconsin and Michigan. If I recall correctly, it is quite expensive to put your car on a ferry, if that is what it takes to technically clinch these routes, so this would be rather complicated to do if you wanted to clinch US 9 or US 10. I would be interested to hear if anyone has ever clinched either or both of these routes in their entirety before. 

The ferry on US-10 is considered part of US-10, as in the route over Lake Michigan is still a part of the highway.

[Flint1979]

To some extent, two contenders might be US Highway 9 and US Highway 10. This is because both of them go on ferries over a body of water. US 9 goes on a ferry in the waters between Delaware and New Jersey, and US 10 crosses Lake Michigan between the states of Wisconsin and Michigan. If I recall correctly, it is quite expensive to put your car on a ferry, if that is what it takes to technically clinch these routes, so this would be rather complicated to do if you wanted to clinch US 9 or US 10. I would be interested to hear if anyone has ever clinched either or both of these routes in their entirety before. 

I have clinched US 9, including taking my car on the ferry a few years ago. I took the SS Badger auto ferry taking US 10 across Lake Michigan in 1996, but still have a lot of unclinched mileage elsewhere on that route.

I've clinched US-10 between Bay City and Ludington so I've clinched the Michigan section of the route unless you want to count going out into Lake Michigan for about 40 miles until you actually cross into Wisconsin. I haven't done the ferry across Lake Michigan, if I did I'd rather do the Muskegon to Milwaukee route since that's faster.

[corco]

WA 339, which is still on the books but is no longer under state jurusdiction.

How is that different from other legislated highways that are not maintained, like the unbuilt tunnel in the Cascades?

At least it exists. You can't clinch Hwy 168 because it physically doesn't exist (obviously).

You could clinch 168 by foot, just like 339. Does WSDOT consider 339 to exist on the ferry? If not, it no longer exists.

Yeah, I would not consider the county ferry to be part of State Route 339- it's just a random ferry that happens to travel the same trajectory.

I don't think it's possible to clinch either 168 or 339- WSDOT doesn't have right of way or state maintenance/a state operated ferry on either corridor, so it's impossible to know exactly where the highway is.