Will the real longest state route in the US please stand up?

[NE2]

If TxDOT says that 75 miles is not part of SH 6

Then they shouldn't post signs saying it is.

[usends]

Coming at it from the Wikipedian perspective: If TxDOT says that 75 miles is not part of SH 6, and TxDOT/the Transportation Commission is the authority responsible for determining what is and is not a Texas state highway, doesn't that make that 75 miles factually not part of SH 6?

The 75 "missing" miles of TX 6 are comprised of overlaps with US routes, namely US 290, US 79, US 190, US 281, and US 180.  Each of those segments are dual-signed with TX 6 markers:
https://goo.gl/maps/mc6pP3k6ZRonPiK67
https://goo.gl/maps/ZNQJHUe8ABPy3JsB8
https://goo.gl/maps/PpiTMBi3MQCm9Zzh8
https://goo.gl/maps/TjYptWJB8UazjDEt7
https://goo.gl/maps/cS7GyKDULwaoMnPu7
So I would suggest that the TXDoT source that WP editors have cited was intended for inventory purposes, but not for determining total route mileage.

[hbelkins]

Coming at it from the Wikipedian perspective: If TxDOT says that 75 miles is not part of SH 6, and TxDOT/the Transportation Commission is the authority responsible for determining what is and is not a Texas state highway, doesn't that make that 75 miles factually not part of SH 6?

The 75 "missing" miles of TX 6 are comprised of overlaps with US routes, namely US 290, US 79, US 190, US 281, and US 180.  Each of those segments are dual-signed with TX 6 markers:
https://goo.gl/maps/mc6pP3k6ZRonPiK67
https://goo.gl/maps/ZNQJHUe8ABPy3JsB8
https://goo.gl/maps/PpiTMBi3MQCm9Zzh8
https://goo.gl/maps/TjYptWJB8UazjDEt7
https://goo.gl/maps/cS7GyKDULwaoMnPu7
So I would suggest that the TXDoT source that WP editors have cited was intended for inventory purposes, but not for determining total route mileage.

Going back to my home state, Kentucky tends to sign concurrencies. But there are some notable exceptions -- KY 80 has only been sporadically signed across the Russellville bypass. It was originally fully signed with US 68, but later re-signings have omitted much of the KY 80 signage.

[Duke87]

If TxDOT says that 75 miles is not part of SH 6

Then they shouldn't post signs saying it is.

Yeah, see, this is Wikipedia being unable to see the forest for the trees. "TxDOT says that 75 miles is not part of SH 6" is not a correct interpretation of the information presented in the Highway Designation File (TxDOT's own signs, after all, say otherwise). But determining this requires having some broader conceptual understanding of the situation rather than just reading numbers off and taking them at face value.

It's totally understandable that for TxDOT's internal purposes they want to have each stretch of pavement be uniquely identifiable by one route number. They know that when they need to look something up along the US 290/SH 6 concurrency they will find it filed under US 290 rather than having to check both places. This makes their job easier. Not counting concurrent mileage also allows them to simply add up the inventoried length of every route to get the total mileage maintained in the state or any part thereof.

But it's completely misleading to state that SH 6 is 476.4 miles long in an encyclopedia article with no caveat whatsoever because the average reader isn't going to understand TxDOT's inventorying procedures, and is intuitively going to assume - incorrectly - that this number is the distance one will travel if one drives the route end-to-end. It's even more misleading that this figure is then placed right underneath an image that highlights the entire length of the route including concurrences.

The 476.4 mile figure was never intended to be used for the purpose Wikipedia is using it. And while I get that a more accurate number isn't available without doing original research, this is the sort of situation where the best response would be to simply omit any mention of the route's length from the article about it - because providing bad information is worse than providing no information.
Or, at least do what is done in the CA 1 article and put a caveat under the mileage that some concurrencies are not included in that figure.

But no, that doesn't happen because Wikipedia doesn't care whether information is actually correct so long as there is a source to cite it to that appears official or reliable.

This is also, kids, why your teachers and professors are right to not let you cite Wikipedia as a source of information.

[Scott5114]

"Wikipedia" doesn't do anything. Wikipedia is a website that hosts a wiki. The articles are written by people, most of which are also on this forum.

So a mocking "don't use Wikipedia, kids, the editors don't care about what's right" to an audience that includes those same editors just makes you look like a jackass!

[TheGrassGuy]

"Wikipedia" doesn't do anything. Wikipedia is a website that hosts a wiki. The articles are written by people, most of which are also on this forum.

So a mocking "don't use Wikipedia, kids, the editors don't care about what's right" to an audience that includes those same editors just makes you look like a jackass!

Well, if most of you do edit Wikipedia, and if it's that easy, then why don't you go to the page about SH 6 and fix it?

[hotdogPi]

"Wikipedia" doesn't do anything. Wikipedia is a website that hosts a wiki. The articles are written by people, most of which are also on this forum.

So a mocking "don't use Wikipedia, kids, the editors don't care about what's right" to an audience that includes those same editors just makes you look like a jackass!

Well, if most of you do edit Wikipedia, and if it's that easy, then why don't you go to the page about SH 6 and fix it?

Because it will get reverted.

[oscar]

Well, if most of you do edit Wikipedia, and if it's that easy, then why don't you go to the page about SH 6 and fix it?

Because it will get reverted.

Even a modest caveat, cited by Duke87, that some concurrencies are not included in the mileage figure?

[TheHighwayMan3561]

Well, if most of you do edit Wikipedia, and if it's that easy, then why don't you go to the page about SH 6 and fix it?

Because it will get reverted.

Even a modest caveat, cited by Duke87, that some concurrencies are not included in the mileage figure?

Quite possibly. I've made edits that were immediately reverted by people who saw it differently. And I mean immediately, within a few minutes.

[vdeane]

This strikes me as being a point in favor of splitting off the roads content into its own wiki.  I can understand why Wikipedia made the policies, but in the case of highways it leads to demonstrably false information being presented as fact.

[The High Plains Traveler]

From a touring standpoint I get the idea of signing as many of the coast side highways as possible as CA-1, though - they should also pick up the historic US-101 routing in San Diego County.

According to my ex-Caltrans employee cousin who had just started working there while they were in the process of coming up with the '64 renumbering, the original idea for PCH in SoCal was to reinstate CA 3 on that segment of then-Alternate US 101.  But several jurisdictions along that route, including both L.A. and Ventura counties, pushed for CA 1 for just the reasons cited above -- as an aid to tourism, making the coastal route west of US 101 a single easy-to-remember number.   That view prevailed, and CA 3 ended up as a relatively obscure mountain highway in the northern reaches of the state. 

Since Caltrans isn't in the least interested in assuming maintenance of additional urban/suburban surface mileage, the chances of a CA 1 in northern San Diego County are effectively nil. 

I wonder if they likewise considered restoring CA-7 to the segment of former U.S. 6 between I-5 and U.S. 395. I think that would have been preferable to assigning it 14.

[Max Rockatansky]

From a touring standpoint I get the idea of signing as many of the coast side highways as possible as CA-1, though - they should also pick up the historic US-101 routing in San Diego County.

According to my ex-Caltrans employee cousin who had just started working there while they were in the process of coming up with the '64 renumbering, the original idea for PCH in SoCal was to reinstate CA 3 on that segment of then-Alternate US 101.  But several jurisdictions along that route, including both L.A. and Ventura counties, pushed for CA 1 for just the reasons cited above -- as an aid to tourism, making the coastal route west of US 101 a single easy-to-remember number.   That view prevailed, and CA 3 ended up as a relatively obscure mountain highway in the northern reaches of the state. 

Since Caltrans isn't in the least interested in assuming maintenance of additional urban/suburban surface mileage, the chances of a CA 1 in northern San Diego County are effectively nil. 

I wonder if they likewise considered restoring CA-7 to the segment of former U.S. 6 between I-5 and U.S. 395. I think that would have been preferable to assigning it 14.

All things considered the second CA 7 on the corridor of what is now I-710 wasn't too bad. 

[froggie]

"Wikipedia" doesn't do anything. Wikipedia is a website that hosts a wiki. The articles are written by people, most of which are also on this forum^{[citation needed]}.

😌

(sorry, couldn't resist)

[webny99]

"Wikipedia" doesn't do anything. Wikipedia is a website that hosts a wiki. The articles are written by people, most of which are also on this forum^{[citation needed]}.

😌

(sorry, couldn't resist)

Ha! Very nicely done.

[kphoger]

"Wikipedia" doesn't do anything. Wikipedia is a website that hosts a wiki. The articles are written by people, most of which are also on this forum.^{[citation needed]}

Fixed the formatting to more closely resemble.   

[usends]

This thread about state highways seems to have run its course for now.  However, as was established earlier...

States own and maintain [US routes].  Interstates, too, for that matter.

...so I thought this would be a good place to discuss a similar question: what is the longest US route in any state?  And what is the longest Interstate route in any state?
Please note, I am not talking about intra-state US routes, or intra-state Interstates.
An example of what I am talking about: US 83 in Texas is 893.1 miles long.  Does any state have a longer US route?
And I've heard the longest in-state mileage for any Interstate is I-10 through Texas.  True, or not?

[ozarkman417]

At just under 880 miles (1,420 km), the Texas segment of I-10, maintained by the Texas Department of Transportation, is the longest continuous untolled freeway in North America that is operated by a single authority.

[CtrlAltDel]

At just under 880 miles (1,420 km), the Texas segment of I-10, maintained by the Texas Department of Transportation, is the longest continuous untolled freeway in North America that is operated by a single authority.

Not to get back into the question of accuracy, but is that untolled bit really correct? Aren't there tolls in the Houston area?

[ozarkman417]

At just under 880 miles (1,420 km), the Texas segment of I-10, maintained by the Texas Department of Transportation, is the longest continuous untolled freeway in North America that is operated by a single authority.

Not to get back into the question of accuracy, but is that untolled bit really correct? Aren't there tolls in the Houston area?

Along I-10 there is the KATY Managed Lanes, which are HOV and tolled lanes along the interstate, but the mainline isn't tolled.

[Verlanka]

At just under 880 miles (1,420 km), the Texas segment of I-10, maintained by the Texas Department of Transportation, is the longest continuous untolled freeway in North America that is operated by a single authority.

So there are toll roads longer than 880 miles in North America? I'll believe it when I see it.

[Scott5114]

Without looking into the history, that wording is probably specifically because someone wanted to be a pedantic asshole and claim all of the Pennsylvania Turnpike system is one freeway or something like that.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

Without looking into the history, that wording is probably specifically because someone wanted to be a pedantic asshole and claim all of the Pennsylvania Turnpike system is one freeway or something like that.

But even then, is the total amount of PA toll mileage more than 880? I thought mainline plus NE extension was still only somewhere around 500.

[sbeaver44]

Mainline - 360
NE Extension (toll portion) - 111
That's 471 but there are other PTC owned non-connected roads to the mainline

PA 43 south of Uniontown - 8
PA 43 north of Uniontown - 40
PA 66 - 14
I-376 - 16
PA 576 - 6

There's 84 miles there bringing the total PTC responsibility to 555.

Nonetheless, I think the NY Thruway may have close to the same or more? Mainline is 496 and then there are other NYT maintained facilities.

[usends]

US 83 in Texas is 893.1 miles long.  Does any state have a longer US route?

I don't think any state other than California has the dimensions to compete with this distance.  And of course CA deleted or truncated most of their US routes, so US 83 in Texas probably holds the trophy currently.  But historically, US 99 in California was very close to that distance, and I suspect that some early alignments could have been even longer.

[Max Rockatansky]

US 83 in Texas is 893.1 miles long.  Does any state have a longer US route?

I don't think any state other than California has the dimensions to compete with this distance.  And of course CA deleted or truncated most of their US routes, so US 83 in Texas probably holds the trophy currently.  But historically, US 99 in California was very close to that distance, and I suspect that some early alignments could have been even longer.

Present US 101 is 807 miles long.  I-5 currently meets it at Exit 134 so it's safe to say that US 101 in California was the historic winner.