I thought of this while recalling Route 84 in Fremont, and how it takes the following eastbound routing between I-880 and the Route 238/Niles Canyon Road junction:
- I-880 south
- Thornton Avenue northeast bound
- Fremont Boulevard southeast bound
- Mowry Avenue eastbound
- Route 238/Mission Boulevard northbound
However, to get between the two points via Decoto Road and Alvarado-Niles Road is more direct and requires only 1 turn at an intersection, and is 5.1 miles long, while the actual Route 84 path listed above (880/Thornton etc.) is 6.1 miles.
Another example is in Gilroy, where Route 152 between the Leavesley Road/101 junction and Ferguson Road/Pacheco Pass Highway intersection uses a 4.4 mile routing that incorporates US 101 to the Pacheco Pass exit, while Leavesley continues right into Ferguson Road and shaves a third of a mile between those two points.
Near Susanville, US 395 takes 2 sides of a triangular loop around Lake Leavitt, totaling 18.6 miles from Buntingville to Standish (as opposed to the 8.5 mile routing along Lassen County Route A3).
One of the more extreme California examples I can recall is US 50's old Sacramento to Oakland routing, which was 122 miles via Route 99/Route 4/I-5/I-205/I-580 corridor vs. only 80 miles on the I-80/US 40 corridor instead (and even via former Route 24, now Route 160/Route 4/Route 242 and then modern Route 24 - that corridor is 95 miles long).
Any other examples? I feel like the one that easily comes to mind for me outside of California is US 1A in Bangor, Maine - the triangular route towards Bangor and then southeast is 52 miles, while the direct US 1 routing between Stockton Springs and Ellsworth is only 27 miles!
Quote from: TheStranger on July 15, 2019, 04:52:35 AM
I thought of this while recalling Route 84 in Fremont, and how it takes the following eastbound routing between I-880 and the Route 238/Niles Canyon Road junction:
- I-880 south
- Thornton Avenue northeast bound
- Fremont Boulevard southeast bound
- Mowry Avenue eastbound
- Route 238/Mission Boulevard northbound
However, to get between the two points via Decoto Road and Alvarado-Niles Road is more direct and requires only 1 turn at an intersection, and is 5.1 miles long, while the actual Route 84 path listed above (880/Thornton etc.) is 6.1 miles.
Another example is in Gilroy, where Route 152 between the Leavesley Road/101 junction and Ferguson Road/Pacheco Pass Highway intersection uses a 4.4 mile routing that incorporates US 101 to the Pacheco Pass exit, while Leavesley continues right into Ferguson Road and shaves a third of a mile between those two points.
Near Susanville, US 395 takes 2 sides of a triangular loop around Lake Leavitt, totaling 18.6 miles from Buntingville to Standish (as opposed to the 8.5 mile routing along Lassen County Route A3).
One of the more extreme California examples I can recall is US 50's old Sacramento to Oakland routing, which was 122 miles via Route 99/Route 4/I-5/I-205/I-580 corridor vs. only 80 miles on the I-80/US 40 corridor instead (and even via former Route 24, now Route 160/Route 4/Route 242 and then modern Route 24 - that corridor is 95 miles long).
Any other examples? I feel like the one that easily comes to mind for me outside of California is US 1A in Bangor, Maine - the triangular route towards Bangor and then southeast is 52 miles, while the direct US 1 routing between Stockton Springs and Ellsworth is only 27 miles!
Well, you won't have CA 84 through Fremont to kick around much longer; it's on the relinquishment chopping block. While a combination of Decoto and Alvarado-Niles would be better, running a state highway down the latter would likely require "shunting" the route over to Mission Blvd. (erstwhile CA 238, but with virtually no signage as such these days) north of Niles itself; running it through the Niles historical district wouldn't be well-received locally (although the old LRN 5
did run through the town center courtesy of twin underpasses under the then-SP Niles/Milpitas line) in pre-WWII years. But regardless, the point is moot; Caltrans has no interest in adopting any more surface mileage in urban/suburban areas.
As far as Leavesley Road is concerned -- that was the old 152-to-101 Gilroy bypass before the US 101 freeway was constructed in 1973; used to use it all the time on trips from SoCal to visit friends in San Jose and Palo Alto. It's a narrow road (still has 10-foot lanes) with deep drainage ditches alongside much of its length -- not particularly safe, and was always carrying a 50mph speed limit. Since the 152 alignment south of there reaches 101 much sooner (further south) than Leavesley does, that former effective bypass is now relegated to the role of an alternate route, used during peak commute times. But if the segment of CA 152 between US 101 and CA 156 is moved to a new expressway alignment, it'll probably be well south of the existing corridor and diverge from US 101 near the present CA 25 interchange. But for the present, Leavesley remains utilized by a few long-distance drivers who for some reason can't avoid commute hours. Also, CA 152 (East 10th Street) now has commercial retail from US 101 to nearly a mile east (including the area's only Sonic drive-in!), so there's a trade-off: use Leavesley and its narrow alignment (trucks coming the opposite way can be harrowing!), where there are little to no amenities, or stick with 152, which
does feature plenty of places to eat and shop. But with the new 152 bypass being situated well south of either surface option, the chances of Leavesley undergoing upgrades and subsequently being brought into the state-maintained highway network are nil.
I'm surprised as anyone that A3 was never brought into the system and either US 395 rerouted over it or given its own CASR number; having driven it, its geometry and standards are indistinguishable from 2-lane state-maintained rural routes.
In Michigan, M-22, M-25, M-29 and M-123 come to mind.
How about US-321? US-101 in Washington?
I'm sure there's a lot more examples of routes that loop around coastlines or other physical features, or make other unexpected indirect routings.
MA 31 through Charlton.
MA 133 in North Andover (Great Pond Rd. is faster)
CA 18 makes an almost 270 degree turn and isn't useful as a through route. Personally I always thought swapping the alignment of 18 and 247 north to Barstow was more efficient than the current route.
AZ 80 and by extension former US 80 were incredibly inefficient routes. At the time of the early US Route era the alignment of US 80 was really the only roadway with good surface conditions but it took some wild jogs to Bisbee and Phoenix. As time progressed AZ 84 and AZ 86 became the more efficient through routes which is probably why I-8 and I-10 use their corridors.
A small one: US 9W takes a dogleg to the west along Southern Boulevard in Albany. Mapping services do not have you follow it if headed north from I-787, opting to cut through the southern neighborhoods.
NY 155 is something of a mess, too, if you actually want to go from its endpoint to the other. But, there are other reasons to keep it as part of the State system than just the straightest route between A and B.
On a small scale, it's three minutes and one mile quicker to use Lake Antoine Rd around Iron Mountain MI than it is to use US-2. There are tons of little examples like that out there - I can think of at least 10 off the top of my head.
Quote from: 1 on July 15, 2019, 07:17:46 AM
MA 31 through Charlton.
MA 133 in North Andover (Great Pond Rd. is faster)
MA 129 between US 1 in Lynnfield and I-95/MA 128 in Wakefield
Before I-41 was created, US 41 on its 'old road' city street routing through Milwaukee County, WI, when the most efficient routing for traffic between the Fox Valley region of Wisconsin and Chicagoland (as well as to and from many parts of central Milwaukee itself) was to follow the US 45, I-894 and I-94 freeways through the county, the current I-41 routing. This was a never-ending source of confusion to motorists who were traveling to and from the Fox Valley.
Elsewhere in Wisconsin, US 61 through Lancaster, WI, with the more efficient routing being the WI 129 bypass.
A few more:
- I-70 through the Wheeling, WV area v. the I-470 bypass.
- I-70 through central Kansas City, KS/MO v. I-670.
- I-95 through Wilmington, DE v. I-495.
Mike
Just thought of one that was corrected (and someone can correct me if I am wrong):
Back in the 1980s, I believe TCH 2 in New Brunswick ducked south to Sussex between Fredericton and Moncton. There was all sorts of signage to indicate the faster, northern route to Moncton (probably what is NB 112 today).
At some point after, TCH 2 was routed to the north and made limited access.
A longer one: I-95 between New Haven, CT and Amesbury, MA. More efficient to take I-91 to CT 15 to I-84 to I-90 to I-290 to I-495 (or stay on I-90 to I-495).
CT 10 between the eastern terminus of the US 44 concurrency, and CT 185. Easier to cross over US 44 and stay on Nod Rd to CT 185, then turn west briefly to rejoin CT 10 (then paired with US 202).
Quote from: roadman on July 15, 2019, 09:10:17 AM
Quote from: 1 on July 15, 2019, 07:17:46 AM
MA 31 through Charlton.
MA 133 in North Andover (Great Pond Rd. is faster)
MA 129 between US 1 in Lynnfield and I-95/MA 128 in Wakefield
I'd go even further & mention the 1996 reroute of MA 129 in Lynn; although at least the former, most-direct route still exists as MA 129A.
The entire routing of US-24, US-421, and SR 39 in Monticello, IN. Every road takes several unnecessary turns, all to avoid downtown (and formerly to utilize a Railroad Street), when they could certainly use the traffic downtown to bolster business.
Then, don't get me started on the stupidity of not signing routes inside of cities with beltways in the state.
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 15, 2019, 10:21:50 AM
Quote from: roadman on July 15, 2019, 09:10:17 AM
Quote from: 1 on July 15, 2019, 07:17:46 AM
MA 31 through Charlton.
MA 133 in North Andover (Great Pond Rd. is faster)
MA 129 between US 1 in Lynnfield and I-95/MA 128 in Wakefield
I'd go even further & mention the 1996 reroute of MA 129 in Lynn; although at least the former, most-direct route still exists as MA 129A.
Agreed.
The routing of GA 154 is...certainly something, especially given that most of it is redundant with other routes (GA 14, GA 14 Alt, GA 70, GA 92, GA 166, GA 139, GA 14 again).
The quickest route from one end to the other (GA 154, I-85, I-285, US 278, GA 154) is 47 miles; following GA 154 the whole way is an additional nine miles (total 56) and takes nearly double the time (about 90 minutes without traffic versus 50).
Quote from: sparker on July 15, 2019, 06:14:43 AM
Well, you won't have CA 84 through Fremont to kick around much longer; it's on the relinquishment chopping block. While a combination of Decoto and Alvarado-Niles would be better, running a state highway down the latter would likely require "shunting" the route over to Mission Blvd. (erstwhile CA 238, but with virtually no signage as such these days) north of Niles itself; running it through the Niles historical district wouldn't be well-received locally (although the old LRN 5 did run through the town center courtesy of twin underpasses under the then-SP Niles/Milpitas line) in pre-WWII years. But regardless, the point is moot; Caltrans has no interest in adopting any more surface mileage in urban/suburban areas.
For 84, is the arterial realignment east of Decoto effectively dead? crazy to think how this road went from already 2 sections without a signed connection to potentially 3 in the near future!
To be fair, when I used to drive from Atherton to Sacramento several years ago on Sunday nights, I actually preferred taking 880 south to Auto Mall Parkway to 680 to 84 in Sunol which I think was faster than either the 84 surface routing in Fremont or the Decoto routing above.
Quote from: GaryVUS-101 in Washington?
While the big peninsular loop seems the obvious candidate, the one that comes to mind us more in the southwest part of the state: WA 401/WA 4 being a shorter route from the state line to Clearwater Creek park! This seems to exist primarily for US 101 to serve Ilwaco and Seaview.
Quote from: Max RockatanskyCA 18 makes an almost 270 degree turn and isn't useful as a through route. Personally I always thought swapping the alignment of 18 and 247 north to Barstow was more efficient than the current route.
AZ 80 and by extension former US 80 were incredibly inefficient routes. At the time of the early US Route era the alignment of US 80 was really the only roadway with good surface conditions but it took some wild jogs to Bisbee and Phoenix. As time progressed AZ 84 and AZ 86 became the more efficient through routes which is probably why I-8 and I-10 use their corridors.
I still feel like some sort of rationalization of 18/38/138/330 around the Big Bear area would be a good idea someday, especially since it wasn't quite as bad when 30 ran there years ago before the Highland-Redlands reroute occurred.
If I'm not mistaken, the Casa Grande-Goodyear routing of US 80, now AZ 85/I-10, has more traffic than the section of I-8 east of AZ 85 - though in terms of trajectory 8 ended up being significantly more logical.
---
US 311 for a long time served as an out-of-the-way alternate to US 220, though with the southern portion of the route decommissioned, this isn't quite the case anymore.
Before it was relegated to state route south of Flagstaff, US 89 went much further out of the way between there and Phoenix to avoid the terrain traversed by AZ 69/US 89A (and eventually I-17). I don't think the US 89 route between Phoenix and Tucson was quite as out there when compared to today's I-10/former AZ 93.
US 101 in the southwestern corner of Washington. First, from South Bend to the Astoria bridge, it's only 17 miles using SR 4 to SR 401 against about 24 using 101. Second, 101 then takes a six-and-a-half-mile loop through Holman and Ilwaco instead of following Alt 101 which's literally just half a mile.
Re: TheStranger: Yes, that is indeed correct about AZ 85 being significantly busier than I-8 between Gila Bend and Casa Grande. I would largely attribute that traffic count to AZ 85 being the favored route out of Phoenix to I-8 and San Diego. I found in my time in the East Valley that AZ/CR 238 and AZ 347 were just as good if not a quicker route than AZ 85.
In the same vein I would argue that AZ 260 and AZ 87 has become more efficient from Show Low to Phoenix over US 60. US 60 has some pretty wild terrain southwest through Globe and Superior whereas AZ 260/AZ 87 have newer expressway segments on better terrain.
AZ 95 traffic being directed towards Needles is incredibly inefficient to reach its south segment over something like Mohave County Route 1 and 10 (Old US 66).
Since I'm a tangent about Arizona I'll note a couple more. US 60 and US 70 is a more direct way to reach the New Mexico State Line over I-10. US 191 over the Coronado Trail is incredibly ineffective with over 600 curves. A better alignment on US 180 and NM/AZ 78 has been proposed. US 89 was inefficient in terms of reaching Phoenix with a long multiplex of US 66. US 89A was a more direct route between Flagstaff and Prescott but the alignment through Jerome is haggard at best. I suspect those weird alignments played a role in US 89 being truncated to US 180 in Flagstaff. Speaking of US 180 the entire route west of El Paso is inefficient and largely was designed to take a northwestern swing to reach two additional
National Parks.
Some state highways in San Joaquin Valley and Sacramento Valley still use 90 degree turns instead of a more efficient crossing of farm parcels. CA 137 west of CA 99 comes to mind as the most infamous example but other examples include; CA 216, CA 201, CA 245, CA 45, CA 162 and CA 113. CA 145 comes to mind as a more efficient design that doesn't rely on straight line alignments.
Macon GA, I-475 bypass is more direct then staying on I-75.
Quite a few of these in Kentucky. There are at least two shortcuts that avoid KY 52, KY 1571 between Beattyville and Irvine, and KY 1295 between Richmond and Lancaster (although when completed, the new construction on KY 52 between I-75 and Paint Lick will eliminate that.)
Also, KY 30 runs directly between Jackson and Salyersville, but it's faster to take KY 15, KY 205, and the Mountain Parkway.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 15, 2019, 01:38:27 PM
Some state highways in San Joaquin Valley and Sacramento Valley still use 90 degree turns instead of a more efficient crossing of farm parcels. CA 137 west of CA 99 comes to mind as the most infamous example but other examples include; CA 216, CA 201, CA 245, CA 45, CA 162 and CA 113. CA 145 comes to mind as a more efficient design that doesn't rely on straight line alignments.
I've mentioned in the past how south of Knights Landing, Yolo County Road 102 is a much straighter shot to Woodland than the historic Route 24/Alternate US 40 alignment that Route 113 still uses.
With 137, it's unusual how it doesn't bother to just head directly on Waukena all the way to Route 43, instead opting for several more turns southwest.
Part of 216's oddness on the western end is that prior to the 1990s IIRC, it continued into central Visalia so it was a bit more logical then. East of where 216 leaves 198, it follows the most direct routing possible to Woodlake at least.
Another one came to mind that I have driven on: Route 12 near Lodi taking Victor Road between Route 99 and Route 88, instead of just staying on Kettleman to get to 88. I think this is a vestige of when US 99 ran down the modern business route, but is an odd choice today.
Quote from: hbelkins on July 15, 2019, 01:55:10 PM
Quite a few of these in Kentucky. There are at least two shortcuts that avoid KY 52, KY 1571 between Beattyville and Irvine, and KY 1295 between Richmond and Lancaster (although when completed, the new construction on KY 52 between I-75 and Paint Lick will eliminate that.)
Also, KY 30 runs directly between Jackson and Salyersville, but it's faster to take KY 15, KY 205, and the Mountain Parkway.
Another KY one: US 51 doglegging to Fulton at the the KY/TN line, between Clinton, KY and Union City, TN. KY 239/TN 21 is much more direct N/S, with KY 123 to tie back into US 51 @ Clinton
IN's most famous one (other than the wackyness of removing numbered routes in cities & towns): IN 63 over US 41 for thru US 41 traffic
I-10 near New Orleans is one of the more glaring examples, along with I-475 being shorter than I-75 near Macon, GA (already mentioned).
Quote from: TheStranger on July 15, 2019, 01:33:28 PM
Quote from: sparker on July 15, 2019, 06:14:43 AM
Well, you won't have CA 84 through Fremont to kick around much longer; it's on the relinquishment chopping block. While a combination of Decoto and Alvarado-Niles would be better, running a state highway down the latter would likely require "shunting" the route over to Mission Blvd. (erstwhile CA 238, but with virtually no signage as such these days) north of Niles itself; running it through the Niles historical district wouldn't be well-received locally (although the old LRN 5 did run through the town center courtesy of twin underpasses under the then-SP Niles/Milpitas line) in pre-WWII years. But regardless, the point is moot; Caltrans has no interest in adopting any more surface mileage in urban/suburban areas.
For 84, is the arterial realignment east of Decoto effectively dead? crazy to think how this road went from already 2 sections without a signed connection to potentially 3 in the near future!
To be fair, when I used to drive from Atherton to Sacramento several years ago on Sunday nights, I actually preferred taking 880 south to Auto Mall Parkway to 680 to 84 in Sunol which I think was faster than either the 84 surface routing in Fremont or the Decoto routing above.
Quote from: GaryVUS-101 in Washington?
While the big peninsular loop seems the obvious candidate, the one that comes to mind us more in the southwest part of the state: WA 401/WA 4 being a shorter route from the state line to Clearwater Creek park! This seems to exist primarily for US 101 to serve Ilwaco and Seaview.
Quote from: Max RockatanskyCA 18 makes an almost 270 degree turn and isn't useful as a through route. Personally I always thought swapping the alignment of 18 and 247 north to Barstow was more efficient than the current route.
AZ 80 and by extension former US 80 were incredibly inefficient routes. At the time of the early US Route era the alignment of US 80 was really the only roadway with good surface conditions but it took some wild jogs to Bisbee and Phoenix. As time progressed AZ 84 and AZ 86 became the more efficient through routes which is probably why I-8 and I-10 use their corridors.
I still feel like some sort of rationalization of 18/38/138/330 around the Big Bear area would be a good idea someday, especially since it wasn't quite as bad when 30 ran there years ago before the Highland-Redlands reroute occurred.
If I'm not mistaken, the Casa Grande-Goodyear routing of US 80, now AZ 85/I-10, has more traffic than the section of I-8 east of AZ 85 - though in terms of trajectory 8 ended up being significantly more logical.
---
US 311 for a long time served as an out-of-the-way alternate to US 220, though with the southern portion of the route decommissioned, this isn't quite the case anymore.
Before it was relegated to state route south of Flagstaff, US 89 went much further out of the way between there and Phoenix to avoid the terrain traversed by AZ 69/US 89A (and eventually I-17). I don't think the US 89 route between Phoenix and Tucson was quite as out there when compared to today's I-10/former AZ 93.
To answer the first question: the alignment that veered eastward from Decoto and intersected CA 238 about a half-mile south of the Decoto intersection had ROW purchased by Caltrans decades ago, and local development (the Decoto/Alvarado Niles area has seen plenty of "infill" dense housing development in recent years) seems not to have encroached on that ROW. Nothing addressing this route has been included in any STIP for years; the project appears to be dormant rather than dead. Niles Canyon Road is still an active state facility; there has been absolutely no talk about relinquishment there, and since Mission/238 south of Hayward remains state-maintained, it's possible that sometime in the future D4 will request funds to build out the Decoto bypass/reroute to replace the soon-to-be relinquished convoluted route through central Fremont; as related above, there
is quite a bit of commuter traffic coming off the Dumbarton heading toward Pleasanton/Livermore and points beyond; while some of that has likely blindly followed the CA 84 routing through town, I've seen Decoto/Alvarado-Niles often used as a bypass (the intersection between the two should be avoided after 3pm on weekdays!). IMO, this is a problem that should have been addressed back in the '80's before the area became as crowded as it is today.
I fully agree with Max about the ridiculousness of the "reverse C" shape of CA 18, particularly with its western extension back to CA 138 in L.A. County. In a more rational world (assuming Caltrans still cares about such things) the route number "30" would be revived and, unless someone decides the High Desert Corridor needs an Interstate designation, applied to (a) that corridor between CA 14 and US 395, (b) the CA 18 extension, including the proposed Apple Valley bypass, east all the way to Lucerne Valley (replacing CA 18 east of Victorville), and (c) CA 247 east and south to CA 62 in Yucca Valley. CA 18 would simply be rerouted over the N-S segment of CA 247, terminating at I-15 in Barstow. That would give a single designation to the (mostly) E-W route north of the San Bernardino/San Gabriel mountains. The gratuitous 18/247 "bump" in Lucerne Valley would be eliminated, with the path of most traffic (WB 247>WB 18 and vice-versa) singly designated. CA 18 will still be retained as the primary mountain resort route, but instead of heading toward the High Desert exurbs, will head for Barstow, ostensibly to pick up (and drop off) traffic to and from Vegas, I-40, and CA 58; Barstow being a very good collection/distribution point (just ask BNSF!).
Quote from: webny99 on July 15, 2019, 02:16:39 PM
I-10 near New Orleans is one of the more glaring examples, along with I-475 being shorter than I-75 near Macon, GA (already mentioned).
In that vein:
I-75 vs. US 23 between Toledo and Flint where 75 makes the big northeast turn to serve Detroit.
I-15 in Montana between Ulm and Vaughn, where the freeway makes the big turn to serve Great Falls, a U-shaped route that is 21 miles long, as opposed to the direct road between those two points that is only 10 miles long. Kinda surprised that the most direct route wasn't used for the freeway (with a spur to Great Falls) instead of this big deviation, though this may have to do with First Peoples Buffalo Jump State Park being on the direct trajectory.
Since this is "inefficient" not necessarily shortest or fastest, I will put forth I-79->I-68 over following I-70 between Washington, PA and Hancock, MD.
Google Maps has both routes within 5 minutes and 10 miles of each other, but considering the tolls on the PA Turnpike, gotta give the efficiency edge to 79-68. Also, no stoplights on that route, either!
I-95 between Wilmington, Delaware and NJTP Exit 6, versus the NJTP itself, tho this is partially dependent on time of day/traffic on each route and also toll on the NJTP between Southpoint and Exit 6. Delaware Memorial Bridge and PA Turnpike tolls comparable, Southbound only
In before I-90 and US 212.
Why the turn on US 285 in Colorado? In addition it takes it FARTHER from the National Park entrance. US 61 south of Hastings. WI 77 from Mellen to Clam Lake. US 20 in central Wyoming.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on July 15, 2019, 10:07:58 AM
A longer one: I-95 between New Haven, CT and Amesbury, MA. More efficient to take I-91 to CT 15 to I-84 to I-90 to I-290 to I-495 (or stay on I-90 to I-495).
Once the nimbys took it out of Boston, I-95 should have been moved to that routing
The Avenue of the Saints (aka IA 27) in Cedar Falls and Waterloo should have followed US 218.
One I don't think too many people think about is US 63 from Rochester to Red Wing. US 63 should go north on US 52 to Zumbrota and north on MN 58 to Red Wing.
I was going to say that the routing from Ellensburg to George, WA is horribly inefficient, as well as having to drop the freeway to river level for the crossing, when a gorge spanning bridge would be awesome and so much more efficient, and would reduce truck emissions climbing back up on either side of the Columbia.
Related thread: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9540.0
Quote from: DandyDan on July 15, 2019, 04:34:49 PM
The Avenue of the Saints (aka IA 27) in Cedar Falls and Waterloo should have followed US 218.
One I don't think too many people think about is US 63 from Rochester to Red Wing. US 63 should go north on US 52 to Zumbrota and north on MN 58 to Red Wing.
Yes they put that STUPID jog in it now, like Lake City has to have two US highways.
IL's poster child for an inefficient numbered route: IL 110 being christened as the so-called Chicago-Kansas City Expressway
Baring something ridiculous on I-55 or I-72, from Downtown Chicago to Hannibal, MO, the IL 110 route of I-290/I-88/I-80/I-74/US 34/US 67/US 136/IL 336/I-172/I-72 (~5 hrs, 325 miles per Google Maps plus tolls on I-88) is not even really competitive with the I-55/I-72 route (~4.5 hrs, 300 miles)
If you want to compare the entire IL/MO 110 CKC, the 110 hodgepodge in IL continues in MO on US 36/I-35, and the combined 110 is not really competitive with I-80 or I-88/I-35 or I-55/I-270/I-70
The only advantage I'd give the CKC, is once outside of Metro Chicagoland, and especially once to US 34 in Galesburg, it is a much more "relaxed" drive, as it is not very busy in Western IL/"Forgottonia" and I-55, I-70, and I-80 can have lots of Truck Traffic
Quote from: ilpt4u on July 15, 2019, 02:28:52 PM
Since this is "inefficient" not necessarily shortest or fastest, I will put forth I-79->I-68 over following I-70 between Washington, PA and Hancock, MD.
Google Maps has both routes within 5 minutes and 10 miles of each other, but considering the tolls on the PA Turnpike, gotta give the efficiency edge to 79-68. Also, no stoplights on that route, either!
But I-68 is a more inefficient route when it comes to using fuel. There's a reason truckers prefer staying on I-70, and paying the tolls, vs. going south into West Virginia and using I-68. Some of those grades are pretty steep.
In North Carolina, US 15-501 does a detour to Carthage between Lemon Springs and Southern Pines, while US 1 stays on a much straighter road.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on July 15, 2019, 10:07:58 AM
A longer one: I-95 between New Haven, CT and Amesbury, MA. More efficient to take I-91 to CT 15 to I-84 to I-90 to I-290 to I-495 (or stay on I-90 to I-495).
CT 10 between the eastern terminus of the US 44 concurrency, and CT 185. Easier to cross over US 44 and stay on Nod Rd to CT 185, then turn west briefly to rejoin CT 10 (then paired with US 202).
I'm bumping this one up because it's so true and is an important through route: I-95, which ostensibly runs between Boston and New York is very inefficient for that mission. Better to go up I-91 to I-84 to I-90 (and there are other ways to do this as well). I-95 through New London, Warwick, Providence, etc. takes quite a bit longer and was only routed that way to provide RI with interstate access. Prior to the Interstate System, people traveled between Boston and NY via the Wilbur Cross Highway, which roughly parallels the sequence described above.
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on July 16, 2019, 01:24:57 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on July 15, 2019, 10:07:58 AM
A longer one: I-95 between New Haven, CT and Amesbury, MA. More efficient to take I-91 to CT 15 to I-84 to I-90 to I-290 to I-495 (or stay on I-90 to I-495).
CT 10 between the eastern terminus of the US 44 concurrency, and CT 185. Easier to cross over US 44 and stay on Nod Rd to CT 185, then turn west briefly to rejoin CT 10 (then paired with US 202).
I'm bumping this one up because it's so true and is an important through route: I-95, which ostensibly runs between Boston and New York is very inefficient for that mission. Better to go up I-91 to I-84 to I-90 (and there are other ways to do this as well). I-95 through New London, Warwick, Providence, etc. takes quite a bit longer and was only routed that way to provide RI with interstate access. Prior to the Interstate System, people traveled between Boston and NY via the Wilbur Cross Highway, which roughly parallels the sequence described above.
It's interesting to view it as a similar situation to how US 101 makes the big bend towards Gaviota while the fastest Bay Area-Los Angeles routes are either 101-152-5 or 80-580-5.
In 101's case though, I don't know if "inefficiency" is the right word because the corridors are really not parallel where 101 runs east-west to get through Santa Barbara/Ventura/Thousand Oaks and 5 continues south from the Grapevine. Certainly just for the LA-SF drive it is longer, but 5 doesn't provide an alternative at all for the numerous other cities along 101 between the two areas.
Prior to the West Side Freeway part of I-5 being built, I'm not sure if traffic patterns had people using US 50-Route 120-US 99 to get to LA from the Bay Area (or for that matter, 101-152-99).
US-20 Between Lebanon, OR and Corvallis. The direct route is OR-34 (and is signed as such), which is 19 miles (27 mins). Following US-20 is 26 miles, and sends you through downtown Albany, and Google says 45 minutes. No reason you'd ever do that. Obviously US-20 is still used as a route between Lebanon and Albany, or Corvallis and Albany. But not the whole way.
US-93 between NV-318 and Ely. Direct route is NV-318 and US-6, 136 miles, 2h 8m. Following US-93 is 176 miles, 2h 43m. This one is very poorly signed from US-93 (you have to know to turn on 318), unlike the other example.
And in both those cases, the shorter route is not just shorter and faster, but also an equal or greater quality road in terms of design, lanes, speed limit, etc. So it's not like you're getting off a freeway onto a windy 2 lane road to save miles (which can be a trade off, valid reasons to go either way), you're saving miles with a pretty equal quality road.
Quote from: doorknob60 on July 16, 2019, 07:44:03 PM
US-93 between NV-318 and Ely. Direct route is NV-318 and US-6, 136 miles, 2h 8m. Following US-93 is 176 miles, 2h 43m. This one is very poorly signed from US-93 (you have to know to turn on 318), unlike the other example.
There is this sign on 93 southbound in Ely, which shows a 44 mile advantage to SR 318:
(https://i.imgur.com/9vh4Vz2.jpg)
Quote from: ilpt4u on July 16, 2019, 12:38:39 AM
IL 110
Can we all just agree that CKC/110 doesn't exist? Let us nevermore mention its name or number.
Quote from: texaskdog on July 15, 2019, 04:09:21 PM
Why the turn on US 285 in Colorado? In addition it takes it FARTHER from the National Park entrance.
Are you speaking of the segment from Alamosa north where Colo Highway 17 is the much more direct route than the US 160 multiplex west to Monte Vista then north?
Speaking of Colorado, heading south towards Denver, US 287 nearly hits US 36, heads east on 120th Avenue, south on Federal (crossing US 36 a second time), east on Colfax through downtown and then multiplexes on I-70 (and unmarked US 36 and US 40). The more direct route would be straight down US 36/I-270 to I-70.
Another one is Colo Highway 88 which takes over US 287's southern routing on Federal at Colfax/US 40. It heads south 8 miles to Bellevue Ave, then heads east to I-25, south (unmarked) 2 miles to Arapahoe Road, then east to Parker road.
The most egregious one I know here is Colo Highway 30. It begins at I-25/US 285 at Hampden Boulevard and ends 11 miles east and 1 mile south at Quincy and Gun Club Road near E-470. However, Highway 30 turns north on Havana to 6th Avenue, then east on 6th Avenue and a long sweeping curve back south onto Gun Club Road to its terminus (about 20 miles). The most direct route is blocked by Cherry Creek State Park and I-225, though you can cut across Parker Road to connect the disconnected segments of Hampden.
I could go on...
Quote from: US 89 on July 16, 2019, 07:54:22 PM
Quote from: doorknob60 on July 16, 2019, 07:44:03 PM
US-93 between NV-318 and Ely. Direct route is NV-318 and US-6, 136 miles, 2h 8m. Following US-93 is 176 miles, 2h 43m. This one is very poorly signed from US-93 (you have to know to turn on 318), unlike the other example.
There is this sign on 93 southbound in Ely, which shows a 44 mile advantage to SR 318:
(https://i.imgur.com/9vh4Vz2.jpg)
The NHS N-S corridor up the east side of NV uses NV 318 rather than US 93 north of their southern junction; obviously recognizing reality. Thus, if for some reason a generally direct Vegas-Idaho Interstate
(yeah, right!) corridor that's
not I-11 ever comes to pass, it'll shoot right up 318.
Quote from: kphoger on July 16, 2019, 08:29:41 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on July 16, 2019, 12:38:39 AM
IL 110
Can we all just agree that CKC/110 doesn't exist? Let us nevermore mention its name or number.
110? -- isn't that an Interstate heading from L.A. down to the harbor? Don't really know, or want to, about other 110's -- well, maybe Baton Rouge, if they ever get that damn I-10 interchange working properly!
Quote from: kphoger on July 16, 2019, 08:29:41 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on July 16, 2019, 12:38:39 AM
IL 110
Can we all just agree that CKC/110 doesn't exist? Let us nevermore mention its name or number.
It can exist, but if it does, it should be along I-55 & I-72 in IL, as a legit "CKC" alternate to 55/270/70 or (88/)80/35. MO's 110 routing of I-72/US 36/I-35 is fine
The route that is signed now is Creative, but Asinine
Quote from: TheStranger on July 16, 2019, 02:06:11 PM
It's interesting to view it as a similar situation to how US 101 makes the big bend towards Gaviota while the fastest Bay Area-Los Angeles routes are either 101-152-5 or 80-580-5.
On a smaller scale, CA 154 is often faster than US 101 between its two endpoints, though it's 2-lane and you risk getting stuck behind someone slow.
Quote from: citrus on July 16, 2019, 10:36:57 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on July 16, 2019, 02:06:11 PM
It's interesting to view it as a similar situation to how US 101 makes the big bend towards Gaviota while the fastest Bay Area-Los Angeles routes are either 101-152-5 or 80-580-5.
On a smaller scale, CA 154 is often faster than US 101 between its two endpoints, though it's 2-lane and you risk getting stuck behind someone slow.
I'd wager on most average days CA 119 and CA 33 are faster way from Bakersfield to Ventura over I-5/CA 126. The geography of the Coast Ranges often creates some interesting short cuts for those willing to go off the limited access beaten path. One that I regularly use is CA 198/CA 25 to reach Hollister from the Central Valley over the more conventional I-5/CA 152. Given how much J1 is improving with surface quality it might soon give I-5/CA 152 a run for it's money for reaching Hollister and Monterey County faster from the Fresno Area.
* I-270 versus I-70 in the St. Louis area (around a 7 miles savings to take I-270).
* Until more of the expressway upgrades are completed, US 67 versus IL 267 (with a short hop on I-72) between Godfrey and Jacksonville. Google is showing the US 67 routing actually being shorter distance wise and almost the same time wise, but I would lean towards it underestimating the delay in all the towns along US 67.
Quote from: Revive 755 on July 16, 2019, 11:03:16 PM
* Until more of the expressway upgrades are completed, US 67 versus IL 267 (with a short hop on I-72) between Godfrey and Jacksonville. Google is showing the US 67 routing actually being shorter distance wise and almost the same time wise, but I would lean towards it underestimating the delay in all the towns along US 67.
Wikipedia on IL 267 notes that between the 1960s and 2001, 267 was assigned to the western routing while 67 used today's 267. What were the reasons for the rerouting to put US 67 back on the western corridor?
One that came to mind earlier but I had forgotten to post about until now:
Route 116 in eastern Petaluma, CA, where the straightest/most direct path is Frates Road and Adobe Road, but 116 instead continues on Lakeville Highway before taking a short but curvy routing (Stage Gulch Road) to reconnect with Adobe.
M-20 still has that awkward jog in the Big Rapids area. However, it's not as bad as it used to be (until the 1970s, M-20 used to stairstep its way from Muskegon to Big Rapids and then along its current route to Midland).
It's significantly faster to run 8 Mile Rd > 155th Ave > Buchanan Rd > 90th Ave > 9 Mile Rd (21 minutes, 14.5 miles) between US-131 and Mecosta than run M-20 via Big Rapids (37 minutes, 29.8 miles)
It's understandable why the Division of Highways rerouted CA 79 from Hemet south to Temecula and away from its previous route over present Riverside County R3 -- that road (originally SSR 83 prior to the late '30's) is topology-challenged, to say the least, taking a winding path through the hills north of its present alignment between Temecula and Aguanga. Also, they may have been prescient regarding future Temecula development; a state-maintained facility between that city and the Hemet area is certainly warranted. But it
does squeeze CA 79 into a convoluted path when the entire route is considered -- and through long-distance traffic between the two route segments bifurcated by the I-15 multiplex is likely minimal; northeast and southeast of Temecula function as two different rationales. IMO, the northern segment should be redesignated as a separate route, using a number from Caltrans' sizeable pool of unused designations. If they wait a few years, they might be able to appropriate the old "83" number from the Ontario area; given their present criteria for relinquishment,
that semi-urban corridor seems a likely candidate for the chopping block -- pieces of it have already been disposed of!
Quote from: TheStranger on July 16, 2019, 02:06:11 PM
Prior to the West Side Freeway part of I-5 being built, I'm not sure if traffic patterns had people using US 50-Route 120-US 99 to get to LA from the Bay Area (or for that matter, 101-152-99).
Once US 99 had been brought out to 4 lanes throughout the Valley -- and US 50 likewise over the Dublin Grade and Altamont -- the 99/120/50 continuum became the commercial corridor of choice between L.A. and the Bay Area. This was helped by the East Bay supplanting S.F. as the main warehousing/distribution center in the region, but also because US 101 didn't achieve full multilane status until the 1970's with the completion of the San Ardo-King City freeway segment; truckers -- even with the short 120 slog through Manteca -- tended to prefer the inland route. And it
was shorter by about 20 miles than using US 101; IIRC, the Gousha mileage inserts of the day had LA>SF at 404 miles via 99/120/50 vs. 425 miles via 101 -- this is referring to the small red <
bracketed> on-map notations common to Gousha state maps of the day.
Quote from: zzcarp on July 16, 2019, 09:45:00 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on July 15, 2019, 04:09:21 PM
Why the turn on US 285 in Colorado? In addition it takes it FARTHER from the National Park entrance.
Are you speaking of the segment from Alamosa north where Colo Highway 17 is the much more direct route than the US 160 multiplex west to Monte Vista then north?
I could go on...
Yes the Alamosa stretch. Why would anyone go that way?
Quote from: TheStranger on July 17, 2019, 02:57:00 AM
Wikipedia on IL 267 notes that between the 1960s and 2001, 267 was assigned to the western routing while 67 used today's 267. What were the reasons for the rerouting to put US 67 back on the western corridor?
The planned expressway upgrades for US 67 between Jacksonville and Godfrey (link to EIS) (https://books.google.com/books?id=Wqc1AQAAMAAJ&pg=PP7&lpg=PP7&dq=US+67+eis+illinois+greene&source=bl&ots=Qq4xszNaR4&sig=ACfU3U3Lt9o56sy9g15weFlpRZlvvNJBhw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj4hfWMsb3jAhUWU80KHfxGC8IQ6AEwAnoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=US%2067%20eis%20illinois%20greene&f=false)will generally follow the current US 67 corridor, probably due to the greater population. When completed it could be slightly longer but off a greater savings on travel time versus today's IL 267.
Quote from: texaskdog on July 17, 2019, 09:59:56 PM
Quote from: zzcarp on July 16, 2019, 09:45:00 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on July 15, 2019, 04:09:21 PM
Why the turn on US 285 in Colorado? In addition it takes it FARTHER from the National Park entrance.
Are you speaking of the segment from Alamosa north where Colo Highway 17 is the much more direct route than the US 160 multiplex west to Monte Vista then north?
I could go on...
Yes the Alamosa stretch. Why would anyone go that way?
If you're shortcutting to Gunnison via CO 114 it ain't too bad of an option.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 18, 2019, 12:11:40 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on July 17, 2019, 09:59:56 PM
Quote from: zzcarp on July 16, 2019, 09:45:00 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on July 15, 2019, 04:09:21 PM
Why the turn on US 285 in Colorado? In addition it takes it FARTHER from the National Park entrance.
Are you speaking of the segment from Alamosa north where Colo Highway 17 is the much more direct route than the US 160 multiplex west to Monte Vista then north?
I could go on...
Yes the Alamosa stretch. Why would anyone go that way?
If you're shortcutting to Gunnison via CO 114 it ain't too bad of an option.
I'm guessing that it was because it hits more towns/population centers than Highway 17 through the San Luis Valley. It is odd because US 285 took over Highway 15 from Buena Vista to Monte Vista and Highway 17 from Alamosa to New Mexico (and Antonito now). Maybe its current route was the better road in 1936.
Quote from: TheStranger on July 17, 2019, 07:25:44 PM
One that came to mind earlier but I had forgotten to post about until now:
Route 116 in eastern Petaluma, CA, where the straightest/most direct path is Frates Road and Adobe Road, but 116 instead continues on Lakeville Highway before taking a short but curvy routing (Stage Gulch Road) to reconnect with Adobe.
Thanks for the reminder with the 116. MA 116 and MA 141 through Holyoke have to be the most confusing set of twists and turns and one-way streets. They even run concurrently for a time. MA 116 crosses the Connecticut River twice in about a 2 mile stretch (not to mention it also does a 3rd time farther upstream between Sunderland and Deerfield). You're better served following I-291 East to Liberty St to Broadway and continuing up MA 33 to reach the northern portion of MA 116. As for MA 141, it's easier to take US 5 to US 202 to Resnick Blvd which becomes I-391 and take Exit 4A to bypass that portion.
I've often said that following a route through Holyoke is a fool's errand.
US 20 west of South Bend takes a longer, two lane route, while exiting US 20 at four-lane IN 2 and taking it to Rolling Prairie to rejoin US 20 is both shorter and faster.
Within the city of South Bend, IN 933 exits Lincolnway to follow Sample Street to Michigan St, when remaining on Lincolnway/Monroe is shorter and faster
Quote from: cabiness42 on July 18, 2019, 01:39:37 PM
US 20 west of South Bend takes a longer, two lane route, while exiting US 20 at four-lane IN 2 and taking it to Rolling Prairie to rejoin US 20 is both shorter and faster.
This one's always perplexed me, especially since both routes have to TOTSO at Rolling Prairie.
As I'm planning my road trip from Denver to Ontario, I found another one. US 41 takes a circuitous route north of Green Bay, WI through Menominee (MI), Escanaba, Marquette to near Covington, whereas US 141 is the direct route. It's about 74 miles longer to stay on US 41.
As a microcosm of this, US 41 between Menominee and Escanaba alone is 10 miles longer than the more direct route of M-35.
Quote from: StogieGuy7 on July 16, 2019, 01:24:57 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on July 15, 2019, 10:07:58 AM
A longer one: I-95 between New Haven, CT and Amesbury, MA. More efficient to take I-91 to CT 15 to I-84 to I-90 to I-290 to I-495 (or stay on I-90 to I-495).
I'm bumping this one up because it's so true and is an important through route: I-95, which ostensibly runs between Boston and New York is very inefficient for that mission. Better to go up I-91 to I-84 to I-90 (and there are other ways to do this as well). I-95 through New London, Warwick, Providence, etc. takes quite a bit longer and was only routed that way to provide RI with interstate access. Prior to the Interstate System, people traveled between Boston and NY via the Wilbur Cross Highway, which roughly parallels the sequence described above.
IIRC, the
overall routing of I-95 along the CT coast, Providence and the Greater Boston area et al was loosely based on the routing of US 1. Many of the 2-digit Interstates, especially the primary ones,
usually ran parallel to primary US route(s).
Quote from: zzcarp on July 18, 2019, 02:24:23 PM
As I'm planning my road trip from Denver to Ontario, I found another one. US 41 takes a circuitous route north of Green Bay, WI through Menominee (MI), Escanaba, Marquette to near Covington, whereas US 141 is the direct route. It's about 74 miles longer to stay on US 41.
As a microcosm of this, US 41 between Menominee and Escanaba alone is 10 miles longer than the more direct route of M-35.
It's interesting to think of how the original segment of I-43 from Milwaukee to Green Bay is former US 141 - essentially making the fullest extent of what was 141 the efficient route from Milwaukee to Menominee (and thus the original north-south Interstate corridor in the state) compared to 41!
To that extent that's kinda what happened with I-95 and US 1 between Jacksonville and Petersburg, VA, where US 1 went further inland to serve the capital cities of the Carolinas. (US 1 and US 301 have a similar dynamic between those two cities though 95 is more efficient than US 301 between Santee, SC and Jacksonville)
Between Atlanta & Augusta, GA, US 78 takes the "more leisurely" path, detouring northward through Athens, while US 278 (the efficient alternative) heads more or less between the two metro areas on a relative beeline -- which is obviously why it was selected as the basic alignment for I-20.
Quote from: zzcarp on July 18, 2019, 01:53:08 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on July 18, 2019, 01:39:37 PM
US 20 west of South Bend takes a longer, two lane route, while exiting US 20 at four-lane IN 2 and taking it to Rolling Prairie to rejoin US 20 is both shorter and faster.
This one's always perplexed me, especially since both routes have to TOTSO at Rolling Prairie.
All I can figure is that US 20 is following the routing of the old Michigan Road so that's why it's kept that way.
Quote from: US 89 on July 16, 2019, 07:54:22 PM
Quote from: doorknob60 on July 16, 2019, 07:44:03 PM
US-93 between NV-318 and Ely. Direct route is NV-318 and US-6, 136 miles, 2h 8m. Following US-93 is 176 miles, 2h 43m. This one is very poorly signed from US-93 (you have to know to turn on 318), unlike the other example.
There is this sign on 93 southbound in Ely, which shows a 44 mile advantage to SR 318:
(https://i.imgur.com/9vh4Vz2.jpg)
Ah yes I forgot about that one. To my knowledge, there is nothing to that effect going northbound, which is what I was referencing.
WV-62 would be a classic example. It's termini are 38.8 miles apart directly, yet it makes its way there over the course of... 100.83 miles.
Routing:
(https://i.imgur.com/gbHiny7.png)
Also worth noting is the odd configuration of OH-676 west of Watertown. The planners must have been just allergic to direct alignments, as this ended up happening:
(https://i.imgur.com/VRguZ4f.png)
Not sure why it was routed this way, as this routing does not put it through any extra useful points as far as I can tell.
A local one is NV 208 from the south end of the Mason Valley to Yerington. It's not so much the mileage, rather the type of road. NV 208 is a major highway extending east from US 395 but once it gets to Mason Valley it turns into a local farm road and then serves as the main street in Yerington, at the end of which it reaches US 95 Alt. NV 339 is a modern high-speed two-lane road along the west side of Mason Valley; it meets US 95 Alt. just west of Yerington. This is part of the most direct route from Lake Tahoe to Las Vegas, and NDOT does have a green sign at the 339/208 split directing those bound for Las Vegas onto NV 339.
Quote from: gonealookin on July 19, 2019, 03:16:01 PM
A local one is NV 208 from the south end of the Mason Valley to Yerington. It's not so much the mileage, rather the type of road. NV 208 is a major highway extending east from US 395 but once it gets to Mason Valley it turns into a local farm road and then serves as the main street in Yerington, at the end of which it reaches US 95 Alt. NV 339 is a modern high-speed two-lane road along the west side of Mason Valley; it meets US 95 Alt. just west of Yerington. This is part of the most direct route from Lake Tahoe to Las Vegas, and NDOT does have a green sign at the 339/208 split directing those bound for Las Vegas onto NV 339.
In that vein...
Between Tonopah and Winnemucca US 95 is not the shortest routing between the two, but a combo of NV 376 & NV 305. But I always understood this as having US 95 make the bit of a westward jog in order to better serve the Vegas-Reno corridor.
I wonder which route gets more of the Reno-bound traffic: US 95 to Alternate US 50 to I-80, or Alternate US 95 to US 50 to NV 439 to I-80.
Quote from: TheStranger on July 19, 2019, 04:40:12 PM
Between Tonopah and Winnemucca US 95 is not the shortest routing between the two, but a combo of NV 376 & NV 305. But I always understood this as having US 95 make the bit of a westward jog in order to better serve the Vegas-Reno corridor.
The US 95 routing also had much to do with the history of paving roads across the middle-of-nothing portion of central Nevada.
Here's the 1948 state highway map, showing NV 8A from Tonopah north to Battle Mountain as almost entirely unpaved. US 95 provides a paved route all the way, although even that highway takes a detour west from Fallon to Fernley, where it joins US 40, along the northern Lincoln Highway routing. The direct route from Fallon north to US 40 is a graded road designated NV 1A.
https://www.nevadadot.com/home/showdocument?id=1209 (https://www.nevadadot.com/home/showdocument?id=1209)
By 1953 the direct route from Tonopah to Battle Mountain is fully paved (NV 8A is shifted to the newly-constructed road near Battle Mountain shortly thereafter). NV 1A north of Fallon is still a graded road.
https://www.nevadadot.com/home/showdocument?id=1219 (https://www.nevadadot.com/home/showdocument?id=1219)
NV 1A was finally paved in the late 1950s, and the 1960 map is the first one showing that road redesignated as US 95 from Fallon north to US 40.
https://www.nevadadot.com/home/showdocument?id=1235 (https://www.nevadadot.com/home/showdocument?id=1235)
Edit: . The 1936 map (https://www.nevadadot.com/home/showdocument?id=1197) is the first showing the pre-1960 routing of US 95 as continuously paved from Las Vegas to Winnemucca. The US 95 routing through Nevada was adopted in 1939, at which time they wouldn't have had any idea when NV 8A would be paved.
Quote from: TheStranger on July 19, 2019, 04:40:12 PM
Quote from: gonealookin on July 19, 2019, 03:16:01 PM
A local one is NV 208 from the south end of the Mason Valley to Yerington. It's not so much the mileage, rather the type of road. NV 208 is a major highway extending east from US 395 but once it gets to Mason Valley it turns into a local farm road and then serves as the main street in Yerington, at the end of which it reaches US 95 Alt. NV 339 is a modern high-speed two-lane road along the west side of Mason Valley; it meets US 95 Alt. just west of Yerington. This is part of the most direct route from Lake Tahoe to Las Vegas, and NDOT does have a green sign at the 339/208 split directing those bound for Las Vegas onto NV 339.
In that vein...
Between Tonopah and Winnemucca US 95 is not the shortest routing between the two, but a combo of NV 376 & NV 305. But I always understood this as having US 95 make the bit of a westward jog in order to better serve the Vegas-Reno corridor.
I wonder which route gets more of the Reno-bound traffic: US 95 to Alternate US 50 to I-80, or Alternate US 95 to US 50 to NV 439 to I-80.
At this point, since the NV 439 cutoff is relatively recent, most LV-Reno traffic likely still goes through Fallon, using US 95 right to US 50 and then Alternate 50 to I-80. Have no idea what the various GPS devices suggest (don't have one, never needed one, etc.) -- but it's probably the routing described above. It's also likely that the pending I-11 pathway will also utilize that route, but making a diagonal southwestern bypass of Fallon to (a) cut off some mileage and (b) avoid taking developed property; its probable I-80 junction is just northeast of Fernley, close to the "elbow" of I-80 at that location.
Quote from: chesapeake256 on July 19, 2019, 01:57:16 PM
WV-62 would be a classic example. It's termini are 38.8 miles apart directly, yet it makes its way there over the course of... 100.83 miles.
It's nowhere near as bad as WV 62, but going from the IL 83/IL 120 junction to the Belvidere Road bridge over IL 137 in Waukegan is about four miles shorter via IL 120 and the unnumbered section of Belvidere Road than using IL 137 (which starts about 1500 feet south of the IL 83/IL 120 intersection).
Quote from: TheStranger on July 18, 2019, 04:16:30 PM
Quote from: zzcarp on July 18, 2019, 02:24:23 PM
As I'm planning my road trip from Denver to Ontario, I found another one. US 41 takes a circuitous route north of Green Bay, WI through Menominee (MI), Escanaba, Marquette to near Covington, whereas US 141 is the direct route. It's about 74 miles longer to stay on US 41.
As a microcosm of this, US 41 between Menominee and Escanaba alone is 10 miles longer than the more direct route of M-35.
It's interesting to think of how the original segment of I-43 from Milwaukee to Green Bay is former US 141 - essentially making the fullest extent of what was 141 the efficient route from Milwaukee to Menominee (and thus the original north-south Interstate corridor in the state) compared to 41!
To that extent that's kinda what happened with I-95 and US 1 between Jacksonville and Petersburg, VA, where US 1 went further inland to serve the capital cities of the Carolinas. (US 1 and US 301 have a similar dynamic between those two cities though 95 is more efficient than US 301 between Santee, SC and Jacksonville)
In actuality, WI 57 is the shortest and most direct route between Milwaukee and Green Bay and was what was originally planned to be upgraded to be the interstate (then referred to as 'I-57'). Still, because the busiest of the three routes between MKE and GRB was US 41 (it far and away serves the highest population along its way) and it was nearly all already four lanes when the interstate route was approved, it was determined to be too expensive to quickly upgrade US 41 to full interstate standards and thus the new interstate was to be mostly developed on a new ROW to follow and supplant WI 57 and later on US 141. It was the same rationale as for building I-5 on its new ROW routing on the west edge of California's Central Valley instead of upgrading the existing US and later on CA 99.
Mike
WV 62 was extended to cover the former route of US 33 when that route was re-routed across the Ravenswood bridge and onto I-77.
Quote from: hbelkins on July 16, 2019, 12:20:24 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on July 15, 2019, 02:28:52 PM
Since this is "inefficient" not necessarily shortest or fastest, I will put forth I-79->I-68 over following I-70 between Washington, PA and Hancock, MD.
Google Maps has both routes within 5 minutes and 10 miles of each other, but considering the tolls on the PA Turnpike, gotta give the efficiency edge to 79-68. Also, no stoplights on that route, either!
But I-68 is a more inefficient route when it comes to using fuel. There's a reason truckers prefer staying on I-70, and paying the tolls, vs. going south into West Virginia and using I-68. Some of those grades are pretty steep.
The reality is I-68 came way after I-70. Aside from the grades H.B. mentions, I-68 is much more prone to weather problems - snow in the winter, and dense fog any time of the year.
Quote from: zzcarp on July 18, 2019, 02:24:23 PM
As I'm planning my road trip from Denver to Ontario, I found another one. US 41 takes a circuitous route north of Green Bay, WI through Menominee (MI), Escanaba, Marquette to near Covington, whereas US 141 is the direct route. It's about 74 miles longer to stay on US 41.
As a microcosm of this, US 41 between Menominee and Escanaba alone is 10 miles longer than the more direct route of M-35.
41 was supposed to be built straight north from Powers and never was. But, it should follow the coast. Moreso it should end in Marquette and US 141 continue to Copper Harbor. US 2 then moves to M-28 and US 8 continues east from Norway to Saint Ignace.
and in Wisconsin, move US 10 to the WI-35/65 River Falls routing, much faster overall and the part that is not duplexed does not need to be a US highway. WI-35 is a story in itself, send it straight from Hudson to Prescott
Quote from: texaskdog on July 15, 2019, 04:09:21 PM
Why the turn on US 285 in Colorado? In addition it takes it FARTHER from the National Park entrance. US 61 south of Hastings. WI 77 from Mellen to Clam Lake. US 20 in central Wyoming.
Agree with US 20 between Thermopolis and Cody in Wyoming. Hwy 120 is shorter and faster.
Regards,
Andy
www.aaroads.com
Just follow U.S. 69 through the Kansas City KS/MO metro area and then try to figure out why it's a continuous route. No one would follow that routing in its entirety.
US 20 making yet another appearance in this thread! I was trying to look at the WY 120/US 20 example mentioned earlier and it hit me how between Idaho Falls, ID and Shoshoni, WY, US 26 makes a much shorter trajectory, with 26 using a 269-mile routing while US 20 meanders north for a 396 mile path!
This seems to be primarily so that US 20 can serve Yellowstone, but really doesn't seem like a routing that one would take from start to finish (especially where 120 serves as a cutoff between Cody and Thermopolis).
Using US 20 and then the WY 120 bypass before continuing to Shoshoni...saves 40 miles from the all-US 20 routing, but is still a full 87 miles longer than the US 26 routing.
Conversely, US 20 is much better than US 26 if you're going between Idaho Falls and Mountain Home, ID. If you're taking the 2-lane route through Arco there is no reason to detour on 26 all the way down to Blackfoot. And over on the west side, if you're going to use I-84 between Mountain Home and Bliss, you might as well just use the all-interstate route.
Times and distances from Google:
-Interstates (84/86/15): 238 miles, 3:34.
-US 20: 212 miles, 3:29.
-US 26: 239 miles, 3:54.
Quote from: US 89 on July 23, 2019, 01:10:37 AM
Conversely, US 20 is much better than US 26 if you're going between Idaho Falls and Mountain Home, ID. If you're taking the 2-lane route through Arco there is no reason to detour on 26 all the way down to Blackfoot. And over on the west side, if you're going to use I-84 between Mountain Home and Bliss, you might as well just use the all-interstate route.
Times and distances from Google:
-Interstates (84/86/15): 238 miles, 3:34.
-US 20: 212 miles, 3:29.
-US 26: 239 miles, 3:54.
Coming in from or going to Yellowstone from anywhere westward on I-84, cutting over ID 33 west of Rexburg has always been, at least to me, the most efficient way to make that trip. Between Carey and Mountain Home, the more direct US 20
is 10 miles shorter than the US 26/I-84 route through Shoshone -- but having taken both routes, the time difference is negligible due to the 46 miles of Interstate west of Bliss. And if you're driving after dark, 26/84 is the safer of the two corridors.
Quote from: sparker on July 16, 2019, 09:51:36 PM
Quote from: US 89 on July 16, 2019, 07:54:22 PM
Quote from: doorknob60 on July 16, 2019, 07:44:03 PM
US-93 between NV-318 and Ely. Direct route is NV-318 and US-6, 136 miles, 2h 8m. Following US-93 is 176 miles, 2h 43m. This one is very poorly signed from US-93 (you have to know to turn on 318), unlike the other example.
There is this sign on 93 southbound in Ely, which shows a 44 mile advantage to SR 318:
(https://i.imgur.com/9vh4Vz2.jpg)
The NHS N-S corridor up the east side of NV uses NV 318 rather than US 93 north of their southern junction; obviously recognizing reality. Thus, if for some reason a generally direct Vegas-Idaho Interstate (yeah, right!) corridor that's not I-11 ever comes to pass, it'll shoot right up 318.
[/quote]
The routing of US 93 in Nevada is a vestige of when US 93 was extended south from Wells, NV down to Glendale, NV, approved by AASHO in 1931. At that time, the various state routes that US 93 was laid over were at least passable; SR 38 (which later became SR 318 in the 1976 renumbering) didn't even appear on state maps until 1935, and was not paved until much later. US 93 also went through more established towns along the way. Still today, there is not much of any civilization along the SR 318/US 6 routing, whereas US 93 has some semblance of civilization with Caliente and Pioche.
Quote from: sparker on July 19, 2019, 05:44:27 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on July 19, 2019, 04:40:12 PM
Quote from: gonealookin on July 19, 2019, 03:16:01 PM
A local one is NV 208 from the south end of the Mason Valley to Yerington. It's not so much the mileage, rather the type of road. NV 208 is a major highway extending east from US 395 but once it gets to Mason Valley it turns into a local farm road and then serves as the main street in Yerington, at the end of which it reaches US 95 Alt. NV 339 is a modern high-speed two-lane road along the west side of Mason Valley; it meets US 95 Alt. just west of Yerington. This is part of the most direct route from Lake Tahoe to Las Vegas, and NDOT does have a green sign at the 339/208 split directing those bound for Las Vegas onto NV 339.
In that vein...
Between Tonopah and Winnemucca US 95 is not the shortest routing between the two, but a combo of NV 376 & NV 305. But I always understood this as having US 95 make the bit of a westward jog in order to better serve the Vegas-Reno corridor.
I wonder which route gets more of the Reno-bound traffic: US 95 to Alternate US 50 to I-80, or Alternate US 95 to US 50 to NV 439 to I-80.
At this point, since the NV 439 cutoff is relatively recent, most LV-Reno traffic likely still goes through Fallon, using US 95 right to US 50 and then Alternate 50 to I-80. Have no idea what the various GPS devices suggest (don't have one, never needed one, etc.) -- but it's probably the routing described above. It's also likely that the pending I-11 pathway will also utilize that route, but making a diagonal southwestern bypass of Fallon to (a) cut off some mileage and (b) avoid taking developed property; its probable I-80 junction is just northeast of Fernley, close to the "elbow" of I-80 at that location.
Yeah, the routing of US 95 was a direct result of the improved/paved roads at the time of US 95's southern extension through Nevada, as gonealookin pointed out. US 95 Alt exists due to the original mainline's jog through Fernley–the Schurz-to-Fernley part being the original "true" alternate route, while the remainder of the alt route along I-80 being is the old US 95 mainline.
Prior to the advent of SR 439, most Vegas-to-Reno traffic used US 95 via Fallon instead of US 95 Alt via Yerington. I would hazard to guess that most people will still default to the Fallon route simply out of habit and greatest availability of services.
The distance between the Reno Spaghetti Bowl and the Las Vegas Spaghetti Bowl is:
*Via Fallon and Fernley: 445 miles (without deviation from US routes) or 446 miles (using SR 117 to bypass most of Fallon)
*Via Yerington and Fernley: 448 miles (without deviation from US routes) or 445 miles (with slight shortcut through back roads north of Yerington) route is 448 miles.
*Via Yerington and SR 439: 441 miles (without deviation from US routes) or 435 miles (with above-mentioned Yerington deviation and a shortcut using the Ramsey-Weeks Cutoff)
So SR 439 provides the shorter route. However, for a law-abiding driver that follows the speed limit, they'd probably find that via Fallon & Fernley (with SR 117 shortcut) would be the fastest. SR 439 has an abysmally low speed limit (55mph) for a new four-lane divided highway, which somewhat negates any time savings with the shorter distance.
Quote from: TheStranger on July 23, 2019, 12:38:40 AM
US 20 making yet another appearance in this thread! I was trying to look at the WY 120/US 20 example mentioned earlier and it hit me how between Idaho Falls, ID and Shoshoni, WY, US 26 makes a much shorter trajectory, with 26 using a 269-mile routing while US 20 meanders north for a 396 mile path!
This seems to be primarily so that US 20 can serve Yellowstone, but really doesn't seem like a routing that one would take from start to finish (especially where 120 serves as a cutoff between Cody and Thermopolis).
Using US 20 and then the WY 120 bypass before continuing to Shoshoni...saves 40 miles from the all-US 20 routing, but is still a full 87 miles longer than the US 26 routing.
Yes why not extend US 91 up to Yellowstone and then over the rest of US 191
Part of me wants to say I-55 vs I-57 between Sikeston and Chicago...
On the Fictional "Change routing of existing Interstate" thread I laid out an idea for the renumbering of those 2 (and a few others to make it work), but it will never happen
NC Highway 12 between Ocracoke and Kill Devil Hills. It requires a ferry.
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 28, 2019, 10:17:28 PM
NC Highway 12 between Ocracoke and Kill Devil Hills. It requires a ferry.
Requiring a ferry does not automatically make a route inefficient
Ontario Hwy 11. It takes a truly long meander a long way to the north. Anyone driving from Barrie to Nipigon would take 400, 69 and 17, not 11. And if you were going to the end of 11 near Beaudette, MN, you'd go through the US (via Soo and Duluth).
Quote from: ilpt4u on July 28, 2019, 10:40:22 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 28, 2019, 10:17:28 PM
NC Highway 12 between Ocracoke and Kill Devil Hills. It requires a ferry.
Requiring a ferry does not automatically make a route inefficient
Sometimes a bridge just isn't feasible, so the inclusion of a ferry along a route doesn't necessarily add an unwarranted drop in efficiency. But, perhaps you could say that the roundabout path of the Hatteras-Ocracoke Ferry is oddly inefficient? https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2127479,-75.814788,12.01z
Georgia State Route 165 has a bizarrely inefficient routing. (https://goo.gl/maps/UTTnk8HaXjgcEPQT7) Instead of going straight from Milan to Chauncey, a distance of 6.6 miles, it takes a 20 mile detour to Rhine. Additionally, it connects these three communities to...pretty much nowhere.
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on July 23, 2019, 12:31:20 AM
Just follow U.S. 69 through the Kansas City KS/MO metro area and then try to figure out why it's a continuous route. No one would follow that routing in its entirety.
Easily my favorite answer to this thread. The amount of freeway exits and detours it takes makes it horribly inefficient to completely follow. US 169 does a similar thing as well.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on July 29, 2019, 02:19:39 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on July 28, 2019, 10:40:22 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 28, 2019, 10:17:28 PM
NC Highway 12 between Ocracoke and Kill Devil Hills. It requires a ferry.
Requiring a ferry does not automatically make a route inefficient
Sometimes a bridge just isn't feasible, so the inclusion of a ferry along a route doesn't necessarily add an unwarranted drop in efficiency. But, perhaps you could say that the roundabout path of the Hatteras-Ocracoke Ferry is oddly inefficient? https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2127479,-75.814788,12.01z
Apparently, the ferry has to go around the Hatteras Inlet Crab Spawning Sanctuary. According to Google satellite, the ferry route seems to be dredged to go the way it does.
Quote from: amroad17 on July 31, 2019, 12:09:02 AM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on July 29, 2019, 02:19:39 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on July 28, 2019, 10:40:22 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 28, 2019, 10:17:28 PM
NC Highway 12 between Ocracoke and Kill Devil Hills. It requires a ferry.
Requiring a ferry does not automatically make a route inefficient
Sometimes a bridge just isn't feasible, so the inclusion of a ferry along a route doesn't necessarily add an unwarranted drop in efficiency. But, perhaps you could say that the roundabout path of the Hatteras-Ocracoke Ferry is oddly inefficient? https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2127479,-75.814788,12.01z
Apparently, the ferry has to go around the Hatteras Inlet Crab Spawning Sanctuary. According to Google satellite, the ferry route seems to be dredged to go the way it does.
It hasn't always been like that either. Back in the late 80s, early 90s, the Outer Banks was my family's go to vacation spot, I've been over that ferry many a times. It used to be more direct, the currents through Hatteras Inlet and hurricanes probably force frequent reroutes for the ferry. Wikipedia says the ferry takes about an hour right now, used to it was maybe 40-45 minutes at longest.
Here's some -
I-295 around Richmond and Petersburg is more efficient than taking I-95 through Richmond and Petersburg.
I-10 to I-410 to I-35 back to I-10 in San Antonio is more efficient than taking I-10 to the overlap with I-35.
Also in San Antonio, heading north from Corpus Christi / Rio Grande Valley on I-37 to I-10 West, it's more efficient to take I-37 up to I-35 then over to I-10 as opposed to following I-10 through the overlap.
US 4? Even without the Mass Pike, anyone going between the Capital District of NY to the NH Seacoast would use NY 7, VT 9, and NH 9. Heck east of Concord, NH the NH Route 9 overlaps with US 4 so between the capitals of NY and NH Routes 7 and 9 are the better routes over the one US 4.
I know it was created from abandoned parts of US 9 and US 109, but still no one is going to drive the whole length of it except one of us here to clinch.
US 6 across the PA- OH border always bothered me as it is not the most direct but that other road ( I do not have my map handy) that crosses the reservoir connects the two parts of US 6 in both states better.
US 13 in NC north of US 64 should follow that other road continuation and join itself in Ahoskie especially with I-87 going to overlap it sometime soon.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 31, 2019, 12:53:41 PM
Here's some -
I-295 around Richmond and Petersburg is more efficient than taking I-95 through Richmond and Petersburg.
How so?
Maybe he is talking about rush hour?
Quote from: Rothman on July 31, 2019, 10:39:39 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 31, 2019, 12:53:41 PM
Here's some -
I-295 around Richmond and Petersburg is more efficient than taking I-95 through Richmond and Petersburg.
How so?
Only adds 4 miles, mostly 6 or more lanes, no urban traffic, no closely spaced interchanges, 70 mph speed limit thruout, a lot less traffic in general with the exception being between I-64 east and I-95 north, though that part is 8-lanes and designed well, no real traffic issues to speak of, designed specifically for thru traffic, more reliable than I-95, etc.
Quote from: roadman65 on July 31, 2019, 10:42:08 PM
Maybe he is talking about rush hour?
It's especially more reliable at rush hour, though I'd prefer it any time of the day over I-95 unless I specifically wanted to see Petersburg and Richmond.
I've driven on I-95 from the southern junction of I-295 heading north
(haven't driven I-95 yet between I-295 and US-58 - have no real reason too though I'm considering clinching that soon) and it's all 55-60 mph urban interstate highway with a lot of closely spaced interchanges, heavy traffic, only 6-lanes, urban commuter traffic, etc.
I-295 is a breeze compared to that, especially south of I-64.
Has anyone brought up US62 between Paducah, KY, and Cairo, IL? US62 dives down south and comes back north, whereas KY-286 joins the two bookending segments far more efficiently.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on August 01, 2019, 03:57:21 PM
Has anyone brought up US62 between Paducah, KY, and Cairo, IL? US62 dives down south and comes back north, whereas KY-286 joins the two bookending segments far more efficiently.
You can throw US 60 into that mix as well.
MA 9 through Amherst; it would be much geographically shorter to bypass the town along Bay Rd.
Also, QC 141 north of Magog; it takes a long loop for no particular reason; it would be much more logical to end it at the intersection with Main St/ Rue Principale (QC 112) at the center of town.
MN 25, which awkwardly zig-zags its way from Belle Plaine to Brainerd. It's basically a 155-mile long local traffic route except for the Buffalo-Big Lake section. The most inefficient parts can't really be turned back or realigned either because of constitutional route requirements.
Quote from: mb2001 on August 20, 2019, 10:07:06 PM
Also, QC 141 north of Magog; it takes a long loop for no particular reason
https://www.sepaq.com/pq/mor/index.dot?language_id=1
Smethport PA to Warren PA (Western PA), US-6 goes through both but looking at a map it seems like PA-59 was either the original routing or was built later to shave some miles off.
MA 80, which shouldn't even exist. It makes a loop around nothing. At least I can understand why MA 145 exists.
Quote from: 1 on August 22, 2019, 08:56:21 AM
MA 80, which shouldn't even exist. It makes a loop around nothing. At least I can understand why MA 145 exists.
That is such a pointless route. It also gets an easy number for no reason.
Quote from: bemybear on August 22, 2019, 08:43:04 AM
Smethport PA to Warren PA (Western PA), US-6 goes through both but looking at a map it seems like PA-59 was either the original routing or was built later to shave some miles off.
I believe US 6 was routed that way to serve the more developed areas of Mt. Jewett and Kane. In fact, when the US highway system was first laid out, US 6 (along with US 219) ended in Kane. US 120 went the rest of the way to Erie (along modern US 6 and US 6N). [Wikipedia]
It's true that PA 59 is a "northerly bypass" of US 6. However, as inefficient as it may seem, US 6 and PA 59 are not going to be swapped.