How many instances are there of a US route ending at a seemingly arbitrary location? This map is of the Stuttgart, AR vicinity. Look carefully at the road that is marked as US 79 BUS and AR 130 on each side of the town. There is a point 2.1 miles east of US 79 that it shows two roads ending. This is the intersection of Main Street. US 79B (technically US 79C) and AR 130 used to head north on Main but Main has been decommissioned and now AR 130 and US 79B end at each other at a non-highway junction. Arkansas has examples of state highways ending at non-highway junctions. One example is that AR 190 "turns into" 291 at a seemingly random junction (291 used to turn west but that section was decommissioned.) Why AHTD doesn't just renumber one highway is beyond me (and par for the course with AHTD.) Back to Stuttgart: AR 130 just "turns into" US 79B with no fanfare. The whole stretch should be AR 130, or US 79B should be extended east on 130 and north on US 165 to give this corridor a single number.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4310/36117313702_b9db1be2fc_o.jpg)
US 20 ends at MA 2 in Boston, not at any other US route or Interstate. (And not at the ocean; there are still a few miles of land.)
US 3 turns into MA 3 at MA 2A in Cambridge. While it is one continuous route, it is a bit strange that the US designation ends there.
For some reason, US 44 has a mile-long overlap with MA 3 and then continues to the ocean for another mile instead of just ending when it reaches MA 3. (The last one mile segment of US 44 is not a freeway; US 44 immediately west of MA 3 and the relevant segment of MA 3 are both freeways.)
US 202 near Newport, DE. It randomly ends at US 13/US 40 while multiplexed with DE 141 (which is also the end of the DE 141 freeway). This change was extremely arbitrary, considering it used to use DE 202 to go into Downtown Wilmington, and end at US 13 (now Business US 13), which would make sense as an end.
If I had my way, I'd just make DE 202 into US 202 again, remove US 202 from I-95 and DE 141, and put US 13 back on US 13 Business through Wilmington.
In Sandusky, Ohio, US-250 ends at US-6 about a mile and a half from Lake Erie, but what I never understood was that the continuing road is always very busy. Always wondered why the designation could not continue on to encompass that stretch of road.
US 319 is concurrent with US 98 for a stretch, but just "quits" and decides not to cross the bridge over the Apalacicola River.
US 167's southern terminus just seems to be arbitrary with LA 14, LA 82, and others in Abbeville continuing on.
Quote from: formulanone on July 31, 2017, 07:34:34 AM
US 319 is concurrent with US 98 for a stretch, but just "quits" and decides not to cross the bridge over the Apalacicola River.
US 167's southern terminus just seems to be arbitrary with LA 14, LA 82, and others in Abbeville continuing on.
The southern end of US 319 is an excellent example. I've never understood why it ends where it does.
US 167 ends where it does because there's really nowhere else to go. There are no major towns to the south of Abbeville. It is odd but not unprecedented for it to end at a state highway.
Another good example is US 69. It ends at MN 13 which is a silly place for it to end. It should extend to at least I-90 exit 154. The reason it ends where it does is because Main Street was once US 16.
US 5 in New Haven, CT. Yeah, I get it that it ends at I-91, but it used to (and still should) continue the remaining length of State St., where it would still end at a US route (1). Just feels like it randomly dies when you're driving it
Quote from: formulanone on July 31, 2017, 07:34:34 AM
US 319 is concurrent with US 98 for a stretch, but just "quits" and decides not to cross the bridge over the Apalacicola River.
US 167's southern terminus just seems to be arbitrary with LA 14, LA 82, and others in Abbeville continuing on.
US 319 approaches Apalachicola Bay from the east has a terminus where the ferry location to Apalachicola used to be located at and was routed to the current southern terminus by 1933:
http://www.usends.com/319.html
US 98 on the other hand approached Apalachicola Bay from the west and ended at the opposite end of the ferry location where that would have taken you to the terminus of US 319:
http://www.usends.com/98.html
The strange multiplex of US 98/319 has been in existence since 1952, kind of amazing how long it really has hung on.
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4166/34621607615_451c8b259e_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/UKoMKe)1 (https://flic.kr/p/UKoMKe) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
US 89 has a strange terminus in Flagstaff where it dead ends at Country Club Drive. It isn't much that the routing doesn't make sense but rather how poorly it is actually signed:
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2224429,-111.5862165,3a,75y,254.2h,92.38t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLmPjKS2qVAkhIUXa427I4w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
Which is made worse by the fact that AZ 89A actually runs into the city to Milton Road before ending at the I-40BL. Wouldn't it make more sense (at least from a routing perspective) to have US 89 run on Milton Road south through Flagstaff to I-17? 89A would be connected to the implied parent route minimum....
US 1 in Key West, granted I know the location of the southern terminus is at the Monroe County Courthouse but what purpose does it really serve having it end suddenly at Fleming and Whitehead when it could be pushed back to the junction of Roosevelt Blvd entering Key West itself.
US 14 has a long multiplex with US 20 west from Greybull, WY to Yellowstone where it ends. I've never been a huge fan of routings that multiplex to a location where one ends but the other continues. US 180 is similar to this with AZ 64 at the south rim of the Grand Canyon. US 180 ends at the National Park entrance but AZ 64 emerges on the other side to approach US 89. Stuff like US 212 ending at Yellowstone and US 385 at Big Bend National Park make more sense since they are singular routes that aren't multiplexed.
My understanding is that when they complete the new US 301 toll highway in Delaware, US 301 is going to just end at DE 1.
Quote from: bugo on July 31, 2017, 07:42:40 AM
Another good example is US 69. It ends at MN 13 which is a silly place for it to end. It should extend to at least I-90 exit 154. The reason it ends where it does is because Main Street was once US 16.
I've thought more than once that it should replace MN-13 to New Prague and then MN-21 north to Jordan, where it can end properly at US-169.
^ One could argue that it wouldn't be a "proper end", as you'd have the parent ending at the child.
I'd agree with extending it to I-90 Exit 154, or lob off the Main St leg of MN 13 and end it at US 65 (it's original terminus was at US 65 way back in the day anyway).
Quote from: dgolub on July 31, 2017, 08:41:07 AM
My understanding is that when they complete the new US 301 toll highway in Delaware, US 301 is going to just end at DE 1.
Ridiculous
US 40/322 ends at Atlantic Ave (or at Ventnor Ave depending on who you believe). Although this road is supposed to be part of "Ocean Drive" which has its own trailblazer, especially further south, it is not signed here, nor do these roads have any sort of number, even a county one. It could end at CR 629 (Atlantic City border) or the boardwalk.
US 70 ends in the middle of a residential area on the NC coast, about 1/2 mile before the road dead-ends at an inlet. The endpoint is well-signed too.
US 264 meets US 64 in Zebulon, NC and follows it into Raleigh. 264 ends at the I-440 JCT, and 64 continues on along 440. It wasnt always like this, as US 64 Business is solo, while the freeway bypass is US 64/264.
This one may not be specifically "random", but the ends of US 74 and 76 in Wrightsville Beach are very unclear. There is a sign that reads "END US 76, NEXT 1.5 MILES"; No clue what that means. US 74 just has a shield mounted at an intersection with no directional arrows or banners at all.
US-41 ends in a cul-de-sac a mile or so east of Copper Harbor MI. https://goo.gl/maps/kDKmW393rhq
There's a plaque in the middle of the cul-de-sac.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FJB6eA7L.jpg&hash=8fe996f6d6f9e1e65c66e442f5a8073bd9de6060)
US-45 ends with no warning on the south side of Ontonagon MI, although River Street continues for a bit. Last time I was up there, there was no END signage; instead, a series of TO SOUTH US-45 assemblies were posted in a loop around a square block.
Here is a good one: U.S. 35 in Northern Indiana... where does it end? We don't know, but what we know is that U.S. 35 used to end at U.S. 12 until the city of Michigan City took over and redid Michigan Blvd... It looks very nice now!!
I saw photos of US 45 ENDS signs when it ended at the end-to-end with M-64, but then 64 was relocated and 45 was extended slightly.
US 80 ends at a cul-du-sac at Tybee Island, GA.
US 360 ends at SR 644 in Reedville, VA, a road that ends itself a short distance later.
The nearly cross country US 60 ends at a very short cross street in Virginia Beach. The road continues as unnumbered General Booth Blvd.
I guess others have a different idea about what would be "seemingly random". A highway ending at or close to an ocean or at the end of the developed part of a peninsula make perfect sense to me.
US 360's west end is sort of like US 319, where it ends while concurrent with another route (US 58, in this case); however, it ends at its old routing.
Quote from: plainThe nearly cross country US 60 ends at a very short cross street in Virginia Beach. The road continues as unnumbered General Booth Blvd.
The "signed" end is not the actual end. US 60 ends at the loop on Atlantic Ave at Rudee Inlet.
Quote from: wanderer2575 on July 31, 2017, 03:20:22 PM
US-45 ends with no warning on the south side of Ontonagon MI, although River Street continues for a bit. Last time I was up there, there was no END signage; instead, a series of TO SOUTH US-45 assemblies were posted in a loop around a square block.
US 45 ends at the corner of River and Ontonagon streets in downtown Ontonagon, about two blocks from the end of River Street closest to the mouth of the Ontonagon River at Lake Superior. While that seems random, Ontonagon Street was the route of M-64 across the river before the new bridge was built south of town. US 45 is well signed north of the current intersection with M-64 and M-38 and the old route of M-38 into downtown.
Quote from: bugo on July 31, 2017, 07:42:40 AM
Another good example is US 69. It ends at MN 13 which is a silly place for it to end. It should extend to at least I-90 exit 154. The reason it ends where it does is because Main Street was once US 16.
One could argue that both of the US highways in Albert Lea end in the wrong location. I personally don't see the point of extending US 65 north of its south exit with I-35.
Going further north, there's the north end of US 218 in Owatonna. It should either end at US 14 at the SE corner of town or at I-35, but not at the exit which was US 65 way back when.
I'd say the west end of US 209 counts. It should be truncated to I-81.
^^ Despite the signs, MnDOT's Logpoint still has US 218 ending at I-35.
US 89 ends at the intersection of Old 66 and Country Club Dr in Flagstaff AZ. Which is silly, because I-40 is literally a half mile away from there. It should be extended south on Country Club to I-40.
The funny thing is, the signage on I-40 suggests that 89 does do that, but there is an end sign posted facing west at the north end of Country Club.
Quote from: roadguy2 on August 01, 2017, 10:29:29 AM
US 89 ends at the intersection of Old 66 and Country Club Dr in Flagstaff AZ. Which is silly, because I-40 is literally a half mile away from there. It should be extended south on Country Club to I-40.
The funny thing is, the signage on I-40 suggests that 89 does do that, but there is an end sign posted facing west at the north end of Country Club.
Problem is that it would dead end on US 180. A better routing would be down Milton to I-17 so it can intersect AZ 89A
Quote from: BrianP on August 01, 2017, 10:06:18 AM
I'd say the west end of US 209 counts. It should be truncated to I-81.
I think theoretically, US 209 "continues" across the Millersburg Ferry to end at US 11/15.
I think it should take over PA 147 southward to US 22/US 322.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 01, 2017, 10:38:41 AM
Quote from: roadguy2 on August 01, 2017, 10:29:29 AM
US 89 ends at the intersection of Old 66 and Country Club Dr in Flagstaff AZ. Which is silly, because I-40 is literally a half mile away from there. It should be extended south on Country Club to I-40.
The funny thing is, the signage on I-40 suggests that 89 does do that, but there is an end sign posted facing west at the north end of Country Club.
Problem is that it would dead end on US 180. A better routing would be down Milton to I-17 so it can intersect AZ 89A
And then be extended down 89A and 89 to US 93 or US 60?
In all seriousness though, I would prefer that arrangement, since it would emphasize I-17's role as the replacement for US 89 to Phoenix.
Quote from: roadguy2 on August 01, 2017, 11:09:47 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 01, 2017, 10:38:41 AM
Quote from: roadguy2 on August 01, 2017, 10:29:29 AM
US 89 ends at the intersection of Old 66 and Country Club Dr in Flagstaff AZ. Which is silly, because I-40 is literally a half mile away from there. It should be extended south on Country Club to I-40.
The funny thing is, the signage on I-40 suggests that 89 does do that, but there is an end sign posted facing west at the north end of Country Club.
Problem is that it would dead end on US 180. A better routing would be down Milton to I-17 so it can intersect AZ 89A
And then be extended down 89A and 89 to US 93 or US 60?
In all seriousness though, I would prefer that arrangement, since it would emphasize I-17's role as the replacement for US 89 to Phoenix.
Really my opinion is that US 89 should have never pulled north from Wickenburg but instead routed to Prescott Valley on US 89a/AZ 89a. The alignment from Ash Fork to Prescott which became AZ 89 really didn't warrant staying a US Route but AZ 89a connects major tourist areas and has two freeway/expressway configurations. Besides, I find it strange that Prescott doesn't have at least a US Route when the area is actually getting fairly large. The only problem with Milton is that it isn't state maintained anymore why is probably why it is signed as the I-40BL.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 01, 2017, 11:16:41 AM
Quote from: roadguy2 on August 01, 2017, 11:09:47 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 01, 2017, 10:38:41 AM
Quote from: roadguy2 on August 01, 2017, 10:29:29 AM
US 89 ends at the intersection of Old 66 and Country Club Dr in Flagstaff AZ. Which is silly, because I-40 is literally a half mile away from there. It should be extended south on Country Club to I-40.
The funny thing is, the signage on I-40 suggests that 89 does do that, but there is an end sign posted facing west at the north end of Country Club.
Problem is that it would dead end on US 180. A better routing would be down Milton to I-17 so it can intersect AZ 89A
And then be extended down 89A and 89 to US 93 or US 60?
In all seriousness though, I would prefer that arrangement, since it would emphasize I-17's role as the replacement for US 89 to Phoenix.
Really my opinion is that US 89 should have never pulled north from Wickenburg but instead routed to Prescott Valley on US 89a/AZ 89a. The alignment from Ash Fork to Prescott which became AZ 89 really didn't warrant staying a US Route but AZ 89a connects major tourist areas and has two freeway/expressway configurations. Besides, I find it strange that Prescott doesn't have at least a US Route when the area is actually getting fairly large. The only problem with Milton is that it isn't state maintained anymore why is probably why it is signed as the I-40BL.
I agree with you. However, AZ 89A does have that nasty section north of Sedona in Oak Creek Canyon. Maybe AZ DOT doesn't want to get a lot of trucks and other commercial traffic on that road, especially in the winter.
Quote from: roadguy2 on August 01, 2017, 11:42:57 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 01, 2017, 11:16:41 AM
Quote from: roadguy2 on August 01, 2017, 11:09:47 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 01, 2017, 10:38:41 AM
Quote from: roadguy2 on August 01, 2017, 10:29:29 AM
US 89 ends at the intersection of Old 66 and Country Club Dr in Flagstaff AZ. Which is silly, because I-40 is literally a half mile away from there. It should be extended south on Country Club to I-40.
The funny thing is, the signage on I-40 suggests that 89 does do that, but there is an end sign posted facing west at the north end of Country Club.
Problem is that it would dead end on US 180. A better routing would be down Milton to I-17 so it can intersect AZ 89A
And then be extended down 89A and 89 to US 93 or US 60?
In all seriousness though, I would prefer that arrangement, since it would emphasize I-17's role as the replacement for US 89 to Phoenix.
Really my opinion is that US 89 should have never pulled north from Wickenburg but instead routed to Prescott Valley on US 89a/AZ 89a. The alignment from Ash Fork to Prescott which became AZ 89 really didn't warrant staying a US Route but AZ 89a connects major tourist areas and has two freeway/expressway configurations. Besides, I find it strange that Prescott doesn't have at least a US Route when the area is actually getting fairly large. The only problem with Milton is that it isn't state maintained anymore why is probably why it is signed as the I-40BL.
I agree with you. However, AZ 89A does have that nasty section north of Sedona in Oak Creek Canyon. Maybe AZ DOT doesn't want to get a lot of trucks and other commercial traffic on that road, especially in the winter.
Might be something like that but I doubt many truckers would still take 89a even if it was a US Route. Oak Creek Canyon and Jerome are infamous for being difficult, although compared to some truck routes in California or Colorado it is comparatively tame.
US 6 used to end at a loop of itself in Provincetown, MA. Now it just transitions onto MA 6A, it's original alignment through the town proper.
Quote from: cjk374 on July 31, 2017, 04:34:24 PM
US 80 ends at a cul-du-sac at Tybee Island, GA.
US 80's posted end is well short of the cul-de-sac, although it did used to run further south than the Arby's
Quote from: jemacedo9 on August 01, 2017, 10:45:30 AM
Quote from: BrianP on August 01, 2017, 10:06:18 AM
I'd say the west end of US 209 counts. It should be truncated to I-81.
I think theoretically, US 209 "continues" across the Millersburg Ferry to end at US 11/15.
I think it should take over PA 147 southward to US 22/US 322.
That or build a road bridge to actually connect 209 to 11/15.
One I am surprised no one mentioned is US 223 in Sylvania, Ohio.
Quote from: Roadsguy on August 01, 2017, 05:26:09 PM
Quote from: jemacedo9 on August 01, 2017, 10:45:30 AM
Quote from: BrianP on August 01, 2017, 10:06:18 AM
I'd say the west end of US 209 counts. It should be truncated to I-81.
I think theoretically, US 209 "continues" across the Millersburg Ferry to end at US 11/15.
I think it should take over PA 147 southward to US 22/US 322.
That or build a road bridge to actually connect 209 to 11/15.
With interstate routes to the north and south the need for that is near zero. Really only locals have need there. And heck the ferry doesn't run year round and doesn't run everyday when it does run. Which again shows the really low need.
An alternative to truncation would be a southern reroute say along PA 325 to end at US 22/322. Or use a northern reroute along say PA 54 to end at US 11 or I-80.
US 412's eastern terminus. It would be nice if they extended it to US 431 at least.
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6304844,-86.8994275,13.04z (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6304844,-86.8994275,13.04z)
Quote from: ColossalBlocks on August 01, 2017, 10:50:49 PM
US 412's eastern terminus. It would be nice if they extended it to US 431 at least.
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6304844,-86.8994275,13.04z (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6304844,-86.8994275,13.04z)
It should never have been designated, at least with the route number it has. I still think that 412 should have been designated 464, 370, 162...the options are limitless.
US-21 ends at a somewhat random point on Hunting Island, SC, where a former alignment originally headed off towards the lighthouse. Would make more sense if it was extended to end at the entrance to the state park or at the gate to Fripp Island.
US 29 ends at a T-intersection with MD 99 in Mount Hebron, MD, just north of its interchange with I-70. The interchange has a pair of directional two-lane ramps to and from I-70 that could serve as the US 29 mainline, with the remaining stub being an unsigned extension of MD 99. Most traffic exits at I-70 already, so there's no reason why US 29 should go any further.
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on July 31, 2017, 03:37:21 PM
Here is a good one: U.S. 35 in Northern Indiana... where does it end? We don't know, but what we know is that U.S. 35 used to end at U.S. 12 until the city of Michigan City took over and redid Michigan Blvd... It looks very nice now!!
US 35 ends at US 20 just east of the I-94 interchange.
What about US 400 in Granada, CO?
Quote from: catsynth on August 09, 2017, 12:26:40 PM
What about US 400 in Granada, CO?
Depends I guess. Colorado clearly didn't want it so they quietly ended it at the first reasonable place they could.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on August 09, 2017, 01:17:19 PM
Quote from: catsynth on August 09, 2017, 12:26:40 PM
What about US 400 in Granada, CO?
Depends I guess. Colorado clearly didn't want it so they quietly ended it at the first reasonable place they could.
Not really anyplace for it to go in CO either. Really, it should end at US 50 in Dodge City, as it's concurrent with US 50 west of there.
Quote from: catsynth on August 09, 2017, 12:26:40 PM
What about US 400 in Granada, CO?
US400's existence in general is seemingly random. :)
The eastern end of US34 is the poster child for seeming randomness. The City wants to take the responsibility for the state and US highways but won't allocate any resources to take care of them? That's garbage already. But ending a US route at a state route, IL43? I get the history of it, but still. Wtf.
US 12 ends at a city street corner in Detroit. See http://michiganhighways.org/maps/DetroitDowntownTrunklines.pdf
US 220's northern terminus is at a side street in Waverly, NY: https://goo.gl/maps/UoEZvvUZT8S2
(And it wouldn't have been too hard to extend it northward (by way of current NY 34) to meet its' parent in Auburn.)
Quote from: Flint1979 on August 09, 2017, 12:00:05 PM
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on July 31, 2017, 03:37:21 PM
Here is a good one: U.S. 35 in Northern Indiana... where does it end? We don't know, but what we know is that U.S. 35 used to end at U.S. 12 until the city of Michigan City took over and redid Michigan Blvd... It looks very nice now!!
US 35 ends at US 20 just east of the I-94 interchange.
US 35 doesn't end at the stop light east of I-94:
https://goo.gl/maps/GqPRtWtPnyr (https://goo.gl/maps/GqPRtWtPnyr)
35 is concurrent with 20 from there west to the SR 912 interchange (Michigan City bypass):
https://goo.gl/maps/WmFX96by6nt (https://goo.gl/maps/WmFX96by6nt)
Although I've never seen an END US 35 banner (or a START banner, going the other way), the sign above confirms the concurrency. You might think that the sign was left over from when 35 went all the way downtown, but the 35 shield has been removed from the BGS on the left for the Michigan City ramp. That's a clear indication that 35 ends at this interchange.
Quote from: theline on August 10, 2017, 01:14:56 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on August 09, 2017, 12:00:05 PM
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on July 31, 2017, 03:37:21 PM
Here is a good one: U.S. 35 in Northern Indiana... where does it end? We don't know, but what we know is that U.S. 35 used to end at U.S. 12 until the city of Michigan City took over and redid Michigan Blvd... It looks very nice now!!
US 35 ends at US 20 just east of the I-94 interchange.
US 35 doesn't end at the stop light east of I-94:
https://goo.gl/maps/GqPRtWtPnyr (https://goo.gl/maps/GqPRtWtPnyr)
35 is concurrent with 20 from there west to the SR 912 interchange (Michigan City bypass):
https://goo.gl/maps/WmFX96by6nt (https://goo.gl/maps/WmFX96by6nt)
Although I've never seen an END US 35 banner (or a START banner, going the other way), the sign above confirms the concurrency. You might think that the sign was left over from when 35 went all the way downtown, but the 35 shield has been removed from the BGS on the left for the Michigan City ramp. That's a clear indication that 35 ends at this interchange.
INDoT obtained AASHTO approval to truncate the US 35 designation to its east junction with US 20. However in 2009 INDoT removed US 35 references only as far as the west junction which is where you are saying it ends. US 35 is still signed as if it exists along the US 20 overlap but I'm pretty sure it was suppose to end at the east junction. It doesn't really make sense to multiplex US 35 with US 20 when US 35 ends and US 20 keeps going.
Quote from: WNYroadgeekUS 220's northern terminus is at a side street in Waverly, NY: https://goo.gl/maps/UoEZvvUZT8S2
Not anymore. (http://sp.route.transportation.org/Documents/USRN%20-%20Minutes%20SM-2017.pdf) It's northern terminus, per the NYSDOT application and AASHTO's approval (and PennDOT's concurrence according to the application) is now at I-86/NY 17.
Quote from: Flint1979 on August 10, 2017, 01:41:32 AM
It doesn't really make sense to multiplex US 35 with US 20 when US 35 ends and US 20 keeps going.
On that note, US 46 ends at the NJ/NY state line while concurrent with US 1, US 9, and I-95. It could have ended at the US 1/9 merge. Yes, US 46 is the thru route there, but if it has to end somewhere, better to end it there. In fact, US 46 should not be a US route at all. Yes, I know it used to go to PA, but it doesn't now, and things get downgraded. Look at PA 611.
Quote from: bzakharin on August 10, 2017, 02:22:38 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on August 10, 2017, 01:41:32 AM
It doesn't really make sense to multiplex US 35 with US 20 when US 35 ends and US 20 keeps going.
On that note, US 46 ends at the NJ/NY state line while concurrent with US 1, US 9, and I-95. It could have ended at the US 1/9 merge. Yes, US 46 is the thru route there, but if it has to end somewhere, better to end it there. In fact, US 46 should not be a US route at all. Yes, I know it used to go to PA, but it doesn't now, and things get downgraded. Look at PA 611.
I certainly don't disagree with that. At 75 miles it'd be better suited as a state highway. The way it looks to me is that US 46 should end at US 9 and it could very well have had the same fate as PA 611. I'm pretty sure that NJ doesn't have a SR 46 which could very easily be changed.
Quote from: theline on August 10, 2017, 01:14:56 AM
Although I've never seen an END US 35 banner (or a START banner, going the other way), the sign above confirms the concurrency. You might think that the sign was left over from when 35 went all the way downtown, but the 35 shield has been removed from the BGS on the left for the Michigan City ramp. That's a clear indication that 35 ends at this interchange.
Here's an old picture:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usends.com%2Fuploads%2F7%2F5%2F0%2F3%2F75032313%2F555787238_orig.jpg&hash=cd84c41f3c010b4311a90d2e6bbddf171209bd84)
Quote from: Flint1979 on August 10, 2017, 03:09:35 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on August 10, 2017, 02:22:38 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on August 10, 2017, 01:41:32 AM
It doesn't really make sense to multiplex US 35 with US 20 when US 35 ends and US 20 keeps going.
On that note, US 46 ends at the NJ/NY state line while concurrent with US 1, US 9, and I-95. It could have ended at the US 1/9 merge. Yes, US 46 is the thru route there, but if it has to end somewhere, better to end it there. In fact, US 46 should not be a US route at all. Yes, I know it used to go to PA, but it doesn't now, and things get downgraded. Look at PA 611.
I certainly don't disagree with that. At 75 miles it'd be better suited as a state highway. The way it looks to me is that US 46 should end at US 9 and it could very well have had the same fate as PA 611. I'm pretty sure that NJ doesn't have a SR 46 which could very easily be changed.
NJ does not have any duplication in route numbers whatsoever (except county routes), so if there is a US 46, there is no I-46 or SR 46, so it's guaranteed that the downgrade would cause minimum confusion.
This is an "added insult to injury" situation: for about a decade after its official decommissioning in the CA '64 renumbering, US 66 (which was still utilized to sign the unfinished portions of I-40 and I-15 in the interim), at least as a signed route, actually ended/"petered out" at the corner of Colorado Blvd. and Arroyo Drive in downtown Pasadena, CA. This was a very unusual situation inasmuch as at the time it was also the east terminus of CA 134 and the north terminus of CA 11 (which had superseded US 66 into L.A.). Signage on US 66 was cut back during that time as more and more of I-210 was built parallel to it; US 66 was "officially" gone when the I-210/CA 134 interchange was completed in 1976. The portion through Pasadena continued to be maintained as unsigned CA 248 as far east as Arcadia until that too was eventually deleted from the state logs.
Quote from: froggie on August 10, 2017, 09:02:05 AM
Quote from: WNYroadgeekUS 220's northern terminus is at a side street in Waverly, NY: https://goo.gl/maps/UoEZvvUZT8S2
Not anymore. (http://sp.route.transportation.org/Documents/USRN%20-%20Minutes%20SM-2017.pdf) It's northern terminus, per the NYSDOT application and AASHTO's approval (and PennDOT's concurrence according to the application) is now at I-86/NY 17.
Don't you mean PA 17? :-D
Quote from: hbelkins on August 10, 2017, 05:03:16 PM
Quote from: froggie on August 10, 2017, 09:02:05 AM
Quote from: WNYroadgeekUS 220's northern terminus is at a side street in Waverly, NY: https://goo.gl/maps/UoEZvvUZT8S2
Not anymore. (http://sp.route.transportation.org/Documents/USRN%20-%20Minutes%20SM-2017.pdf) It's northern terminus, per the NYSDOT application and AASHTO's approval (and PennDOT's concurrence according to the application) is now at I-86/NY 17.
Don't you mean PA 17? :-D
PA 17 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_Route_17) is near the geographical center of Pennsylvania, nowhere near a state border. NY 17 continues into Pennsylvania. There are a few other routes like this, like NH 153 in Maine and ME 113 in New Hampshire.
I made a similar mistake a few years ago, claiming that I had clinched "NJ/PA 90". (It's a valid clinch, but the Pennsylvania segment is unnumbered.)
Quote from: bugo on August 10, 2017, 03:17:56 PM
Quote from: theline on August 10, 2017, 01:14:56 AM
Although I've never seen an END US 35 banner (or a START banner, going the other way), the sign above confirms the concurrency. You might think that the sign was left over from when 35 went all the way downtown, but the 35 shield has been removed from the BGS on the left for the Michigan City ramp. That's a clear indication that 35 ends at this interchange.
Here's an old picture:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usends.com%2Fuploads%2F7%2F5%2F0%2F3%2F75032313%2F555787238_orig.jpg&hash=cd84c41f3c010b4311a90d2e6bbddf171209bd84)
Yeah that picture is at the old terminus. I'm just saying that INDoT took down signage only until the western junction with US 20 when it really ends at the eastern junction with US 20.
Quote from: 1 on August 10, 2017, 05:29:27 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 10, 2017, 05:03:16 PM
Quote from: froggie on August 10, 2017, 09:02:05 AM
Quote from: WNYroadgeekUS 220's northern terminus is at a side street in Waverly, NY: https://goo.gl/maps/UoEZvvUZT8S2
Not anymore. (http://sp.route.transportation.org/Documents/USRN%20-%20Minutes%20SM-2017.pdf) It's northern terminus, per the NYSDOT application and AASHTO's approval (and PennDOT's concurrence according to the application) is now at I-86/NY 17.
Don't you mean PA 17? :-D
PA 17 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_Route_17) is near the geographical center of Pennsylvania, nowhere near a state border. NY 17 continues into Pennsylvania. There are a few other routes like this, like NH 153 in Maine and ME 113 in New Hampshire.
I made a similar mistake a few years ago, claiming that I had clinched "NJ/PA 90". (It's a valid clinch, but the Pennsylvania segment is unnumbered.)
I know that. Hence, the :-D . However, the western segment of I-86 that enters Pennsylvania was originally numbered PA 17 as a continuation of NY 17 before it got interstate designation.
US-6 in Mack, CO. (this was CDOT's bright idea!!!)
https://goo.gl/maps/v8dDfVMSQWm
Quote from: thenetwork on August 11, 2017, 04:30:55 PM
US-6 in Mack, CO. (this was CDOT's bright idea!!!)
https://goo.gl/maps/v8dDfVMSQWm
There is access to I-70, is there not? Both signs lie.
Quote from: NE2 on August 11, 2017, 07:18:55 PM
Quote from: thenetwork on August 11, 2017, 04:30:55 PM
US-6 in Mack, CO. (this was CDOT's bright idea!!!)
https://goo.gl/maps/v8dDfVMSQWm
There is access to I-70, is there not? Both signs lie.
That No Access to I-70 sign is in the westbound direction after the the turn to head towards exit 11 which is still incorrect considering that roadway connects to Exit 227 in Utah. US 6 has never ended in that location though from what I have gathered. It use to end in Greeley but that is nowhere near Mack and was extended to Long Beach, CA in 1937 so that sign makes no sense. US 6 follows I-70 west to Exit 157 in Utah and then runs multiplexed with US 191 for several miles.
Quote from: Flint1979 on August 11, 2017, 07:34:35 PM
Quote from: NE2 on August 11, 2017, 07:18:55 PM
Quote from: thenetwork on August 11, 2017, 04:30:55 PM
US-6 in Mack, CO. (this was CDOT's bright idea!!!)
https://goo.gl/maps/v8dDfVMSQWm
There is access to I-70, is there not? Both signs lie.
That No Access to I-70 sign is in the westbound direction after the the turn to head towards exit 11 which is still incorrect considering that roadway connects to Exit 227 in Utah. US 6 has never ended in that location though from what I have gathered. It use to end in Greeley but that is nowhere near Mack and was extended to Long Beach, CA in 1937 so that sign makes no sense. US 6 follows I-70 west to Exit 157 in Utah and then runs multiplexed with US 191 for several miles.
The map shows the end of Business US. 6, not US 6 itself.
Quote from: SFalcon71 on August 11, 2017, 10:25:44 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on August 11, 2017, 07:34:35 PM
Quote from: NE2 on August 11, 2017, 07:18:55 PM
Quote from: thenetwork on August 11, 2017, 04:30:55 PM
US-6 in Mack, CO. (this was CDOT's bright idea!!!)
https://goo.gl/maps/v8dDfVMSQWm
There is access to I-70, is there not? Both signs lie.
That No Access to I-70 sign is in the westbound direction after the the turn to head towards exit 11 which is still incorrect considering that roadway connects to Exit 227 in Utah. US 6 has never ended in that location though from what I have gathered. It use to end in Greeley but that is nowhere near Mack and was extended to Long Beach, CA in 1937 so that sign makes no sense. US 6 follows I-70 west to Exit 157 in Utah and then runs multiplexed with US 191 for several miles.
The map shows the end of Business US. 6, not US 6 itself.
There is NO Business US-6 in Western CO. CDOT is just too lazy to route official signed legs of US-6 back onto I-70 when necessary. They even have a sign directing US-6 WB traffic to a road in Glenwood Springs which leads to a Dead End -- this is long after the old highway was buried under the westbound lanes of I-70.
Quote from: thenetwork on August 11, 2017, 11:15:30 PM
Quote from: SFalcon71 on August 11, 2017, 10:25:44 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on August 11, 2017, 07:34:35 PM
Quote from: NE2 on August 11, 2017, 07:18:55 PM
Quote from: thenetwork on August 11, 2017, 04:30:55 PM
US-6 in Mack, CO. (this was CDOT's bright idea!!!)
https://goo.gl/maps/v8dDfVMSQWm
There is access to I-70, is there not? Both signs lie.
That No Access to I-70 sign is in the westbound direction after the the turn to head towards exit 11 which is still incorrect considering that roadway connects to Exit 227 in Utah. US 6 has never ended in that location though from what I have gathered. It use to end in Greeley but that is nowhere near Mack and was extended to Long Beach, CA in 1937 so that sign makes no sense. US 6 follows I-70 west to Exit 157 in Utah and then runs multiplexed with US 191 for several miles.
The map shows the end of Business US. 6, not US 6 itself.
There is NO Business US-6 in Western CO. CDOT is just too lazy to route official signed legs of US-6 back onto I-70 when necessary. They even have a sign directing US-6 WB traffic to a road in Glenwood Springs which leads to a Dead End -- this is long after the old highway was buried under the westbound lanes of I-70.
That sign is there because CDOT is lazy. But it may also be meant to serve as a Dead End sign, as the old road isn't in great shape.
Quote from: thenetwork on August 11, 2017, 11:15:30 PM
Quote from: SFalcon71 on August 11, 2017, 10:25:44 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on August 11, 2017, 07:34:35 PM
Quote from: NE2 on August 11, 2017, 07:18:55 PM
Quote from: thenetwork on August 11, 2017, 04:30:55 PM
US-6 in Mack, CO. (this was CDOT's bright idea!!!)
https://goo.gl/maps/v8dDfVMSQWm
There is access to I-70, is there not? Both signs lie.
That No Access to I-70 sign is in the westbound direction after the the turn to head towards exit 11 which is still incorrect considering that roadway connects to Exit 227 in Utah. US 6 has never ended in that location though from what I have gathered. It use to end in Greeley but that is nowhere near Mack and was extended to Long Beach, CA in 1937 so that sign makes no sense. US 6 follows I-70 west to Exit 157 in Utah and then runs multiplexed with US 191 for several miles.
The map shows the end of Business US. 6, not US 6 itself.
There is NO Business US-6 in Western CO. CDOT is just too lazy to route official signed legs of US-6 back onto I-70 when necessary. They even have a sign directing US-6 WB traffic to a road in Glenwood Springs which leads to a Dead End -- this is long after the old highway was buried under the westbound lanes of I-70.
Are you talking about the West US 6 sign that's at the traffic circle with the interchange with I-70. If so, that sign just should be moved to the West I-70 sign about 100 feet ahead of where that sign is.
Quote from: Flint1979 on August 12, 2017, 11:04:24 AM
Quote from: thenetwork on August 11, 2017, 11:15:30 PM
Quote from: SFalcon71 on August 11, 2017, 10:25:44 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on August 11, 2017, 07:34:35 PM
Quote from: NE2 on August 11, 2017, 07:18:55 PM
Quote from: thenetwork on August 11, 2017, 04:30:55 PM
US-6 in Mack, CO. (this was CDOT's bright idea!!!)
https://goo.gl/maps/v8dDfVMSQWm
There is access to I-70, is there not? Both signs lie.
That No Access to I-70 sign is in the westbound direction after the the turn to head towards exit 11 which is still incorrect considering that roadway connects to Exit 227 in Utah. US 6 has never ended in that location though from what I have gathered. It use to end in Greeley but that is nowhere near Mack and was extended to Long Beach, CA in 1937 so that sign makes no sense. US 6 follows I-70 west to Exit 157 in Utah and then runs multiplexed with US 191 for several miles.
The map shows the end of Business US. 6, not US 6 itself.
There is NO Business US-6 in Western CO. CDOT is just too lazy to route official signed legs of US-6 back onto I-70 when necessary. They even have a sign directing US-6 WB traffic to a road in Glenwood Springs which leads to a Dead End -- this is long after the old highway was buried under the westbound lanes of I-70.
Are you talking about the West US 6 sign that's at the traffic circle with the interchange with I-70. If so, that sign just should be moved to the West I-70 sign about 100 feet ahead of where that sign is.
That, and there is/was (they just revamped the roundabout for the upcoming Grand Avenue Gridlock project) a diagrammatical sign with a US-6 shield pointing down that road as well.
I should just apply to CDOT and be their Signage Efficiency Expert. There's at least 3-5 years worth of issues and mistakes to resolve already.
US 92 in St. Petersburg ends in Downtown. Yes granted it used to be an old alignment of US 19 at one time and there is mention that US 19 Alternate still goes there, but I traveled it last with Alex and saw no shields of US 19 Alternate existing there.
It really should just stay on Gandy Blvd. and end at the US 19 intersection north of Central St. Pete.
US 1 in Key West (pointed out earlier in this post) should end at the Southernmost point marker and not at Whitehead and Fleming like it does.
US 41 should now just end at I-95 in Miami instead of using old US 1 into Downtown. Though not random now as it still ends, despite poor signage at US 1 but might as well say it ends randomly as I heard from someone FDOT has not signed its new alignment yet and most likely won't for some time.
Quote from: thenetwork on August 13, 2017, 10:36:05 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on August 12, 2017, 11:04:24 AM
Quote from: thenetwork on August 11, 2017, 11:15:30 PM
Quote from: SFalcon71 on August 11, 2017, 10:25:44 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on August 11, 2017, 07:34:35 PM
Quote from: NE2 on August 11, 2017, 07:18:55 PM
Quote from: thenetwork on August 11, 2017, 04:30:55 PM
US-6 in Mack, CO. (this was CDOT's bright idea!!!)
https://goo.gl/maps/v8dDfVMSQWm
There is access to I-70, is there not? Both signs lie.
That No Access to I-70 sign is in the westbound direction after the the turn to head towards exit 11 which is still incorrect considering that roadway connects to Exit 227 in Utah. US 6 has never ended in that location though from what I have gathered. It use to end in Greeley but that is nowhere near Mack and was extended to Long Beach, CA in 1937 so that sign makes no sense. US 6 follows I-70 west to Exit 157 in Utah and then runs multiplexed with US 191 for several miles.
The map shows the end of Business US. 6, not US 6 itself.
There is NO Business US-6 in Western CO. CDOT is just too lazy to route official signed legs of US-6 back onto I-70 when necessary. They even have a sign directing US-6 WB traffic to a road in Glenwood Springs which leads to a Dead End -- this is long after the old highway was buried under the westbound lanes of I-70.
Are you talking about the West US 6 sign that's at the traffic circle with the interchange with I-70. If so, that sign just should be moved to the West I-70 sign about 100 feet ahead of where that sign is.
That, and there is/was (they just revamped the roundabout for the upcoming Grand Avenue Gridlock project) a diagrammatical sign with a US-6 shield pointing down that road as well.
I should just apply to CDOT and be their Signage Efficiency Expert. There's at least 3-5 years worth of issues and mistakes to resolve already.
I see that the dead end road leads to a campground before it dead ends. With how many signs they need to change that probably would be a pretty good job.
Quote from: jemacedo9 on August 01, 2017, 10:45:30 AM
Quote from: BrianP on August 01, 2017, 10:06:18 AM
I'd say the west end of US 209 counts. It should be truncated to I-81.
I think theoretically, US 209 "continues" across the Millersburg Ferry to end at US 11/15.
I think it should take over PA 147 southward to US 22/US 322.
And for that matter, the north end of US 209 is kind of random. It ends at US 9W near Kingston, NY and becomes NY 199 while you're on an expressway. It should just continue across the Kingston-Rhinecliff Bridge to end at US 9.
US 3 also has a random southern end in Cambridge, MA where it becomes MA 3. And why is US 44 necessary west of Arlington, NY when it's duplexed with NY 55? Why not just either end US 44 in Arlington, extend US 44 over NY 55 and PA 434 to end it at US 6, or reroute it in Millerton onto NY 199 and have it take over US 209?
U.S. 212 ends at a junction with some random road in Yellowstone Natl. Park.
Quote from: MN34 on August 13, 2017, 09:15:42 PM
U.S. 212 ends at a junction with some random road in Yellowstone Natl. Park.
Not really, it ends at the northeast entrance to the park. US 14 is the real oddity given it multiplexes US 20 to the park gate and ends. US 189 does the same thing multiplexing US 89 and 26 to Grand Teton only to end.
Quote from: 1 on July 31, 2017, 06:16:36 AM
US 20 ends at MA 2 in Boston, not at any other US route or Interstate. (And not at the ocean; there are still a few miles of land.)
Prior to 1964, US 20 went east of Kenmore Square & ran along Commonwealth Ave. (current MA 2) to its eastern end.
Quote from: 1 on July 31, 2017, 06:16:36 AM
US 3 turns into MA 3 at MA 2A in Cambridge. While it is one continuous route, it is a bit strange that the US designation ends there.
Such
may have something to do with Memorial Drive east of Mass Ave. having overheight vehicle restrictions. It should be noted that the US/MA 3 hand-off locations moved a couple times. Its original location was at the intersection of Commonwealth Ave. (US 20) & Essex St./B.U. Bridge; the latter was US/MA 3 and US 1 prior to 1971.
Quote from: 1 on July 31, 2017, 06:16:36 AMFor some reason, US 44 has a mile-long overlap with MA 3 and then continues to the ocean for another mile instead of just ending when it reaches MA 3. (The last one mile segment of US 44 is not a freeway; US 44 immediately west of MA 3 and the relevant segment of MA 3 are both freeways.)
That one's more recent. The freeway portion of US 44 has only been around since 2005. Prior to that, US 44 did multiplex w/MA 3.
US 92 ends at US 19 ALT and FL 687 in downtown St Petersburg (near I-375) from what I saw last weekend. What makes this random IMO is that US 19 ALT was extended here east of US 19 along 4th and 5th Ave N to replace FL 595 (or at least a section). I just do not get why US 92 was never extended west to end at US 19 instead.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 13, 2017, 09:20:33 PM
Quote from: MN34 on August 13, 2017, 09:15:42 PM
U.S. 212 ends at a junction with some random road in Yellowstone Natl. Park.
Not really, it ends at the northeast entrance to the park. US 14 is the real oddity given it multiplexes US 20 to the park gate and ends. US 189 does the same thing multiplexing US 89 and 26 to Grand Teton only to end.
US 16 does the same thing. US 16 should end at US 20 in Worland, and 14 should end at US 20 in Greybull.
US 189's north end could be in a few places. It could be at US 26/89 at Hoback Jct, but that still requires a multiplex with 191 to get there (and 189 already connects to its parent 89 in Provo UT). If multiplexes are to be avoided, the end should be at US 191 at Daniel Jct.
Another route I don't think has been mentioned: US 277. The north end is at I-44 after a useless multiplex with US 62.
Quote from: roadguy2 on August 15, 2017, 10:05:59 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 13, 2017, 09:20:33 PM
Quote from: MN34 on August 13, 2017, 09:15:42 PM
U.S. 212 ends at a junction with some random road in Yellowstone Natl. Park.
Not really, it ends at the northeast entrance to the park. US 14 is the real oddity given it multiplexes US 20 to the park gate and ends. US 189 does the same thing multiplexing US 89 and 26 to Grand Teton only to end.
US 16 does the same thing. US 16 should end at US 20 in Worland, and 14 should end at US 20 in Greybull.
US 189's north end could be in a few places. It could be at US 26/89 at Hoback Jct, but that still requires a multiplex with 191 to get there (and 189 already connects to its parent 89 in Provo UT). If multiplexes are to be avoided, the end should be at US 191 at Daniel Jct.
Another route I don't think has been mentioned: US 277. The north end is at I-44 after a useless multiplex with US 62.
Another multiplex is US 180 with AZ 64 to the South Rim of the Grand Canyon. AZ 64 actually makes sense since it continues outside the park boundary to US 89. Really I understand why there ought to be a US Route going to the Grand Canyon but it ought to be US 160 replacing all of AZ 64 instead. Even the signage looks like US 180 was just tacked alongside AZ 64 at the last minute:
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3939/33423830472_58cd8855f4_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/SVxSkb)64AZc (https://flic.kr/p/SVxSkb) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3939/33423830472_58cd8855f4_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/SVxSkb)64AZc (https://flic.kr/p/SVxSkb) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
Just my opinion but I don't think a US Route should be beneath a state route, seems contrary to the hierarchy of highway systems to me.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 15, 2017, 10:12:14 AM
Just my opinion but I don't think a US Route should be beneath a state route, seems contrary to the hierarchy of highway systems to me.
Thank god I'm not the only one sharing the same opinion.
Quote from: ColossalBlocks on August 15, 2017, 02:10:43 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 15, 2017, 10:12:14 AM
Just my opinion but I don't think a US Route should be beneath a state route, seems contrary to the hierarchy of highway systems to me.
Thank god I'm not the only one sharing the same opinion.
The situation with US 180 is odd. It exactly clear when US 180 was signed up to the Grand Canyon as it was originally only signed to AZ 64 in Valle up until the early 2000s. The signs in place now are obviously newer which is why I'm not getting why they have AZ 64 stacked on top of US 180. Really Arizona in general has a really poor record with US Routes making logical sense or just having poor continuity. Hell at one point US 60/70/80/89 along with AZ 93 were all multiplexed in downtown Phoenix. I'm sure if the AASHTO would have approved it Arizona would have had US 93 multiplex US 89 to the border from Tucson southward.
At both ends of US 48, it is signed with concurrent routes that continue. At the eastern end, it ends at I-81 after having been concurrent with VA 55 from the WV/VA state line.
At the western end, it stops at I-79 while US 33 and US 119 continue. Of course, US 48 is the route designation given to Corridor H, which only runs between the two interstates, to give the entire route one number. I would extend US 48 eastward to US 11 and then truncate VA 55 in downtown Strasburg. On the western end, I would either extend US 48 to US 19 in downtown Weston, or I would truncate it in Elkins.
Quote from: roadguy2 on August 15, 2017, 10:05:59 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 13, 2017, 09:20:33 PM
Quote from: MN34 on August 13, 2017, 09:15:42 PM
U.S. 212 ends at a junction with some random road in Yellowstone Natl. Park.
Not really, it ends at the northeast entrance to the park. US 14 is the real oddity given it multiplexes US 20 to the park gate and ends. US 189 does the same thing multiplexing US 89 and 26 to Grand Teton only to end.
US 16 does the same thing. US 16 should end at US 20 in Worland, and 14 should end at US 20 in Greybull.
US 189's north end could be in a few places. It could be at US 26/89 at Hoback Jct, but that still requires a multiplex with 191 to get there (and 189 already connects to its parent 89 in Provo UT). If multiplexes are to be avoided, the end should be at US 191 at Daniel Jct.
Another route I don't think has been mentioned: US 277. The north end is at I-44 after a useless multiplex with US 62.
189's even more random than that; it doesn't even make it to Grand Teton, but just ends in downtown Jackson where 26/89/191 turn north. I think the idea behind the 14/16 multiplex with 20 is to have several cohesive routes to Yellowstone; there's even a billboard outside my hometown for "16 to Yellowstone": https://www.google.com/maps/@44.52303,-103.9052473,3a,34.5y,318.72h,90.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spi7FdCAVB1qu6g5PrxIY8w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.52303,-103.9052473,3a,34.5y,318.72h,90.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spi7FdCAVB1qu6g5PrxIY8w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) (it's since been updated but the sign error is still there... I've wanted to fix that myself for years but have never had the material).
I still think the AASHTO end point of US 183 is at Exit 212 on I-90 after a pointless concurrency; SD wisely has not signed this.
Quote from: roadguy2 on August 15, 2017, 10:05:59 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 13, 2017, 09:20:33 PM
Quote from: MN34 on August 13, 2017, 09:15:42 PM
U.S. 212 ends at a junction with some random road in Yellowstone Natl. Park.
Not really, it ends at the northeast entrance to the park. US 14 is the real oddity given it multiplexes US 20 to the park gate and ends. US 189 does the same thing multiplexing US 89 and 26 to Grand Teton only to end.
US 16 does the same thing. US 16 should end at US 20 in Worland, and 14 should end at US 20 in Greybull.
US 189's north end could be in a few places. It could be at US 26/89 at Hoback Jct, but that still requires a multiplex with 191 to get there (and 189 already connects to its parent 89 in Provo UT). If multiplexes are to be avoided, the end should be at US 191 at Daniel Jct.
Another route I don't think has been mentioned: US 277. The north end is at I-44 after a useless multiplex with US 62.
US 277 seems pretty useless for it's entire route. It's multiplexed with several different US routes.
US 191 used to end at AZ 80 outside of Douglas and several miles from the Mexican border. This gap in route continuity was fixed in 2010.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 15, 2017, 02:21:38 PM
Quote from: ColossalBlocks on August 15, 2017, 02:10:43 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 15, 2017, 10:12:14 AM
Just my opinion but I don't think a US Route should be beneath a state route, seems contrary to the hierarchy of highway systems to me.
Thank god I'm not the only one sharing the same opinion.
The situation with US 180 is odd. It exactly clear when US 180 was signed up to the Grand Canyon as it was originally only signed to AZ 64 in Valle up until the early 2000s. The signs in place now are obviously newer which is why I'm not getting why they have AZ 64 stacked on top of US 180.
Another consideration is how far US 180 shares alignment with Interstate 40 to get to Flagstaff and makes its way north toward the Grand Canyon. It seems to me that the segment of US 180 north of Flagstaff should be considered for downgrading to a state highway ... and AZ 64 makes a logical extension of US 160 (or even US 64 should there be appetite to replace US 160 with US 64 west of their current intersection).
Quote from: SD Mapman on August 15, 2017, 06:46:31 PM
Quote from: roadguy2 on August 15, 2017, 10:05:59 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 13, 2017, 09:20:33 PM
Quote from: MN34 on August 13, 2017, 09:15:42 PM
U.S. 212 ends at a junction with some random road in Yellowstone Natl. Park.
Not really, it ends at the northeast entrance to the park. US 14 is the real oddity given it multiplexes US 20 to the park gate and ends. US 189 does the same thing multiplexing US 89 and 26 to Grand Teton only to end.
US 16 does the same thing. US 16 should end at US 20 in Worland, and 14 should end at US 20 in Greybull.
US 189's north end could be in a few places. It could be at US 26/89 at Hoback Jct, but that still requires a multiplex with 191 to get there (and 189 already connects to its parent 89 in Provo UT). If multiplexes are to be avoided, the end should be at US 191 at Daniel Jct.
Another route I don't think has been mentioned: US 277. The north end is at I-44 after a useless multiplex with US 62.
189's even more random than that; it doesn't even make it to Grand Teton, but just ends in downtown Jackson where 26/89/191 turn north. I think the idea behind the 14/16 multiplex with 20 is to have several cohesive routes to Yellowstone; there's even a billboard outside my hometown for "16 to Yellowstone": https://www.google.com/maps/@44.52303,-103.9052473,3a,34.5y,318.72h,90.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spi7FdCAVB1qu6g5PrxIY8w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.52303,-103.9052473,3a,34.5y,318.72h,90.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spi7FdCAVB1qu6g5PrxIY8w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) (it's since been updated but the sign error is still there... I've wanted to fix that myself for years but have never had the material).
I still think the AASHTO end point of US 183 is at Exit 212 on I-90 after a pointless concurrency; SD wisely has not signed this.
US 14, 16, and 20 are signed as they are in order to provide distinct routes to Yellowstone. As you noted, US 14 and US 16 are openly advertised for vacationers as competing routes to get from Rapid City to Yellowstone. For example, US 14 (and US 14A) goes to Sturgis, Spearfish Canyon, Deadwood, and Devils Tower while US 16 (and US 16A) goes through Custer State Park and Jewel Cave National Monument while connecting to Wind Cave National Park. Perhaps the idea is to take one route east and the other route west. Many people visiting from the Midwest intend to go through the Black Hills to Yellowstone, so I can see the benefit of having both US 14 and US 16 signed (plus they offer scenic routes through the Bighorns). As for US 20, it is the through route leading from Casper and points east through Yellowstone west toward Idaho Falls and Boise, but most traffic from the Midwest does not come into Yellowstone having followed US 20. From what I've seen, most vacationing traffic from the Midwest comes in via I-90 and then takes US 14 or US 16 through the Black Hills and between the Bighorns and Yellowstone. Think of US 14, 16, and 20 as touring routes in this example.
I have always thought US 189 should be transferred onto WYO 22 into Idaho, then follow Idaho 33 (and Idaho 32?) northwest to join US 20. Then US 189 could extend over ID 87 and MT 87 (linking to US 287) to provide a bypass for north-south travel to the west of Yellowstone National Park, which is not possible through the park during winter months.
Thanks for the info on US 183. While I appreciate the concept of having the child route connecting with the parent route (US 83), it doesn't seem necessary to extend it signed on I-90. The currently signed endpoint makes sense.
Quote from: andy3175 on August 17, 2017, 10:39:23 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 15, 2017, 02:21:38 PM
Quote from: ColossalBlocks on August 15, 2017, 02:10:43 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 15, 2017, 10:12:14 AM
Just my opinion but I don't think a US Route should be beneath a state route, seems contrary to the hierarchy of highway systems to me.
Thank god I'm not the only one sharing the same opinion.
The situation with US 180 is odd. It exactly clear when US 180 was signed up to the Grand Canyon as it was originally only signed to AZ 64 in Valle up until the early 2000s. The signs in place now are obviously newer which is why I'm not getting why they have AZ 64 stacked on top of US 180.
Another consideration is how far US 180 shares alignment with Interstate 40 to get to Flagstaff and makes its way north toward the Grand Canyon. It seems to me that the segment of US 180 north of Flagstaff should be considered for downgrading to a state highway ... and AZ 64 makes a logical extension of US 160 (or even US 64 should there be appetite to replace US 160 with US 64 west of their current intersection).
Not only that but the multiplexes with I-10 and US 62 are absolutely huge. Pretty much all of them could be eliminated and section between I-10 to I-40 could be reassigned something in the US X60 family. It would be a pretty handy connection to have US 160 routed over the alignment of AZ 64 entirely. I like the concept of US 64 but I tend to like Rover's idea about having that extend to US 395 in California via various connections in Arizona, Utah, and Nevada.
How about the eastern end of US 12 in Detroit? It just stops at Cass Avenue while Michigan Avenue keeps going about five blocks further east to end at Woodward. Why couldn't US 12 just end at Woodward? At least there is an END US 12 sign there now though. Detroit use to do a terrible job with signage downtown. And the first WEST US 12 sign is just after First Street.
Quote from: Flint1979 on August 18, 2017, 12:53:02 AM
How about the eastern end of US 12 in Detroit? It just stops at Cass Avenue while Michigan Avenue keeps going about five blocks further east to end at Woodward. Why couldn't US 12 just end at Woodward? At least there is an END US 12 sign there now though. Detroit use to do a terrible job with signage downtown. And the first WEST US 12 sign is just after First Street.
Really Michigan in general has done a shitty job in terms of breaking up US Routes that ought to be around still. US 10 ought to still go to downtown either on Woodward or the Lodge. US 27 should have been a simple reroute and swap of US 127.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 18, 2017, 07:17:11 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on August 18, 2017, 12:53:02 AM
How about the eastern end of US 12 in Detroit? It just stops at Cass Avenue while Michigan Avenue keeps going about five blocks further east to end at Woodward. Why couldn't US 12 just end at Woodward? At least there is an END US 12 sign there now though. Detroit use to do a terrible job with signage downtown. And the first WEST US 12 sign is just after First Street.
Really Michigan in general has done a shitty job in terms of breaking up US Routes that ought to be around still. US 10 ought to still go to downtown either on Woodward or the Lodge. US 27 should have been a simple reroute and swap of US 127.
I think most of the issue with US 10 was that it was multiplexed with other highways like I-75 and US 23. Right now where US 10 ends isn't the worst of locations but then your putting an east-west highway running north-south too but it could at least still be the Lodge, that was switched to M-10 and Detroit kept the US 10 signs up well after US 10 no longer went to Detroit, they really meant M-10. If it was on Woodward it could have just split with I-75 at exit 93 (US 24) and ran with US 24 to Pontiac then Woodward down to Detroit. As with US 27 that would have made perfect sense.
US -258's east end is a culd du sac. I guess though for Virginia that is not unusual given how many dead end state highways they have.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 17, 2017, 11:19:09 AM
Quote from: andy3175 on August 17, 2017, 10:39:23 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 15, 2017, 02:21:38 PM
Quote from: ColossalBlocks on August 15, 2017, 02:10:43 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 15, 2017, 10:12:14 AM
Just my opinion but I don't think a US Route should be beneath a state route, seems contrary to the hierarchy of highway systems to me.
Thank god I'm not the only one sharing the same opinion.
The situation with US 180 is odd. It exactly clear when US 180 was signed up to the Grand Canyon as it was originally only signed to AZ 64 in Valle up until the early 2000s. The signs in place now are obviously newer which is why I'm not getting why they have AZ 64 stacked on top of US 180.
Another consideration is how far US 180 shares alignment with Interstate 40 to get to Flagstaff and makes its way north toward the Grand Canyon. It seems to me that the segment of US 180 north of Flagstaff should be considered for downgrading to a state highway ... and AZ 64 makes a logical extension of US 160 (or even US 64 should there be appetite to replace US 160 with US 64 west of their current intersection).
Not only that but the multiplexes with I-10 and US 62 are absolutely huge. Pretty much all of them could be eliminated and section between I-10 to I-40 could be reassigned something in the US X60 family. It would be a pretty handy connection to have US 160 routed over the alignment of AZ 64 entirely. I like the concept of US 64 but I tend to like Rover's idea about having that extend to US 395 in California via various connections in Arizona, Utah, and Nevada.
One idea I have had was to follow Rover's idea of extending US 64 west to St George and replacing US 160 with 164, which would run from the AZ 98 junction west on US 160, south on 89, and west replacing 64 to end at Williams at I-40. That has a few more benefits, including that 164 was a historical number for part of this road, and it would make for a better endpoint of US 180.
Quote from: roadguy2 on August 18, 2017, 11:09:58 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 17, 2017, 11:19:09 AM
Quote from: andy3175 on August 17, 2017, 10:39:23 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 15, 2017, 02:21:38 PM
Quote from: ColossalBlocks on August 15, 2017, 02:10:43 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 15, 2017, 10:12:14 AM
Just my opinion but I don't think a US Route should be beneath a state route, seems contrary to the hierarchy of highway systems to me.
Thank god I'm not the only one sharing the same opinion.
The situation with US 180 is odd. It exactly clear when US 180 was signed up to the Grand Canyon as it was originally only signed to AZ 64 in Valle up until the early 2000s. The signs in place now are obviously newer which is why I'm not getting why they have AZ 64 stacked on top of US 180.
Another consideration is how far US 180 shares alignment with Interstate 40 to get to Flagstaff and makes its way north toward the Grand Canyon. It seems to me that the segment of US 180 north of Flagstaff should be considered for downgrading to a state highway ... and AZ 64 makes a logical extension of US 160 (or even US 64 should there be appetite to replace US 160 with US 64 west of their current intersection).
Not only that but the multiplexes with I-10 and US 62 are absolutely huge. Pretty much all of them could be eliminated and section between I-10 to I-40 could be reassigned something in the US X60 family. It would be a pretty handy connection to have US 160 routed over the alignment of AZ 64 entirely. I like the concept of US 64 but I tend to like Rover's idea about having that extend to US 395 in California via various connections in Arizona, Utah, and Nevada.
One idea I have had was to follow Rover's idea of extending US 64 west to St George and replacing US 160 with 164, which would run from the AZ 98 junction west on US 160, south on 89, and west replacing 64 to end at Williams at I-40. That has a few more benefits, including that 164 was a historical number for part of this road, and it would make for a better endpoint of US 180.
The main issue there is that at this point the AASHTO likely wouldn't approve a new Intrastate US Route designation that was under 300 miles. Really a somewhat long multiplex of two route branching at AZ 98 would probably more feasible.
Quote from: dvferyance on August 18, 2017, 08:26:40 PM
US -258's east end is a culd du sac. I guess though for Virginia that is not unusual given how many dead end state highways they have.
It wasn't a cul de sac...it was a ferry landing. And the current ending by VHP accounts (http://www.vahighways.com/route-log/us258.htm) is at the VA 143 intersection on the edge of Fort Monroe.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 19, 2017, 04:50:08 AM
Quote from: roadguy2 on August 18, 2017, 11:09:58 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 17, 2017, 11:19:09 AM
Quote from: andy3175 on August 17, 2017, 10:39:23 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 15, 2017, 02:21:38 PM
Quote from: ColossalBlocks on August 15, 2017, 02:10:43 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 15, 2017, 10:12:14 AM
Just my opinion but I don't think a US Route should be beneath a state route, seems contrary to the hierarchy of highway systems to me.
Thank god I'm not the only one sharing the same opinion.
The situation with US 180 is odd. It exactly clear when US 180 was signed up to the Grand Canyon as it was originally only signed to AZ 64 in Valle up until the early 2000s. The signs in place now are obviously newer which is why I'm not getting why they have AZ 64 stacked on top of US 180.
Another consideration is how far US 180 shares alignment with Interstate 40 to get to Flagstaff and makes its way north toward the Grand Canyon. It seems to me that the segment of US 180 north of Flagstaff should be considered for downgrading to a state highway ... and AZ 64 makes a logical extension of US 160 (or even US 64 should there be appetite to replace US 160 with US 64 west of their current intersection).
Not only that but the multiplexes with I-10 and US 62 are absolutely huge. Pretty much all of them could be eliminated and section between I-10 to I-40 could be reassigned something in the US X60 family. It would be a pretty handy connection to have US 160 routed over the alignment of AZ 64 entirely. I like the concept of US 64 but I tend to like Rover's idea about having that extend to US 395 in California via various connections in Arizona, Utah, and Nevada.
One idea I have had was to follow Rover's idea of extending US 64 west to St George and replacing US 160 with 164, which would run from the AZ 98 junction west on US 160, south on 89, and west replacing 64 to end at Williams at I-40. That has a few more benefits, including that 164 was a historical number for part of this road, and it would make for a better endpoint of US 180.
The main issue there is that at this point the AASHTO likely wouldn't approve a new Intrastate US Route designation that was under 300 miles. Really a somewhat long multiplex of two route branching at AZ 98 would probably more feasible.
In that case, then it can also extend northeastward and replace US 163.
Quote from: andy3175 on August 17, 2017, 10:39:23 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 15, 2017, 02:21:38 PM
Quote from: ColossalBlocks on August 15, 2017, 02:10:43 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 15, 2017, 10:12:14 AM
Just my opinion but I don't think a US Route should be beneath a state route, seems contrary to the hierarchy of highway systems to me.
Thank god I'm not the only one sharing the same opinion.
The situation with US 180 is odd. It exactly clear when US 180 was signed up to the Grand Canyon as it was originally only signed to AZ 64 in Valle up until the early 2000s. The signs in place now are obviously newer which is why I'm not getting why they have AZ 64 stacked on top of US 180.
Another consideration is how far US 180 shares alignment with Interstate 40 to get to Flagstaff and makes its way north toward the Grand Canyon. It seems to me that the segment of US 180 north of Flagstaff should be considered for downgrading to a state highway ... and AZ 64 makes a logical extension of US 160 (or even US 64 should there be appetite to replace US 160 with US 64 west of their current intersection).
The way US 64 ends in Arizona is so unceremonious it's pitiful. Out in the middle of nowhere at a T intersection with US 160. It made more sense when it used to terminate in Farmington, NM.
US 6 seems like it should go further west, at least to I-5, maybe?
For such a long, transcontinental route, Bishop, CA is a bit anti-climactic.
Quote from: OCGuy81 on August 20, 2017, 02:37:58 PM
US 6 seems like it should go further west, at least to I-5, maybe?
For such a long, transcontinental route, Bishop, CA is a bit anti-climactic.
It did go further southwest, to LA and Long Beach. It was another casualty of the infamous 1964 renumberings.
Unless you know that and are just suggesting a new route for it. :)
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on August 20, 2017, 02:51:39 PM
Quote from: OCGuy81 on August 20, 2017, 02:37:58 PM
US 6 seems like it should go further west, at least to I-5, maybe?
For such a long, transcontinental route, Bishop, CA is a bit anti-climactic.
It did go further southwest, to LA and Long Beach. It was another casualty of the infamous 1964 renumberings.
Unless you know that and are just suggesting a new route for it. :)
CA 120 is there if seasonal closures aren't an issue. There no way post renumbeirng Caltrans would allow a huge multiplex like US 6 had on US 395.
How about the north end of US 231? If you ask me, it should go north from Crown Point and end in Gary instead of going west to US 41 and ending at a middle-of-nowhere location.
Quote from: DandyDan on August 21, 2017, 04:15:08 AM
How about the north end of US 231? If you ask me, it should go north from Crown Point and end in Gary instead of going west to US 41 and ending at a middle-of-nowhere location.
Extend US231 north replacing IN-53, and extend IN-8 west using a duplex of US231 to then replace the remnants of US231 west to US41.