Loneliest Highway In Your State.

[Rothman]

I do not know where it was placed in 2015, but in 2009, it was indeed placed near NY 30.  NY 344 was placed 50 yards from the state border.

Which is half a mile east of the main locations the route serves. Interesting.

I would have thought Bash-Bish Falls would have driven traffic higher on the route.

The count point is beyond Bash Bish Falls. Main access point for the falls is half a mile west of the state border.

Huh?  Bash Bish Falls is in MA.

[cl94]

I do not know where it was placed in 2015, but in 2009, it was indeed placed near NY 30.  NY 344 was placed 50 yards from the state border.

Which is half a mile east of the main locations the route serves. Interesting.

I would have thought Bash-Bish Falls would have driven traffic higher on the route.

The count point is beyond Bash Bish Falls. Main access point for the falls is half a mile west of the state border.

Huh?  Bash Bish Falls is in MA.

Yes, but the easy way in is from NY. Park on the NY side and it's 3/4 mile each way of flat along the creek to walk to it. MA side requires you to hike down 250 feet and then reclimb it to get back to your car, because the parking is at the top of the cliff. Most people go in from NY

[vdeane]

Plus the count was taken in early May and the AADT numbers would not include the weekend when I imagine most of the tourists would be there.

[MattCollopy]

CT 11 in connecticut is very sad and lonely, even during rush hour.

[TBKS1]

AR-161 for sure. (Southern Part)

There's absolutely no reason to travel on it if you were going from Scott to England.



The other 161 in Jacksonville is usually always really busy all the time.

[Aaron Camp]

In Illinois, the lowest AADT I could find on a state highway was 225 for a stretch of IL-100 south of Pearl, Illinois in Pike County, although there may be a stretch of state highway in Illinois with a lower AADT that I've not been able to find.

[catsynth]

CA 62 east of Yucca Valley is pretty lonely.
(But a nice drive)

[Max Rockatansky]

CA 62 east of Yucca Valley is pretty lonely.
(But a nice drive)

I'd say more so east of 29 Palms to 177.  East of 177 traffic heading to Vegas or Laughlin makes the road substantially more lively. 

[SSOWorld]

Either WIS 17 or WIS 122.

[webny99]

^Is this the new "preferred alternative" for post editing? 

[SSOWorld]

^Is this the new "preferred alternative" for post editing? 

what are you talking about?

[webny99]

^Is this the new "preferred alternative" for post editing? 

what are you talking about?

Darn, I wish I had it quoted. The second (deleted) post quoted the first, but slipped in an edit to clarify that WIS 17 was only a contender north(?) of Eagle River.

Just thought I'd throw that in there for the record 

[cbeach40]

However, up in Canada, ON 402 strikes me as lonely. Absolutely nothing between Sarnia and London, almost to the point of being eerie (no pun intended), especially in the winter. Not even services or buildings or anything, just vast swaths of undeveloped nothingness. Low traffic volumes, too.

Um, sure, except for the spots where you have small towns next to the highway at Delaware and Reeces Corners - the latter of which has a decent size truck stop right at the highway. Oh, and there's the stretch through Strathroy where there's homes and factories abutting the highway. Plus it takes over 20,000 vehicles per day.

Even taking the development out of the equation, in what reality is a road that busy lonely? Taking a look at the hourly counts, through the day you're going to have a vehicle go by you in one direction or another about every 2-3 seconds. Even the deadest time, from 3 to 4 am on a Sunday morning they'll still be a vehicle every 30 seconds.

There's plenty of sections of freeway in the province that are a lot quieter and more remote than 402 (like 400, 69, 17), not to mention the thousands of kilometres of two lane highway in the middle of nowhere.

[Flint1979]

However, up in Canada, ON 402 strikes me as lonely. Absolutely nothing between Sarnia and London, almost to the point of being eerie (no pun intended), especially in the winter. Not even services or buildings or anything, just vast swaths of undeveloped nothingness. Low traffic volumes, too.

Um, sure, except for the spots where you have small towns next to the highway at Delaware and Reeces Corners - the latter of which has a decent size truck stop right at the highway. Oh, and there's the stretch through Strathroy where there's homes and factories abutting the highway. Plus it takes over 20,000 vehicles per day.

Even taking the development out of the equation, in what reality is a road that busy lonely? Taking a look at the hourly counts, through the day you're going to have a vehicle go by you in one direction or another about every 2-3 seconds. Even the deadest time, from 3 to 4 am on a Sunday morning they'll still be a vehicle every 30 seconds.

There's plenty of sections of freeway in the province that are a lot quieter and more remote than 402 (like 400, 69, 17), not to mention the thousands of kilometres of two lane highway in the middle of nowhere.

I agree with that. I don't see how 402 is a lonely highway either it's actually part of the suggested route between Toronto and Chicago. When you connect with I-69 in Port Huron and continue to Battle Creek that is quicker than taking 401 to Windsor and crossing over to the U.S. at Detroit considering that I-69 has another intersection in that area with I-94. My point is that it's part of a route between two major cities that is going to see traffic. If I was going from Toronto to Chicago or vice versa I would indeed break off I-94 at exit 108 and take I-69 to Port Huron and cross over the Bluewater Bridge.

[oscar]

However, up in Canada, ON 402 strikes me as lonely. Absolutely nothing between Sarnia and London, almost to the point of being eerie (no pun intended), especially in the winter. Not even services or buildings or anything, just vast swaths of undeveloped nothingness. Low traffic volumes, too.

There's plenty of sections of freeway in the province that are a lot quieter and more remote than 402 (like 400, 69, 17), not to mention the thousands of kilometres of two lane highway in the middle of nowhere.

For lonely (and mind-numbingly boring), try ON 11 between Nipigon and Cochrane. Nothing at all in the 130 miles between Longiac and Hearst except the road and the parallel rail line, and not much more (except in Kapuskasing) the rest of the route between Nipigon and Longiac, or Hearst and Cochrane.

[doorknob60]

There's absolutely nothing on OR78. No towns and not even phone service for much of it. Having never driven it myself, I imagine OR205 would be a good candidate here as well.

As a side note I think US-6 is more deserving of that title than US 50 in NV! (Not to mention NV140...)

OR 380 gets an honorable mention.

I've driven on the full length of OR-78 probably 3-4 times and the full length or OR-380 once. 380 had a lot more traffic. On OR-78, I'd usually go the whole distance of the highway only seeing 5-10 cars (majority of those being between Burns and New Princeton; I've gone from New Princeton all the way to US-95 seeing no cars before). I'm not sure why OR-380 had as much traffic as it did (it wasn't much, but it didn't feel super lonely), but it is what it is. Could have just been the day I went through. I'd be interested to see OR-140 east of Lakeview though, never been on it and I'd imagine it's a contender.

I'm not sure what I'd say for Idaho. A lot of the highways I've been on that feel remote/desolate, still get a reasonable amount of traffic since they're good routes to destinations. Like ID-22 and ID-33, US-20 (the stretches through the INL area feel very desolate and "Nevada-like", especially with the 70 MPH limits) being good routes from Boise to Idaho Falls or Montana. ID-21 goes through some very remote and mountainous terrain but it's a good route to some tourist-ish areas like Stanley. Out of the highways I've been on, ID-78 probably would be the most lonely. But I think ID-51 might be the winner (I have not driven on it). I'll have to check it out on my next trip to Vegas maybe (if I don't go in winter). US-95 north of Bonners Ferry (heading towards Canada) felt quite lonely too though, at least compared to the rest of US-95.

EDIT: Almost forgot about OR-27. That one almost feels like cheating though, since it shouldn't even be a state route.

[webny99]

However, up in Canada, ON 402 strikes me as lonely. Absolutely nothing between Sarnia and London, almost to the point of being eerie (no pun intended), especially in the winter. Not even services or buildings or anything, just vast swaths of undeveloped nothingness. Low traffic volumes, too.

Um, sure, except for the spots where you have small towns next to the highway at Delaware and Reeces Corners - the latter of which has a decent size truck stop right at the highway. Oh, and there's the stretch through Strathroy where there's homes and factories abutting the highway. Plus it takes over 20,000 vehicles per day.

Even taking the development out of the equation, in what reality is a road that busy lonely? Taking a look at the hourly counts, through the day you're going to have a vehicle go by you in one direction or another about every 2-3 seconds. Even the deadest time, from 3 to 4 am on a Sunday morning they'll still be a vehicle every 30 seconds.

There's plenty of sections of freeway in the province that are a lot quieter and more remote than 402 (like 400, 69, 17), not to mention the thousands of kilometres of two lane highway in the middle of nowhere.

I agree with that. I don't see how 402 is a lonely highway either it's actually part of the suggested route between Toronto and Chicago. When you connect with I-69 in Port Huron and continue to Battle Creek that is quicker than taking 401 to Windsor and crossing over to the U.S. at Detroit considering that I-69 has another intersection in that area with I-94. My point is that it's part of a route between two major cities that is going to see traffic. If I was going from Toronto to Chicago or vice versa I would indeed break off I-94 at exit 108 and take I-69 to Port Huron and cross over the Bluewater Bridge.

I was considering various options for defending myself, but I'd probably just make myself look like a fool.

It doesn't really have anything to do with traffic volumes. It has to do with the overall atmosphere and character of the area. I'd say roads that qualify despite high volumes are much better candidates than roads that qualify because of low volumes, at least IMO. Compared to other areas of Southern Ontario, I never fail to be impressed with how underdeveloped and remote the London-Sarnia corridor is. I think anyone who has driven on 402 will understand what I mean, and that should suffice.

[Bickendan]

There's absolutely nothing on OR78. No towns and not even phone service for much of it. Having never driven it myself, I imagine OR205 would be a good candidate here as well.

As a side note I think US-6 is more deserving of that title than US 50 in NV! (Not to mention NV140...)

OR 380 gets an honorable mention.

I've driven on the full length of OR-78 probably 3-4 times and the full length or OR-380 once. 380 had a lot more traffic. On OR-78, I'd usually go the whole distance of the highway only seeing 5-10 cars (majority of those being between Burns and New Princeton; I've gone from New Princeton all the way to US-95 seeing no cars before). I'm not sure why OR-380 had as much traffic as it did (it wasn't much, but it didn't feel super lonely), but it is what it is. Could have just been the day I went through. I'd be interested to see OR-140 east of Lakeview though, never been on it and I'd imagine it's a contender.

I'm not sure what I'd say for Idaho. A lot of the highways I've been on that feel remote/desolate, still get a reasonable amount of traffic since they're good routes to destinations. Like ID-22 and ID-33, US-20 (the stretches through the INL area feel very desolate and "Nevada-like", especially with the 70 MPH limits) being good routes from Boise to Idaho Falls or Montana. ID-21 goes through some very remote and mountainous terrain but it's a good route to some tourist-ish areas like Stanley. Out of the highways I've been on, ID-78 probably would be the most lonely. But I think ID-51 might be the winner (I have not driven on it). I'll have to check it out on my next trip to Vegas maybe (if I don't go in winter). US-95 north of Bonners Ferry (heading towards Canada) felt quite lonely too though, at least compared to the rest of US-95.

EDIT: Almost forgot about OR-27. That one almost feels like cheating though, since it shouldn't even be a state route.

OR 27 was busier than 380 when I went through.

[Max Rockatansky]

I'll second US 6 from Ely to Tonopah as being more "Lonely" than US 50 to Fallon regarding Nevada.

[MattCollopy]

Did anyone mention I-40 from AZ Border to Barstow, CA? I was driving on that highway on my way from grand canyon to Los Angeles.

Also the I-80 all through Nevada and western Utah.

There's this little town called Norwich, CT and if you go there there is not a soul to be seen. So the south end of CT-2 is very lonely.

[Flint1979]

However, up in Canada, ON 402 strikes me as lonely. Absolutely nothing between Sarnia and London, almost to the point of being eerie (no pun intended), especially in the winter. Not even services or buildings or anything, just vast swaths of undeveloped nothingness. Low traffic volumes, too.

Um, sure, except for the spots where you have small towns next to the highway at Delaware and Reeces Corners - the latter of which has a decent size truck stop right at the highway. Oh, and there's the stretch through Strathroy where there's homes and factories abutting the highway. Plus it takes over 20,000 vehicles per day.

Even taking the development out of the equation, in what reality is a road that busy lonely? Taking a look at the hourly counts, through the day you're going to have a vehicle go by you in one direction or another about every 2-3 seconds. Even the deadest time, from 3 to 4 am on a Sunday morning they'll still be a vehicle every 30 seconds.

There's plenty of sections of freeway in the province that are a lot quieter and more remote than 402 (like 400, 69, 17), not to mention the thousands of kilometres of two lane highway in the middle of nowhere.

I agree with that. I don't see how 402 is a lonely highway either it's actually part of the suggested route between Toronto and Chicago. When you connect with I-69 in Port Huron and continue to Battle Creek that is quicker than taking 401 to Windsor and crossing over to the U.S. at Detroit considering that I-69 has another intersection in that area with I-94. My point is that it's part of a route between two major cities that is going to see traffic. If I was going from Toronto to Chicago or vice versa I would indeed break off I-94 at exit 108 and take I-69 to Port Huron and cross over the Bluewater Bridge.

I was considering various options for defending myself, but I'd probably just make myself look like a fool.

It doesn't really have anything to do with traffic volumes. It has to do with the overall atmosphere and character of the area. I'd say roads that qualify despite high volumes are much better candidates than roads that qualify because of low volumes, at least IMO. Compared to other areas of Southern Ontario, I never fail to be impressed with how underdeveloped and remote the London-Sarnia corridor is. I think anyone who has driven on 402 will understand what I mean, and that should suffice.

I can't disagree with you because that's how I view it as well. It's amazing how undeveloped and remote that part of Ontario is especially considering the Michigan side of Lake Huron and the St. Clair River aren't as undeveloped and remote. Sure northern Macomb County, Sanillac County and a lot of St. Clair County aren't that developed but certainly more so than the Ontario side of Lake Huron and the St. Clair River. I haven't been on 402 between Sarina and London since about 2003 but I remember not much being around there.

I remember going up to a resort community on the Ontario side of Lake Huron called Grand Bend. The entire car ride up there it just seemed like it was going to be a let down. We ended up ditching that plan and went to Niagara Falls instead. Route 21 up to Grand Bend was just as boring as 402. Once you got there, saw the beach, hung out for a few minutes it's like what else is there to do? Niagara Falls was more fun but that car ride over there once you cross over from Port Huron is pretty dull boring.

[cbeach40]

I was considering various options for defending myself, but I'd probably just make myself look like a fool.

It doesn't really have anything to do with traffic volumes. It has to do with the overall atmosphere and character of the area. I'd say roads that qualify despite high volumes are much better candidates than roads that qualify because of low volumes, at least IMO. Compared to other areas of Southern Ontario, I never fail to be impressed with how underdeveloped and remote the London-Sarnia corridor is. I think anyone who has driven on 402 will understand what I mean, and that should suffice.

Overall atmosphere and character of the area has human development all along it, services at most of the interchanges, and you never really get out of light pollution, yeah, at no point does it feel remote. I've driven 402, quite a lot in fact, and really don't see it as remote at all.

There are plenty of highways that don't have structures constantly in sight, are free of light pollution, and have zero cell phone coverage. Those are lonely highways.

I can't disagree with you because that's how I view it as well. It's amazing how undeveloped and remote that part of Ontario is especially considering the Michigan side of Lake Huron and the St. Clair River aren't as undeveloped and remote. Sure northern Macomb County, Sanillac County and a lot of St. Clair County aren't that developed but certainly more so than the Ontario side of Lake Huron and the St. Clair River.

Bah? I-94 east of New Haven and I-69 east of Lapeer are just as developed as 402. Mix of farmland with regular residential/industrial/highway service development.

I haven't been on 402 between Sarina and London since about 2003 but I remember not much being around there.

Well, that would explain a bit. The main developments along there corridor have been more recent.

I remember going up to a resort community on the Ontario side of Lake Huron called Grand Bend. The entire car ride up there it just seemed like it was going to be a let down. We ended up ditching that plan and went to Niagara Falls instead. Route 21 up to Grand Bend was just as boring as 402.

Definitely, in that area Hwy 21 and even more so Hwy 40 are a lot emptier of development than 402.

Once you got there, saw the beach, hung out for a few minutes it's like what else is there to do?

Off topic but yeah, Grand Bend isn't that great. Especially if you're sober. 

[webny99]

Overall atmosphere and character of the area has human development all along it, services at most of the interchanges, and you never really get out of light pollution, yeah, at no point does it feel remote. I've driven 402, quite a lot in fact, and really don't see it as remote at all.

Compared to Northern Ontario, it doesn't qualify as remote. But compared to the rest of Southern Ontario, and most of the US east of the Mississippi, it feels very remote. Here's one segment. I've driven it probably eight times and never seen services visible from any of the interchanges.

There are plenty of highways that don't have structures constantly in sight (ETA: including 402  ), are free of light pollution, and have zero cell phone coverage. Those are lonely highways.

But you're not even going to look for those on the Chicago - Toronto corridor. As I alluded to earlier, this corridor feels remote despite its strategic location, not because of its location.

[Max Rockatansky]

Did anyone mention I-40 from AZ Border to Barstow, CA? I was driving on that highway on my way from grand canyon to Los Angeles.

Also the I-80 all through Nevada and western Utah.

There's this little town called Norwich, CT and if you go there there is not a soul to be seen. So the south end of CT-2 is very lonely.

Problem is that I-40 being an Interstate draws way too much traffic to take that lonely crown away from the likes of CA 62, US 95, or CA 127 in the immediate region.  I'd be hesitant to even rank I-70 in Utah as a truly lonely road due to the high volume of truck traffic. 

[US 89]

Did anyone mention I-40 from AZ Border to Barstow, CA? I was driving on that highway on my way from grand canyon to Los Angeles.

Also the I-80 all through Nevada and western Utah.

There's this little town called Norwich, CT and if you go there there is not a soul to be seen. So the south end of CT-2 is very lonely.

Problem is that I-40 being an Interstate draws way too much traffic to take that lonely crown away from the likes of CA 62, US 95, or CA 127 in the immediate region.  I’d be hesitant to even rank I-70 in Utah as a truly lonely road due to the high volume of truck traffic.

As interstates go, there aren't very many towns along the western interstates. I-70 has that 110 mile service desert, and I-80 has 37 miles without an exit in the salt flats. That's also a 70 mile service desert; it would be a 90-100 mile desert if not for one gas station in the middle of nowhere.

But just because there aren't any towns doesn't make them lonely. The western interstates are actually worse for truck traffic than a lot of people think, because there aren't really any alternate routes. Most eastern interstates have at least a parallel corridor (like a US route) to take some of the traffic off the freeway, but there isn't a parallel corridor for most western interstates. I-80 is really the only corridor that comes into the Bay Area from the east, and as such gets a lot of truck traffic on it. Sure, US 50 exists, but it's so out of the way and goes through a whole lot of nothing, so no one uses it: the AADT on US 50 in western Utah is less than 400, while I-80 through the salt flats has an AADT of around 7500.