US 6 may actually be LONGER than US 20

[SEWIGuy]

Let's put this another way.

If someone drove every inch of US-20, but did not drive through Yellowstone, would anyone claim that they didn't clinch the highway?

I don't think so.

[NWI_Irish96]

Let's put this another way.

If someone drove every inch of US-20, but did not drive through Yellowstone, would anyone claim that they didn't clinch the highway?

I don't think so.

I agree, but I think it's a pointless hypothetical. I'm having a hard time imagining a person who would want to clinch US 20 and yet take the time to circumvent Yellowstone rather than at least driving through, if not stopping for a while.

[kirbykart]

OK, how about US 9 and the Cape May, NJ-Lewes, DE Ferry?

Same way. The US 9 designation is officially applied to the ferry route.

[Max Rockatansky]

Let's put this another way.

If someone drove every inch of US-20, but did not drive through Yellowstone, would anyone claim that they didn't clinch the highway?

I don't think so.

Not that someone would, but they could and it would count as a clinch.

[US 89]

Y'all know US 6 also has an AASHTO-recognized gap in Colorado, right...

[Max Rockatansky]

Y'all know US 6 also has an AASHTO-recognized gap in Colorado, right...

Heh, I was waiting for someone to bring that up.  I should note, my thoughts on the gap of US 20 in Yellowstone have nothing to do with which route is longer (US 20 or US 6).  That AASHTO gap certainly hurts the case for US 6.

[dlsterner]

OK, how about US 9 and the Cape May-Lewes Ferry?

The Ferry's website - in their FAQ section - state that the approaches to the ferries are considered US 9 and are subject to applicable traffic laws.  I guess to prevent someone loading their car under the influence and being subject to a DUI, or letting your 14-year-old drive the car onto the ferry.

[pderocco]

Let's put this another way.

If someone drove every inch of US-20, but did not drive through Yellowstone, would anyone claim that they didn't clinch the highway?

I don't think so.

I agree, but I think it's a pointless hypothetical. I'm having a hard time imagining a person who would want to clinch US 20 and yet take the time to circumvent Yellowstone rather than at least driving through, if not stopping for a while.

If US-20 had ever traversed that route, then for my own purposes, I'd want to drive it in order to feel like I had clinched it. Once I've done a basic clinch, I look for more things to add to it, by doing old alignments.

But it apparently never traversed it anyway.

[pderocco]

Coming back to this topic after another year has passed.  I've been gathering official DOT mileages in each state through which US 6 and/or US 20 passes.  That is now mostly complete, so now I have two sets of mileages: those that I obtained by using GMaps, and the mileages obtained when using DOT figures.  All of these figures can be viewed (along with several other updates) in my blog post.  That also provides a link to the specific DOT sources that were used, as well as an interesting section listing the various US routes that have been able to claim the title of "longest" at some point in time.  But to summarize:

* When using GMaps, US 6 measures 9/10ths of a mile longer than US 20.
* When using mileages listed by the various state DOTs, US 6 comes out to be about 11 miles longer than US 20.

So at this point I'm quite certain that US 6 truly has re-surpassed US 20 as the longest route in the U.S.  I would feel even more confident making that statement if I had official DOT mileages from three remaining states: PA, IL, and CO.  It appears those three states do not post their statewide mileages online, and I have not been able to get a response after contacting them directly.  So in the meantime, I have substituted the mileages for those three states that were listed in AASHTO's 1989 route log (after all, those were official DOT mileages, albeit from a long time ago).  Obviously that is not the ideal solution, so if anyone has better luck than me with getting more current official mileages from any of those three DOTs, please let me know.

Do AASHTO or various DOTs religiously exclude anything that has been relinquished to the locals? For instance, did US-6 get shorter when the bit within Provincetown was relinquished? Would anyone feel like they had clinched US-6 if they drove as far as the Truro/P'town line and then turned around?

Since we are all interested in road history as well as road current conditions, I think most of us regard bits and pieces of roads that are dropped from official records due to obscure local decision making processes as an annoyance rather than something interesting or important.

[pderocco]

For anyone who's interested, I used Google's My Maps editor, and some KML cutting and pasting, to create tracks for US-6 and US-20. These didn't include alternate routes, bypasses, or business routes, but did include pieces that have been relinquished in recent years, such as US-6 in P'town, and US-20 from Kenmore Sq to Arlington St in Boston. Opening them in Google Earth, right clicking and selecting Properties, it shows 3209 for US-6, and 2352+860=3212 for US-20. I expect that these numbers are quite accurate, because the level of detail in the curves for these tracks keeps them within the pavement in the aerial imagery.

Does anyone know how AASHTO measures distance, or how the DOTs that provide this info to AASHTO do it? Are they based on surveys down the middle of the road? Do they update the data when a rebuilt interchange replaces a loop with a flyover? What do they do when different directions have different lengths? (My measurements were all eastbound.)

[pderocco]

I'm unclear about the situation in Yellowstone. Google, notorious for bogus route numberings, shows US-20 coming into the park from the east multiplexed with US-16 and US-14, and only US-20 continuing west past the north tip of the lake. It also shows US-89 and US-191 passing through the park, sometimes multiplexed together, and sometimes with US-20. I understand that US-20 never went through the park, but did any of these other routes ever go through the park, or did the Park Service always refuse to allow the fancy new US routes created back in the 20s or 30s into the park?

[Max Rockatansky]

I'm unclear about the situation in Yellowstone. Google, notorious for bogus route numberings, shows US-20 coming into the park from the east multiplexed with US-16 and US-14, and only US-20 continuing west past the north tip of the lake. It also shows US-89 and US-191 passing through the park, sometimes multiplexed together, and sometimes with US-20. I understand that US-20 never went through the park, but did any of these other routes ever go through the park, or did the Park Service always refuse to allow the fancy new US routes created back in the 20s or 30s into the park?

The only US Route ever to be signed within the boundaries of Yellowstone National Park is US 191 in the Gallatin Mountains.  There has never been a US Route signed on the Grand Loop Road in the heart of the park.  Thusly US 20 has never been signed through Yellowstone.

This whole situation makes a lot more sense when you consider the original western terminus of US 20 was at the Yellowstone Park boundary.   

[oscar]

Do AASHTO or various DOTs religiously exclude anything that has been relinquished to the locals? For instance, did US-6 get shorter when the bit within Provincetown was relinquished? Would anyone feel like they had clinched US-6 if they drove as far as the Truro/P'town line and then turned around?

It might vary by DOT or other transportation agency. In California, Caltrans insists that it can't legally treat relinquished route segments as part of the state highway system (fortunately, no Interstate or US route segments in California have been relinquished). Colorado DOT has sometimes been similarly fussy, and indeed got AASHTO approval to delete from US 6 some relinquished short segments of that route even though that technically made US 6 a discontinuous route. In Quebec, MTQ has relinquished route segments or even entire routes to local maintenance, but some of its online highway mapping treats them as still part of the "national" (i.e. provincial) highway system.

As Travel Mapping's maintainer for both California and Quebec, I greatly prefer MTQ's approach.

[Scott5114]

To me, a ferry isn't part of a route unless they bolt a sign to the deck railing.

[pderocco]

It might vary by DOT or other transportation agency. In California, Caltrans insists that it can't legally treat relinquished route segments as part of the state highway system (fortunately, no Interstate or US route segments in California have been relinquished). Colorado DOT has sometimes been similarly fussy, and indeed got AASHTO approval to delete from US 6 some relinquished short segments of that route even though that technically made US 6 a discontinuous route.

I don't understand the incentives here. What interest does Colorado DOT have in whether or not AASHTO includes or excludes that bit of US-6 in its big ledger in Washington? Or what interest does AASHTO have in what Colorado does? What's the real purpose of these designations?

Actually, I think we could use a thread on "What are route numbers for?"

[Max Rockatansky]

It might vary by DOT or other transportation agency. In California, Caltrans insists that it can't legally treat relinquished route segments as part of the state highway system (fortunately, no Interstate or US route segments in California have been relinquished). Colorado DOT has sometimes been similarly fussy, and indeed got AASHTO approval to delete from US 6 some relinquished short segments of that route even though that technically made US 6 a discontinuous route.

I don't understand the incentives here. What interest does Colorado DOT have in whether or not AASHTO includes or excludes that bit of US-6 in its big ledger in Washington? Or what interest does AASHTO have in what Colorado does? What's the real purpose of these designations?

Actually, I think we could use a thread on "What are route numbers for?"

At least with California (and I suspect Colorado with this instance) the answer is:

Designation and Signage = State Maintenance

My assumption is that Colorado doesn't want the prospect of AASHTO noting US 6 exists on a facility acting as a frontage to I-70 unless it is absolutely necessary.  If US 6 was to be formally designated on a relinquished highway segment it might give a locality an argument for the state to take it back over formally.

[oscar]

To me, a ferry isn't part of a route unless they bolt a sign to the deck railing.

The Wisconsin end of the S.S. Badger car ferry route has a US 10 route marker on the ramp used for vehicle boarding, and another painted on the ship above that ramp. OTOH, there is an US 10 Ends marker well before the boarding area at the Michigan end, even though it joined Wisconsin's application to AASHTO (which was granted) to add the ferry route to US 10.

[Scott5114]

It might vary by DOT or other transportation agency. In California, Caltrans insists that it can't legally treat relinquished route segments as part of the state highway system (fortunately, no Interstate or US route segments in California have been relinquished). Colorado DOT has sometimes been similarly fussy, and indeed got AASHTO approval to delete from US 6 some relinquished short segments of that route even though that technically made US 6 a discontinuous route.

I don't understand the incentives here. What interest does Colorado DOT have in whether or not AASHTO includes or excludes that bit of US-6 in its big ledger in Washington? Or what interest does AASHTO have in what Colorado does? What's the real purpose of these designations?

Actually, I think we could use a thread on "What are route numbers for?"

The "real purpose" of a designation varies a lot from state to state.

In some states (especially those with a history of political corruption), it is used for accounting. No state money can be spent on a road that doesn't have a state highway number. Thus no state highway number can exist on a road that isn't a state highway.

In other states, the route markers are for navigation. In these states, a route designation can exist on a road owned by absolutely anyone.

The FHWA/AASHTO ledger is basically "what do we have permission to sign as a national-level route". But not every state follows that 100%. Oklahoma has a stretch of US-377 that was congressionally legislated but AASHTO refused to approve. So the AASHTO ledger and federal law conflict, and Oklahoma's signage follows federal law.

To me, a ferry isn't part of a route unless they bolt a sign to the deck railing.

The Wisconsin end of the S.S. Badger car ferry route has a US 10 route marker on the ramp used for vehicle boarding, and another painted on the ship above that ramp. OTOH, there is an US 10 Ends marker well before the boarding area at the Michigan end, even though it joined Wisconsin's application to AASHTO (which was granted) to add the ferry route to US 10.

Personally, I would interpret that as needing to proceed to that gate (on foot if need be) for clinching purposes. I probably wouldn't use the ferry for the sake of getting a clinch because, well, I'm in the hobby to look at roads and road signs, not boats. It might be nice to take the ferry for the sake of taking the ferry, but if my goal was to clinch US 10, I would consider it optional.

[Bruce]

To me, a ferry isn't part of a route unless they bolt a sign to the deck railing.

WSDOT sometimes places shields on the ferry docks (SR 160 at Southworth) and maintains the vessels, so they're very much part of the highway system.

[Quillz]

[Max Rockatansky]

Not quite a highway shield on a ferry but this I thought was sufficient for CA 220:

https://flic.kr/p/Rsu3SN

[Scott5114]

That's the exact image I had in mind when I posted that.

[Flint1979]

To me, a ferry isn't part of a route unless they bolt a sign to the deck railing.

The Wisconsin end of the S.S. Badger car ferry route has a US 10 route marker on the ramp used for vehicle boarding, and another painted on the ship above that ramp. OTOH, there is an US 10 Ends marker well before the boarding area at the Michigan end, even though it joined Wisconsin's application to AASHTO (which was granted) to add the ferry route to US 10.

It's not that far from the boarding area, it's after Dowland Street which is the last street before the boarding area and the sign is real close to the Welcome to Michigan sign they are right across the street from each other.

[Bruce]

Also another quibble about signing ferry routes: a big enough fleet might be rotated between various routes, so a fixed sign would do little good. WSF generally assigns certain boats to certain routes but will change them up for capacity balancing, maintenance, or prioritizing lifeline routes.

[NWI_Irish96]

This discussion is the first I've heard that there's a gap in US 6. It's listed as continuous in TravelMapping. Where is the gap?