Print

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

[Amaury]

Why is US Route 101 signed so wacky in Washington? Between Astoria, Oregon, and approximately Sappho, Washington, it is correctly signed as south-north, where if you're heading toward Sappho, Washington, you are northbound on US Route 101. However, between approximately Sappho, Washington, and approximately Gardiner, Washington, it is signed west-east, and between approximately Gardiner, Washington, and its northern terminus in Olympia, Washington, it is signed as south-north, but reversed (180), where if you're heading toward Olympia, Washington, you are considered to be on US Route 101 southbound.

I get that if you're heading from Olympia, Washington, to, say, Shelton, Washington, you are technically heading north, but it should still be southbound US Route 101, and vice-versa. The northern terminus of US Route 101 for Washington's portion and as a whole is in Olympia, Washington, and the southern "terminus" of US Route 101 for Washington's portion is at the Washington-Oregon border. It's just because it's routed a little odd in Washington that it doesn't seem like it, but, ultimately, from Astoria, Oregon, to Olympia, Washington, you are heading north and vice-versa, since they are respectively north and south of each other. This seems to be the only route that does this, at least of the ones I've been on in the states I've driven in (Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Utah, California). Granted, I haven't driven all of the routes in these states, but still. And this isn't unofficial, either, it's official, as WSDOT has both overhead and roadside signs saying this. If I ever get the chance, I might ask WSDOT directly, like I did about Interstate 82.

There are sections of Washington State Route 20, a west-east route, across the state that run south-north, most prominently in Pend Oreille County, but are still properly signed as west-east. There's even a section in Pend Oreille County, where if you're on eastbound Washington State Route 20, you are heading west, but it is still properly signed as east, and vice-versa, if you're on westbound Washington State Route 20 on the same section, you are heading east, but it is still properly signed as west.

[Bruce]

The eastern leg of the Olympic Loop is too long to be signed so far off from the cardinal directions, so presumably the state thought it would be too confusing to not change up the way they sign US 101. Otherwise, any number of drivers trying to reach Port Angeles from the Hood Canal Bridge or its predecessor ferry would want to go "North" but end up heading towards Olympia.

[Henry]

I've always wondered this myself. However, I get why WSDOT would not want to confuse drivers by signing the southbound side of the highway (going to Olympia) as US 101 North. Perhaps taking a cue from VDOT would be a start, as it signs the part of I-64 that goes the wrong way with Inner/Outer banners. Initially, it was probably signed with East/West banners, even though the routing was contradictory to the practice, so Inner/Outer were added to the highway as well. I don't see the same happening for US 101, but that wouldn't be a bad thing to consider. And signing the northern part of the loop as East/West makes the most sense anyway.

[Alps]

I've always wondered this myself. However, I get why WSDOT would not want to confuse drivers by signing the southbound side of the highway (going to Olympia) as US 101 North. Perhaps taking a cue from VDOT would be a start, as it signs the part of I-64 that goes the wrong way with Inner/Outer banners. Initially, it was probably signed with East/West banners, even though the routing was contradictory to the practice, so Inner/Outer were added to the highway as well. I don't see the same happening for US 101, but that wouldn't be a bad thing to consider. And signing the northern part of the loop as East/West makes the most sense anyway.

I would have wanted to see the loop stay east/west on the way back down the east side of the peninsula rather than have two 101 north/souths. NJ fixed NJ 36, WA can fix US 101 the same way.

[Amaury]

Another, albeit hypothetical, solution could be to cut down the northern terminus of US Route 101 from Olympia to Sappho, Washington. The portion of US Route 101 signed as west and east could be changed over to an alternate alignment of Washington State Route 112, as Washington State Route 112 Alternate, similar to US Route 97 Alternate in Washington and Washington State Route 141 Alternate, the alternate alignment of Washington State Route 141 that bypasses White Salmon. For the portion of US Route 101 signed south and north, but in reverse, to Olympia, we could either have an alternate alignment of Washington State Route 3, as Washington State Route 3 Alternate, or extend the western terminus of Washington State Route 20 to Olympia. It'd be a little bit of an odd alignment, but still nowhere near as odd as current US Route 101, and it'd still have more than enough west and east miles to be a west-east route.

If we had the western terminus of Washington State Route 20 extended, as mentioned above, I would say the US Route 101 portion currently signed west and east could also be a spur route, but Washington State Route 20 already has a spur route in Anacortes, and I don't know if there can be more than one. The US Route 101 portion signed south and north in reverse to Olympia could also be Washington State Route 111, which, according to Wikipedia, was a past temporary state route, so the route number is not in use.

[Amaury]

Some photos to better explain my above post.









For the last three, it's either the second and third one together or just the fourth one.

[Bruce]

And now we're in Fictional Highways territory again.

There really is no need to change the current configuration of US 101. Truncating it to Sappho would denigrate a fine route that has the right to continue all the way around the Olympics to where the Salish Sea ends. Extending SR 20 south makes no sense, and would isolate several child routes of US 101 (SR 102, SR 104, SR 108, SR 119). An extra-long spur is also problematic, as few people would recognize the Spur banner and assume it is part of SR 20 (and with the east-west run it makes more sense); arguably, the San Juan Islands/Anacortes spur should be a full 3-digit route but that belongs in another thread. Similarly, adding an Alt tag to SR 112 would be confusing to people; US 97A is at least well-established as an alternate route and has custom signs to match.

[Quillz]

So from what I've read and seem to remember from when I first visited the area, US-101 actually was signed as a north/south for its entire length in Washington, even though it "runs backwards" on the eastern side of the Olympic Peninsula. I'm not sure when this changed, I think it was the early 00s, and it was likely due to motorist confusion.

Which leads me to a proposal similar to inner/outer loops. Having two banners: one that says NB/SB, the other that shows the immediate direction. So something like this:

SB
101
West

NB
101
East

SB
101
North

You have this on the Port Angeles corridor, I think it gets the point across. You are heading west, but the overall orientation is southbound. This could also be useful in places like the Ventura Freeway + the Gaviota coast, where US-101 runs more than 120 miles east/west before finally turning north. (And in the SF Valley, local signage has actually changed to "101 WEST" or "101 EAST."

Another, albeit hypothetical, solution could be to cut down the northern terminus of US Route 101 from Olympia to Sappho, Washington. The portion of US Route 101 signed as west and east could be changed over to an alternate alignment of Washington State Route 112, as Washington State Route 112 Alternate, similar to US Route 97 Alternate in Washington and Washington State Route 141 Alternate, the alternate alignment of Washington State Route 141 that bypasses White Salmon. For the portion of US Route 101 signed south and north, but in reverse, to Olympia, we could either have an alternate alignment of Washington State Route 3, as Washington State Route 3 Alternate, or extend the western terminus of Washington State Route 20 to Olympia. It'd be a little bit of an odd alignment, but still nowhere near as odd as current US Route 101, and it'd still have more than enough west and east miles to be a west-east route.

Similar to your I-82 thread, this is another situation where you are not looking at the overall picture. Even though 101 does not truly run north-south through Washington, due to its "northern" terminus being southeast of its northernmost extent, it's still very clearly an overall north/south route that serves the Pacific Coast. And again, Sappho? Let's be honest, does anyone outside of Washington know what or where that is? Olympia is something people have heard of, it's the state capital. (And it should also be noted the original goal of the US highways were to connect all the state capitals together). Olympia makes sense as a control city and a final destination. Not Sappho. (By that metric, you could argue Port Angeles is a better northern terminus). Truncating US-101 and then creating additional state highways just to keep 101 "in the grid" is an exercise in futility. And because the banners have been changed to reflect the true directionality, this issue has also been solved.

[Amaury]

You have this on the Port Angeles corridor, I think it gets the point across. You are heading west, but the overall orientation is southbound. This could also be useful in places like the Ventura Freeway + the Gaviota coast, where US-101 runs more than 120 miles east/west before finally turning north. (And in the SF Valley, local signage has actually changed to "101 WEST" or "101 EAST."

That's also why I brought up the Washington State Route 20 example in my OP, with some sections running north and south, and one section even "running backwards," similar to US Route 101 in Washington on the Olympia side. However, the difference with Washington State Route 20 is that it's still signed "normally," if you will, in those sections.

Similar to your I-82 thread, this is another situation where you are not looking at the overall picture. Even though 101 does not truly run north-south through Washington, due to its "northern" terminus being southeast of its northernmost extent, it's still very clearly an overall north/south route that serves the Pacific Coast.

Yeah, you are correct. If you don't break it apart by state and view US Route 101 as a whole, then it's very clear what it is. And I certainly don't claim to be an engineering or road expert by any means.

[Quillz]

The original goal of the US highways was to connect all the state capitals together. Sacramento, Salem, and Olympia are all on (former) US-99. US-101 instead connected one state capital to the two most important California population centers. I think if you wanted to make any changes at all, just have US-101 take over the WA-8 and US-12 alignments west of Olympia, so US-101 basically reaches its northern extent at Aberdeen, then has a straight west-east run to Olympia. Then you can have three different routes take over the Olympic Peninsula.

we could either have an alternate alignment of Washington State Route 3, as Washington State Route 3 Alternate, or extend the western terminus of Washington State Route 20 to Olympia. It'd be a little bit of an odd alignment, but still nowhere near as odd as current US Route 101, and it'd still have more than enough west and east miles to be a west-east route.

To comment on this, this is how the original Washington primary state highway system worked. Prior to the 1964 renumbering, the entire Olympic Peninsula was served by a circular PSH-9. And then it had several lettered spurs, like 9A, 9B, etc. So in this example, creating something like a 3A is effectively reviving the old system that was abandoned because it was considered confusing and unwieldily. I should point out I have no issues with lettered suffixes at all, so it was less Washington used them, and more how numbers were assigned. Replacing the entire PSH-9 (a loop) with US-101 and then assigning directional signage does a much better job. It hits all the important locations on the peninsula (Aberdeen, Port Angeles, Olympia) while avoiding the smaller towns that PSH-9 went to. Whereas the old system... Was 9A as important as 9? Did 9B go somewhere important that I couldn't reach from 9A? And so on. Whereas you see US-101 on a map, you understand it will be "the main route."

[Quillz]

You have this on the Port Angeles corridor, I think it gets the point across. You are heading west, but the overall orientation is southbound. This could also be useful in places like the Ventura Freeway + the Gaviota coast, where US-101 runs more than 120 miles east/west before finally turning north. (And in the SF Valley, local signage has actually changed to "101 WEST" or "101 EAST."

That's also why I brought up the Washington State Route 20 example in my OP, with some sections running north and south, and one section even "running backwards," similar to US Route 101 in Washington on the Olympia side. However, the difference with Washington State Route 20 is that it's still signed "normally," if you will, in those sections.

Similar to your I-82 thread, this is another situation where you are not looking at the overall picture. Even though 101 does not truly run north-south through Washington, due to its "northern" terminus being southeast of its northernmost extent, it's still very clearly an overall north/south route that serves the Pacific Coast.

Yeah, you are correct. If you don't break it apart by state and view US Route 101 as a whole, then it's very clear what it is. And I certainly don't claim to be an engineering or road expert by any means.

That's probably something WDOT might get around to. If they changed the directionality for US-101, they could for appropriate sections of WA-20. That's why I brought up my idea, the upper banner always reflects the overall orientation, while the bottom banner works for short-term direction.

[Evan_Th]

If we do truncate 101 (which I don't support), I'd do it this way:

* Truncate 101 to Port Angeles, which's a much more respectable terminus than Sappho.
* Extend US 2 from its current Everett terminus, across the Mukilteo and Fort Casey ferries, to Port Townsend (truncating SR 20 at Fort Casey); then replacing current SR 20 to Discovery Bay; then replacing current US 101 to Port Angeles; then replacing current SR 112 for its entire length, to Neah Bay.
* Create a new highway for the remainder of current US 101, from Discovery Bay to Olympia.  I suggest US 399.

[Amaury]

Create a new highway for the remainder of current US 101, from Discovery Bay to Olympia.  I suggest US 399.

As Bruce mentioned above, this would likely be more appropriate in the fictional section. I'm still new here and wasn't necessarily trying to make discussing a fictional routing the central point of this thread. It's just something I wanted to quickly mention, but keep the focus to what I originally said in my OP. Just like in my I-82 thread, where I mentioned something fictional in one post, but then went back to discussing I-82 in reality.

I'll likely create a thread for this in the fictional section to further discuss the fictional aspects in more detail, so all I will say here is that SR 399 would likely be more appropriate, as, for it to be a US route, it would have to travel across two or more states.

[Quillz]

* Create a new highway for the remainder of current US 101, from Discovery Bay to Olympia.  I suggest US 399.

Would not be allowed because AASHTO now requires US highways to either cross state lines or be at least 300 miles in length. More likely Washington would assign a branch route number, perhaps from 2 or 101. And US-399 existed historically in California, today it's CA-33 and US-119.

[pderocco]

Would not be allowed because AASHTO now requires US highways to either cross state lines or be at least 300 miles in length. More likely Washington would assign a branch route number, perhaps from 2 or 101. And US-399 existed historically in California, today it's CA-33 and US-119.

This is interesting (though a bit off-topic). I didn't realize that a US route could be entirely within one state as long as it was 300 miles long. I thought they had to be interstate, and that was why US-299 in CA was kicked out of the US highway system back in '64. Although it was under 300 miles, the replacement CA-299 was extended to the Nevada border, making it over 300 miles. Wouldn't that have allowed it to remain a US route? Or did AASHO laugh at the attempt to extend the route, because it terminates at a dirt road in Nevada?

On the other hand, in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Numbered_Highways I see quite a few intrastate US routes that are much shorter than 300 miles. What gives? Were they grandfathered in because they used to be longer and/or interstate?

[Quillz]

Would not be allowed because AASHTO now requires US highways to either cross state lines or be at least 300 miles in length. More likely Washington would assign a branch route number, perhaps from 2 or 101. And US-399 existed historically in California, today it's CA-33 and US-119.

This is interesting (though a bit off-topic). I didn't realize that a US route could be entirely within one state as long as it was 300 miles long. I thought they had to be interstate, and that was why US-299 in CA was kicked out of the US highway system back in '64. Although it was under 300 miles, the replacement CA-299 was extended to the Nevada border, making it over 300 miles. Wouldn't that have allowed it to remain a US route? Or did AASHO laugh at the attempt to extend the route, because it terminates at a dirt road in Nevada?

That was not originally in place when the system was devised in 1926. It was considered much later, I think well after the interstates. That's the technical reason why US-99 didn't remain in California. Enough of its alignment was swapped over to I-5 that it fell below the 300 mile threshold. Although even then, Caltrans could have just turned it into a state route anyway. I think it's also less a rule and more guidelines, as frankly there's so many violations that I don't think anyone really cares all that much. Especially given some of the later additions like US-163 that have zero relation to US-63, and numerous other US routes that don't really seem to follow a whole lot of logic in various ways. But this "rule" does explain why US-199 remained while US-299 and US-399 did not. The former is likely due to the elimination of US-99. The latter would be too, but Caltrans also had a strong desire to extend state routes so they could use the green miner spade, and extending CA-33 southward worked out. This was the driving force behind the elimination of other US routes, like US-101 Alt becoming an extended CA-1. (Which I still think should be CA-3, given that was the original number, but CA-1 also works as more of a "brand" at this point). A lot of the western states just put interstates directly over US highways so most of California's were eliminated because of this. As for Washington eliminating some of their US routes, it was probably for similar reasons: desire to use interstates instead, or their own revised state highway system.

On the other hand, in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Numbered_Highways I see quite a few intrastate US routes that are much shorter than 300 miles. What gives? Were they grandfathered in because they used to be longer and/or interstate?

I think it comes down to it being more a guideline than a real rule. They might have been longer at one point, but I think it should also be noted that nowadays, adding new routes would require them to meet modern interstate standards and also be at least 300 miles in length if they do not cross state lines. US-121 is under construction and being built to this. So I think if anything, it was intended for routes that did not exist at the time.

[Alps]

Would not be allowed because AASHTO now requires US highways to either cross state lines or be at least 300 miles in length. More likely Washington would assign a branch route number, perhaps from 2 or 101. And US-399 existed historically in California, today it's CA-33 and US-119.

This is interesting (though a bit off-topic). I didn't realize that a US route could be entirely within one state as long as it was 300 miles long. I thought they had to be interstate, and that was why US-299 in CA was kicked out of the US highway system back in '64. Although it was under 300 miles, the replacement CA-299 was extended to the Nevada border, making it over 300 miles. Wouldn't that have allowed it to remain a US route? Or did AASHO laugh at the attempt to extend the route, because it terminates at a dirt road in Nevada?

On the other hand, in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Numbered_Highways I see quite a few intrastate US routes that are much shorter than 300 miles. What gives? Were they grandfathered in because they used to be longer and/or interstate?

Yeah, they're previously in there and for whatever reason they stayed. NJ kept US 46 (which once went into PA) and US 130, for example, while other states gave up longer or more substantial routes. It's entirely possible it was politics that saved a few of them.

[Max Rockatansky]

If we are going super fictional why not just reroute US 101 over WA 20 and the Port Townsend Ferry to I-5 if the north/south orientation is of prime importance?  The Port Townsend Ferry is stated maintained so I don’t think AASHTO has a rule against it.

[Bickendan]

But then we'd have to figure out how to connect US 101 with BC 101...
And I think the exercise gets a bit absurd at that point.

[Amaury]

That's probably something WDOT might get around to. If they changed the directionality for US-101, they could for appropriate sections of WA-20. That's why I brought up my idea, the upper banner always reflects the overall orientation, while the bottom banner works for short-term direction.

I didn't have time to post this the other day, but these are the sections I was talking about with regard to SR 20. They're not as long or "dramatic" as those sections of US 101, so perhaps that's why WSDOT has left the route alone in that regard.

South and north sections between:

• Port Townsend and Anacortes, including the spur route: https://goo.gl/maps/iaPYgP86in6YcfF76
• Rockport and Twisp, albeit they are diagonal, so it's more northeast/southwest and southeast/northwest: https://goo.gl/maps/hqMZzkamVK7atsvAA
• Okanogan and Tonasket, but since it is a concurrency with US 97 and US 97 is the primary highway, where its mileposts are used, I'm not necessarily counting this one toward that, but: https://goo.gl/maps/7HAhS12t1R2nrjxU6
• Colville and the junction with SR 211 near Usk: https://goo.gl/maps/aog5qajKgXD8maLG9
• • Between Ruby and Locke, you can see the short section that runs "backwards." If you are on the eastbound lanes, you are heading west in that section; if you are on the westbound lanes, you are heading east in that section.

I realize that no highway is going to run perfectly west/east (even) or south/north (odd), as even I-90, like after/before crossing the Vantage Bridge, has sections running south and north, so I'm not including everything under the sun, just a few that really stand out. Like US 101, which, as is being discussed in this thread, clearly has sections like this in Washington.

And I do like your idea. It would just have to be made clear somehow on the signs that the top is the overall direction and that the bottom is the short-term direction.

[jay8g]

If 101 was L-shaped or zigzagging (as SR 20 is), that would be one thing. But as it is, it's basically U-shaped, so the way WSDOT does it is the only way that makes sense -- splitting up the route doesn't work very well because there are just no logical points to do so (as the maps above make very clear), and double-signing would just be super confusing.

I'm pretty sure the current signing structure has been in place for much longer than just since the 2000s. The signs at SR 20 are old enough that they don't have the current large-number date sticker on the back (which WSDOT started using sometime in the 90s -- I think the oldest one I've seen was 92) and correctly shows US 101 towards Olympia as southbound, without any obvious signs of that having been changed. These two signs in Port Angeles are similarly ancient. Also, I grew up on the Peninsula around that time, and I imagine it would have been a huge news story if WSDOT had suddenly decided to change the signed highway directions.

[Bruce]

The 1970 Annual Traffic Report uses WB/EB to describe the Port Angeles area section of US 101 and I see similar references to westbound/eastbound in newspapers from that era, so safe to say this has been in place for well over 50 years.

[pderocco]

If a route loops around over a great distance, as is usually the case, I think basing the signage on the dominant direction in that part of the road makes more sense than basing it on the overall direction of the entire road. This is because you can't have, using this road as the example, US-101N/S suddenly turning into US-101S/N. There will be a substantial stretch where it switches to US-101E/W between the two. So while driving in any particular area, the suffixes will be meaningful to any driver with a reasonable sense of direction and understanding of the geography, and not confusing in any way.

A 360-degree beltway could use N/S for roughly one quarter, then E/W for the next quarter clockwise, then S/N for the next quarter, and W/E for the next one.

Cape Cod could switch US-6 from E/W to N/S at the Orleans circle, and then W/E in Provincetown.

I notice that CA-18 and CA-38 in the San Bernardino Mountains have dramatic doubling back. Both or basically horizontal through most of their lengths, but a line connecting the ends of CA-38 is closer to vertical. California solves that by simply not putting directions or direction suffixes on any of the signs.

[Quillz]

The 1970 Annual Traffic Report uses WB/EB to describe the Port Angeles area section of US 101 and I see similar references to westbound/eastbound in newspapers from that era, so safe to say this has been in place for well over 50 years.

This is interesting. I remember seeing N/S signage on the eastern half of the 101 loop, but I guess it's me misremembering. I do recall a few other sites mentioning the signage change occurred sometime during the 90s, kind of matching up with what I remembered, but those are unreliable.

[Quillz]

If a route loops around over a great distance, as is usually the case, I think basing the signage on the dominant direction in that part of the road makes more sense than basing it on the overall direction of the entire road. This is because you can't have, using this road as the example, US-101N/S suddenly turning into US-101S/N. There will be a substantial stretch where it switches to US-101E/W between the two. So while driving in any particular area, the suffixes will be meaningful to any driver with a reasonable sense of direction and understanding of the geography, and not confusing in any way.

A 360-degree beltway could use N/S for roughly one quarter, then E/W for the next quarter clockwise, then S/N for the next quarter, and W/E for the next one.

Cape Cod could switch US-6 from E/W to N/S at the Orleans circle, and then W/E in Provincetown.

I notice that CA-18 and CA-38 in the San Bernardino Mountains have dramatic doubling back. Both or basically horizontal through most of their lengths, but a line connecting the ends of CA-38 is closer to vertical. California solves that by simply not putting directions or direction suffixes on any of the signs.

Yes, CA-18 is probably the strangest route in California. Only the straight portions out in the desert (west of 15) will be consistently signed. The rest just isn't. Though there's no reason it couldn't just do what 101 around the peninsula does, and just have direction banners that are relevant only to that portion. CA-18 did make a bit more sense originally, though, when it actually started in the LA area (thus its number). It had more west-east alignment that fit something of a grid. Only then did it turn northeast and go through the mountains.