California is well-known for not duplication route numbers, even if they are different types of highway (state routes, US routes, Interstates). For example, there is a California state route 180, therefore there can't be an I-180 within California.
What other states follow that rule?
Do you mean internally or externally? If you mean internally, then PA counts. I-283 and PA 283 have the same number, but I-283 is inventoried as PA 300. The only exception was for the brief time there was two PA 17's, prior to I-86 extended into PA. Both were inventoried as PA 17.
Wisconsin I believe had a rule on the books until I-39 was commissioned. WIS 39 is a fairly minor road away from any major population centers, so it was allowed to keep its number.
Ohio does not duplicate. There once was a SR-76 as one example. That route is now known as SR-83. it changed when I-80S was renamed I-76.
Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
Massachusetts has I-295 and MA 295, New Hampshire has US 4 and NH 4, and Maine has I-195 and ME 195.
Quote from: kkt on July 12, 2016, 04:55:47 PM
California is well-known for not duplication route numbers, even if they are different types of highway (state routes, US routes, Interstates). For example, there is a California state route 180, therefore there can't be an I-180 within California.
Just to be precise, California doesn't have a non-duplication rule; rather, it just doesn't make a distinction between the type of sign on a route (those states that permit "duplication" likely don't really duplicate, but include the sign type as part of the number). California also legislatively defines its route, so that all the segments of a route must connect (although they may be connected via an unsigned multiplex or an unconstructed portion of a route).
I was thinking of routes as signed, disregarding hidden numbers.
Quote from: noelbotevera on July 12, 2016, 05:07:06 PM
Do you mean internally or externally? If you mean internally, then PA counts. I-283 and PA 283 have the same number, but I-283 is inventoried as PA 300. The only exception was for the brief time there was two PA 17's, prior to I-86 extended into PA. Both were inventoried as PA 17.
Not to be pedantic, but you're confusing some terms. "PA 300" would refer to a Pennsylvania numbered traffic route (i.e. with a keystone marker) designated as 300. There is no PA 300. (http://www.pahighways.com/state/PA251-300.html#PA300) What you mean to say is PA 283 is inventoried as
SR 300. (SR 0300, actually.) And about the section of NY 17/I-86 near Sayre, does it even show up in PennDOT route logs at all? I was under the impression that it was a NYSDOT designed, built, and maintained road that incidentally crossed the PA border for a very short distance.
There are other duplications in Pennsylvania–PA 380, PA 99, and PA 86 come to mind. All of those were numbered long before I-81E was changed to I-380, the Budway was designated as I-99, or I-86 was signed on NY/PA 17, hence the reason to keep the PA routes signed under their old numbers.
But in general, PA has historically avoided number duplication, and early PA numbered routes including 1 (http://www.pahighways.com/state/PA1-50.html#PA1), 6 (http://www.pahighways.com/state/PA1-50.html#PA6), 11 (http://www.pahighways.com/state/PA1-50.html#PA11), 15 (http://www.pahighways.com/state/PA1-50.html#PA15), and 22 (http://www.pahighways.com/state/PA1-50.html#PA22) were decommissioned between 1926 and 1930 to free those numbers for US numbered routes. In 1961, a raft of PA routes (including 70 (http://www.pahighways.com/state/PA51-100.html#PA70), 78 (http://www.pahighways.com/state/PA51-100.html#PA78), 79 (http://www.pahighways.com/state/PA51-100.html#PA79), 80 (http://www.pahighways.com/state/PA51-100.html#PA80), 83 (http://www.pahighways.com/state/PA51-100.html#PA83), 84 (http://www.pahighways.com/state/PA51-100.html#PA84), 90 (http://www.pahighways.com/state/PA51-100.html#PA90), 95 (http://www.pahighways.com/state/PA51-100.html#PA95), 180 (http://www.pahighways.com/state/PA151-200.html#PA180), 480 (http://www.pahighways.com/state/PA451-500.html#PA480), and 680 (http://www.pahighways.com/state/PA451-500.html#PA480)) were all decommissioned at once to free those numbers for new Interstates. The flurry of Interstate renumberings in 1964 (I-80S to I-76, etc.) resulted in PA 76 (http://www.pahighways.com/state/PA51-100.html#PA76), 176 (http://www.pahighways.com/state/PA151-200.html#PA176), 276 (http://www.pahighways.com/state/PA251-300.html#PA276), and 376 (http://www.pahighways.com/state/PA351-400.html#PA376) losing their designations. But apparently, some time between 1964 and 1973 when I-81E was redesignated as I-380, PennDOT relaxed the no duplication rule.
Mississippi until very recently avoided duplicate numbers, but I-22 and I-69 are exceptions as preexisting MS 22 and MS 69 remain signed as such rather than being renumbered. Both are relatively short and could be renumbered fairly easily (neither is terribly important and both could be given 3-digit designations), but neither are likely to be confused with the interstates since they're not even in the same transportation districts, so I doubt MDOT will bother.
It does create the rather odd coincidence that both of the car manufacturing plants in Mississippi are near a route numbered 22, however (I-22 near Toyota at Blue Springs and MS 22 near Nissan in Canton).
Does Oregon have a rule? Other than OR-82 and OR-84, which are relatively short routes and not near either I-82 or I-84, seems the state does not do duplication. There used to be a OR-26, but it was later replaced by US-20 and likely due to the US-26 also having been created.
Washington and Utah both assign route numbers by statute with all highways being State Routes regardless of system (e.g. I-5 in WA is officially State Route 5), which prevents duplication from ever occurring (similar to CA), whether or not there is a formal rule on the books.
Idaho has no duplicates, though I don't know if there is a formal reason for that.
Oregon is like Montana and Wyoming, which have duplicates - in that the signed route numbers are just signed route numbers and there is an internal highway designation that the mileposts are based on that does not duplicate that may or may not be the same as the signed route number.
I do wonder about states that do have duplication, such as Texas... There is both a TX-10 and an Interstate 10. I suppose in those states, you simply always prefix the highway type when speaking.
Quote from: Quillz on July 12, 2016, 06:52:05 PM
I do wonder about states that do have duplication, such as Texas... There is both a TX-10 and an Interstate 10. I suppose in those states, you simply always prefix the highway type when speaking.
In Texas's case, two-letter prefixes are pretty much common in regular usage (US, FM, SH, IH).
Quote from: briantroutman on July 12, 2016, 06:14:28 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on July 12, 2016, 05:07:06 PM
Do you mean internally or externally? If you mean internally, then PA counts. I-283 and PA 283 have the same number, but I-283 is inventoried as PA 300. The only exception was for the brief time there was two PA 17's, prior to I-86 extended into PA. Both were inventoried as PA 17.
Not to be pedantic, but you're confusing some terms. "PA 300" would refer to a Pennsylvania numbered traffic route (i.e. with a keystone marker) designated as 300. There is no PA 300. (http://www.pahighways.com/state/PA251-300.html#PA300) What you mean to say is PA 283 is inventoried as SR 300. (SR 0300, actually.) And about the section of NY 17/I-86 near Sayre, does it even show up in PennDOT route logs at all? I was under the impression that it was a NYSDOT designed, built, and maintained road that incidentally crossed the PA border for a very short distance.
I meant the 3 mile section near Erie, not the section near Sayre. This was prior to the early 2000's.
Michigan has both US-24 and M-24 (state route) near Pontiac.
Alabama does not duplicate US routes, but they do have a duplicate state route for every 2 digit interstate in the state (I-10 & AL 10, I-20 & AL 20, I-22 & AL 22, I-59 & AL 59, I-65 & AL 65, I-85 & AL 85).
Quote from: djsekani on July 12, 2016, 08:11:29 PM
Michigan has both US-24 and M-24 (state route) near Pontiac.
Not to mention I-75 and M-75 in the northern Lower Peninsula.
I said not to mention it.
I know Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, and Maryland have no such rule.
When the Interstates came around, though, Illinois had the decency to renumber some state routes to prevent an intersection between two routes of the same number. Indiana, not so much. (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.2883754,-85.9140878,16.67z)
For a little over a year (1968 to 1970), I-87 and CT 87 co-existed; for 6 years (1958 to 1964), CT 95 existed as an extension of I-95 in the southeast.
(Very close but no overlap: CT 291 transition to I-291 in the early '90s. No other interstates than 95 and 291 have existed on the same alignment as state routes.)
Quote from: renegade on July 12, 2016, 08:49:43 PM
Quote from: djsekani on July 12, 2016, 08:11:29 PM
Michigan has both US-24 and M-24 (state route) near Pontiac.
Not to mention I-75 and M-75 in the northern Lower Peninsula.
I said not to mention it.
M-10 and US 10....which were both part of US 10 at one point....
One interesting case of the creation of an interstate resulting in a road being renumbered in a state it does not enter: when I-84 was built in New York, nearby NY 84 was renumbered NY 284 to avoid confusion. New Jersey then renumbered NJ 84 to NJ 284 to match.
This was only done due to proximity, though, New York has no policy against duplication: NY 87 and I-87 coexisted for a good 20 years or so before the former was renumbered to NY 812. NY 287 and I-287 coexisted for a similar period of time. To this day, 81, 86, 88, 90, 278, 290, 295, and 695 all exist both as interstates and unrelated NY state routes. NY 90 and I-90 even cross, although there is no interchange.
New York handles this by inventorying interstates with an "I" suffix (e.g. I-81 is "81I" on reference markers whereas NY 81 is simply "81").
Virginia...it's complicated.
Quote from: 1 on July 12, 2016, 05:26:14 PM
Massachusetts has I-295 and MA 295
...as well as US 3 and MA 3.
Quote from: noelbotevera on July 12, 2016, 08:04:58 PM
Quote from: briantroutman on July 12, 2016, 06:14:28 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on July 12, 2016, 05:07:06 PM
Do you mean internally or externally? If you mean internally, then PA counts. I-283 and PA 283 have the same number, but I-283 is inventoried as PA 300. The only exception was for the brief time there was two PA 17's, prior to I-86 extended into PA. Both were inventoried as PA 17.
Not to be pedantic, but you’re confusing some terms. “PA 300” would refer to a Pennsylvania numbered traffic route (i.e. with a keystone marker) designated as 300. There is no PA 300. (http://www.pahighways.com/state/PA251-300.html#PA300) What you mean to say is PA 283 is inventoried as SR 300. (SR 0300, actually.) And about the section of NY 17/I-86 near Sayre, does it even show up in PennDOT route logs at all? I was under the impression that it was a NYSDOT designed, built, and maintained road that incidentally crossed the PA border for a very short distance.
I meant the 3 mile section near Erie, not the section near Sayre. This was prior to the early 2000's.
There are duplicate numbers with secret differences
There is I-283 and PA 283...PA 283 is SR 0300
There is I-380 and PA 380...PA 380 is SR 0400
There is I-86 and PA 86...PA 86 is SR 0886
There is I-99 and PA 99...PA 99 is SR 0399
BUT...there are duplicate numbers with the same inventory number.
There is US 222 and PA 222...both are SR 0222, where PA 222 is an extension of US 222 into Allentown
There are two PA 29s (SE PA and NE PA) and two PA 97s (Erie County and Adams County), and both I believe are SR 0029 and SR 0097. The two PA 29s were once connected along and before US 309 (I think). The Adams County PA 97 used to be US 140 and I think was match MD 97.
Quote from: 1 on July 12, 2016, 05:26:14 PM
Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
Massachusetts has I-295 and MA 295, New Hampshire has US 4 and NH 4, and Maine has I-195 and ME 195.
MassDOT (and MassHighway and MassDPW in the past) does not allow duplication of route numbers. MA 295 and MA 3 are the sole exceptions. MA 295 was grandfathered in because MA 295 is nowhere near I-295, and because it is such a short state route. Likewise, US 3/MA 3 - which is mile posted as a continuous route, was also grandfathered in because, due to AASHO requirements, it was not practical to re-designate MA 3 as an extension of US 3 due to low clearances in Cambridge (Memorial Drive) and Boston (Storrow Drive), nor were there alternate roadways that met AASHO standards.
Tennessee has duplicate routes. All US highways also have designated state route numbers as well. Most of US 70 is SR 1. We have a US 19 and a SR 19.
In WV numbers do not duplicate, with the exception of I-68 and WV 68. WV 68 is what they renumbered the old WV 2 when they moved 2 to a multiplex with I-77 between Parkersburg and Ravenswood (this was a part of a never built idea of a four lane upgrade of the rest of WV 2). Then Corridor E which was US 48 was renumbered as I-68. The two roads are on the opposite sides of the state, no confusion.
I suppose Florida "technically" doesn't do route duplication. I say "technically" since all US and Interstate Highways all have a secret state designation. So while there is a FL 17 and U.S. 17 for example the latter is legislatively know by a Florida State Road number. In this case FL 5, 35, 555 and 600 if memory serves correct.
Quote from: roadman on July 13, 2016, 11:30:44 AM
Likewise, US 3/MA 3 - which is mile posted as a continuous route, was also grandfathered in because, due to AASHO requirements, it was not practical to re-designate MA 3 as an extension of US 3 due to low clearances in Cambridge (Memorial Drive) and Boston (Storrow Drive), nor were there alternate roadways that met AASHO standards.
Was there ever an official plan to redesignate MA 3 south of Cambridge as part of US 3? Interesting that height clearances would impede it being part of the US route when we had a dirt road on the US highway system as late as the 1960s.
Quote from: TheStranger on July 13, 2016, 02:21:38 PM
Was there ever an official plan to redesignate MA 3 south of Cambridge as part of US 3? Interesting that height clearances would impede it being part of the US route when we had a dirt road on the US highway system as late as the 1960s.
In researching old MassDPW route numbering records (which are actually fairly comprehensive) over the years, I have yet to come across any such proposal. I suspect that part of the reason this never happened is that a short, but key, segment of both US 3 and MA 3 involve parkways under MDC/DCR control. The MDC/DCR has traditionally been opposed to route designations on their "recreational parkways", as evidenced by the US 1 relocation off of MDC parkways in 1989. Likewise, I recall having a conservation on this subject with a senior MassDPW highway sign engineer in the late 1980s. He indicated that, during his tenure, which started in 1958, there had never been any proposal to change MA 3 to an extension of US 3.
Other than US/KY 79, which probably shouldn't count because KY 79 is a logical continuation of US 79 northeastward out of Russellville, Kentucky avoided duplication of route numbers up until I-69 came along. When I-24 was built, KY 24 in the northeastern part of the state was renumbered.
That's not counting US/KY 52, because US 52 does not officially enter Kentucky. The short portions of it that do cross the state line two separate times as part of Corridor G are owned and maintained by WVDOT, and are concurrent with US 119, so if necessary the route in Kentucky could officially be 119 if it became necessary.
There are separate segments of non-connected routes with the same number, however. KY 72 has two segments separated by a mountain, and KY 92 has two segments that were split when Lake Cumberland was impounded. There are other examples including streams with no crossings, and routes that dip across state lines and re-emerge.
I know Missouri did until I-64, I-72 and I-49 came in. MODOT did not renumber the state highways. Coincidentally there are exactly 3 unused 2 digit routes that could work for renumbering in MO-26, MO-88 and MO-93.
The only duplicate I see in Delaware is DE 9 and US 9.
Quote from: TheStranger on July 12, 2016, 07:12:22 PM
Quote from: Quillz on July 12, 2016, 06:52:05 PM
I do wonder about states that do have duplication, such as Texas... There is both a TX-10 and an Interstate 10. I suppose in those states, you simply always prefix the highway type when speaking.
In Texas's case, two-letter prefixes are pretty much common in regular usage (US, FM, SH, IH).
Maryland does that in SHA documents such as highway location references, but people don't do that in everyday speech. The SHA goes to great lengths to inform motorists that there are an I-68 and an unrelated Md. 68, both of which have interchanges with I-70 in Washington County.
Quote from: jemacedo9 on July 13, 2016, 11:13:39 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on July 12, 2016, 08:04:58 PM
Quote from: briantroutman on July 12, 2016, 06:14:28 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on July 12, 2016, 05:07:06 PM
Do you mean internally or externally? If you mean internally, then PA counts. I-283 and PA 283 have the same number, but I-283 is inventoried as PA 300. The only exception was for the brief time there was two PA 17's, prior to I-86 extended into PA. Both were inventoried as PA 17.
Not to be pedantic, but you’re confusing some terms. “PA 300” would refer to a Pennsylvania numbered traffic route (i.e. with a keystone marker) designated as 300. There is no PA 300. (http://www.pahighways.com/state/PA251-300.html#PA300) What you mean to say is PA 283 is inventoried as SR 300. (SR 0300, actually.) And about the section of NY 17/I-86 near Sayre, does it even show up in PennDOT route logs at all? I was under the impression that it was a NYSDOT designed, built, and maintained road that incidentally crossed the PA border for a very short distance.
I meant the 3 mile section near Erie, not the section near Sayre. This was prior to the early 2000's.
There are duplicate numbers with secret differences
There is I-283 and PA 283...PA 283 is SR 0300
There is I-380 and PA 380...PA 380 is SR 0400
There is I-86 and PA 86...PA 86 is SR 0886
There is I-99 and PA 99...PA 99 is SR 0399
BUT...there are duplicate numbers with the same inventory number.
There is US 222 and PA 222...both are SR 0222, where PA 222 is an extension of US 222 into Allentown
There are two PA 29s (SE PA and NE PA) and two PA 97s (Erie County and Adams County), and both I believe are SR 0029 and SR 0097. The two PA 29s were once connected along and before US 309 (I think). The Adams County PA 97 used to be US 140 and I think was match MD 97.
The Erie County PA 97 is actually SR 0197.
Quote from: TheStranger on July 12, 2016, 07:12:22 PM
Quote from: Quillz on July 12, 2016, 06:52:05 PM
I do wonder about states that do have duplication, such as Texas... There is both a TX-10 and an Interstate 10. I suppose in those states, you simply always prefix the highway type when speaking.
In Texas's case, two-letter prefixes are pretty much common in regular usage (US, FM, SH, IH).
Those four (and RM) are in pretty regular use. The internal prefixes for spur, loop, park road, etc. are rarely if ever used by the public or the media. And there's an increasing number of toll routes that are numbered as if they were US or SH routes, but they don't have a state designation.
However, there is some non-duplication between categories: loop and spur numbers are never shared, nor are FM and RM (and UR) numbers, presumably because their signs are hard to distinguish at a distance.
Quote from: pianocello on July 12, 2016, 10:27:48 PM
I know Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, and Maryland have no such rule.
When the Interstates came around, though, Illinois had the decency to renumber some state routes to prevent an intersection between two routes of the same number. Indiana, not so much. (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.2883754,-85.9140878,16.67z)
To add to this, Indiana does have a policy concerning U.S. highways and state highways (the reason SR 135 is not SR 35, due to U.S. 35's presence.) This of course never got carried over to interstates (SR 64, 65, 69, 70 and 265 technically.)
Quote from: corco on July 12, 2016, 06:48:12 PM
Washington and Utah both assign route numbers by statute with all highways being State Routes regardless of system (e.g. I-5 in WA is officially State Route 5), which prevents duplication from ever occurring (similar to CA), whether or not there is a formal rule on the books.
Same with SD too.
Nevada does not duplicate route numbers between systems, and hasn't since the 1976 renumbering.
During the renumbering, NDOT skipped potential state route numbers (actually FAP/FAS numbers in the Federal Aid numbering) that would otherwise be in sequence for the country clustering numbering scheme. The three known examples I can think of: SR 395 could have been a state highway in/near Lovelock, but was skipped due to US 395. SR 515 could have been a route in Carson City, but was skipped due to planned I-515. SR 580 could have been in the Vegas area, but skipped due to planned I-580.
Before the renumbering, several state highways existed that duplicated US highway numbers (6, 40, 50, 91, 93), and later interstates (15, 80). Most of these were pretty spread out and I don't think any intersected.
Quote from: thenetwork on July 12, 2016, 05:22:23 PM
Ohio does not duplicate. There once was a SR-76 as one example. That route is now known as SR-83. it changed when I-80S was renamed I-76.
Not quite. There are two SR 152s over by Jefferson County. They used to be connected but haven't been since the 1940s.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 13, 2016, 01:57:25 PM
I suppose Florida "technically" doesn't do route duplication. I say "technically" since all US and Interstate Highways all have a secret state designation. So while there is a FL 17 and U.S. 17 for example the latter is legislatively know by a Florida State Road number. In this case FL 5, 35, 555 and 600 if memory serves correct.
There are State Roads 4, 10, 75, 95, 295, 375, and 595 for each Interstate of the same number, but only FL 10 is somewhat close to I-10. So there are "secret" numbers for each, but they were typically first, since many US Routes did not extend into Florida until after the post-WWII state-wide renumbering. In many cases, the SR continues after the US Route moves away onto another road alignment.
There's US 17 near FL 17, with deprecated sections labelled CR 17 (or even 17A/17B) which is probably rather confusing. US 17 is hidden FL 35 in many places, hidden FL 15 in others.
There might be some decommissioned secondary routes (795, for example) or roads like FL 1 or FL 27 which were renamed to prevent confusion.
So, I'd say that Florida only prevents number duplication if it's locally confusing. FL 27 became FL 9336* because it was close to US 27. Not sure if FL 1 / US 90 was changed to FL 10 (although FL 90 and FL 10 are used as hidden designations for US 41's "east-west" section [former US 94]).
* I've always wanted an answer to why this number was chosen, with many others available.
Let's make a list for all states. (This is mostly from the other replies on this thread, so there may be some inaccuracies.)
AL: I-22 and AL 22.
AZ:
AR:
AK: If Interstate A1 = AK 1, there is duplication. If Interstate A1 ≠ AK 1, there is no duplication.
CO:
CA: No duplication if an extension of an Interstate as a state route is considered a single route.
CT: No duplication.
DE: US 9 and DE 9.
FL: US 17 and FL 17.
GA: I-20 and GA 20, which intersect.
HI:
IL: I-64 and IL 64.
ID: No duplication.
IN: There are duplicates, but I don't know what they are.
IA:
KS:
KY: See reply #30.
LA:
MA: I-295 and MA 295, on opposite sides of the state.
ME: I-195 and ME 195.
MI: US 24 and M-24.
MO: I-64 and MO 64.
MD: I-68 and MD 68.
MT: There are duplicates, but I don't know what they are.
MS: I-22 and MI 22.
MN:
NE: There are 2 routes numbered NE 2, not counting the user on this forum.
ND:
NC: I-74, US 74, and NC 74. The first two overlap.
NV: No duplication.
NY: I-90 and NY 90, which cross with no interchange.
NH: US 4 and NH 4, relatively close.
NM:
NJ:
OR: I-84 and OR 84.
OH: OH 152 exists twice.
OK:
PA: I-99 and PA 99. PA 97 also appears twice.
RI: No duplication.
SD: No duplication.
SC:
TX: Many, many duplicates.
TN: US 19 and TN 19.
UT: No duplication.
VA: Many 600+, also US 360 and VA 360.
VT: No duplication.
WI: I-39 and WI 39.
WY: There are duplicates, but I don't know what they are.
WV: I-68 and WV 68.
WA: No duplication.
Quote from: formulanone on July 14, 2016, 09:34:42 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 13, 2016, 01:57:25 PM
I suppose Florida "technically" doesn't do route duplication. I say "technically" since all US and Interstate Highways all have a secret state designation. So while there is a FL 17 and U.S. 17 for example the latter is legislatively know by a Florida State Road number. In this case FL 5, 35, 555 and 600 if memory serves correct.
There are State Roads 4, 10, 75, 95, 295, 375, and 595 for each Interstate of the same number, but only FL 10 is somewhat close to I-10. So there are "secret" numbers for each, but they were typically first, since many US Routes did not extend into Florida until after the post-WWII state-wide renumbering. In many cases, the SR continues after the US Route moves away onto another road alignment.
There's US 17 near FL 17, with deprecated sections labelled CR 17 (or even 17A/17B) which is probably rather confusing. US 17 is hidden FL 35 in many places, hidden FL 15 in others.
There might be some decommissioned secondary routes (795, for example) or roads like FL 1 or FL 27 which were renamed to prevent confusion.
So, I'd say that Florida only prevents number duplication if it's locally confusing. FL 27 became FL 9336* because it was close to US 27. Not sure if FL 1 / US 90 was changed to FL 10 (although FL 90 and FL 10 are used as hidden designations for US 41's "east-west" section [former US 94]).
* I've always wanted an answer to why this number was chosen, with many others available.
Yes, I was just saying legislatively they are all technically state roads and despite what it may say say on the shield (US or Interstate) that it's on the log book with a FL Road number. The real interesting part is that if you look at the Florida State Highways (US and Interstates included) they actually form a grid. The north/south odd numbers start with A1A (FL 1) and increase heading westward. The east/west routes are even and increase southward with the multiples of 10 being considered the major ones. So for example FL 8 is I-10 while US 90 is mostly FL 10. The three digits usually are some kind of shorter route or doesn't head generally in an N, S, E, W cardinal direction. The three digits (with some misplaced ones in the 100s around Miami in the 9xx grid) basically start with the first number of the major multiple of 10 they are south of. For example; pretty much anything south of FL 50 but north of FL 60 is going to be 5XX if it is a three digit route. For the most part even the county routes which largely were part of the state highway system at one point use the same numbering scheme or are continuations of FL state highways. A good example of this would be FL 40 turning into CR 40 west of US 41.
But to your point yes as the routes are actually SIGNED there are obviously many duplicates given the high number of routes in the state. Some places actually even sign the secret Florida State Route along with the US Route in the case of Martin County with US 98/FL 700 and US 441/FL 15. The example you gave with FL 27 was changed because apparently people were getting it confused with US 27 signed nearby and ending up in Homestead instead of Miami; hence 9336 AND 997 that you see today. A1A basically was Florida just throwing something out there to make it stand out against US 1/FL 5 and it apparently it really doesn't mean Atlantic 1 Alternate.
For what it's worth I tend see this as probably one of the better controlled renumberings that a DOT made, in this case Florida did it in 1945...Nevada would be another good example of an orderly renumbering. Before the routes were legislative and were numbered in order that they were enacted into law. It's...interesting seeing some states like New Mexico and California that have massive log books like this but never went through and truly cleaned things up. New Mexico is a complete disaster with random numbers...and California had the LRN renumberings that really fell short in terms of missing an opportunity to make signage more simple in an era we it would have been considered useful. But...that's where I think that I said some inflaming comments in another thread...before I get too side tracked I'll stop. One state that certainly DOESN'T have a rule with numbers duplicates is Arizona; you have AZ 89/89A and US 89/89A not to mention a US 95 then AZ 95 with the latter terminating at the former. I'll have to check up on my New Mexico log books...there are so many that I'm honestly not sure if there is or isn't duplicates off the top of my head.
Quote from: 1 on July 14, 2016, 09:56:44 AM
Let's make a list for all states. (This is mostly from the other replies on this thread, so there may be some inaccuracies.)
AL: I-22 and AL 22.
AZ:
AR:
AK: If Interstate A1 = AK 1, there is duplication. If Interstate A1 ≠ AK 1, there is no duplication.
CO:
CA: No duplication if an extension of an Interstate as a state route is considered a single route.
CT: No duplication.
DE: US 9 and DE 9.
FL: US 17 and FL 17.
GA: I-20 and GA 20, which intersect.
HI:
IL: I-64 and IL 64.
ID: No duplication.
IN: There are duplicates, but I don't know what they are.
IA:
KS:
KY: See reply #30.
LA:
MA: I-295 and MA 295, on opposite sides of the state.
ME: I-195 and ME 195.
MI: US 24 and M-24.
MO: I-64 and MO 64.
MD: I-68 and MD 68.
MT: There are duplicates, but I don't know what they are.
MS: I-22 and MI 22.
MN:
NE: There are 2 routes numbered NE 2, not counting the user on this forum.
ND:
NC: I-74, US 74, and NC 74. The first two overlap.
NV: No duplication.
NY: I-90 and NY 90, which cross with no interchange.
NH: US 4 and NH 4, relatively close.
NM:
NJ:
OR: I-84 and OR 84.
OH: OH 152 exists twice.
OK:
PA: I-99 and PA 99. PA 97 also appears twice.
RI: No duplication.
SD: No duplication.
SC:
TX: Many, many duplicates.
TN: US 19 and TN 19.
UT: No duplication.
VA: Many 600+, also US 360 and VA 360.
VT: No duplication.
WI: I-39 and WI 39.
WY: There are duplicates, but I don't know what they are.
WV: I-68 and WV 68.
WA: No duplication.
You'll be at that for A LONG time. BTW, you might want to review what I just said in regards to Florida, ain't as straight forward there as it seems on the surface.
One example that comes to mind in Tennessee is TN 70 and US 70. They are in fairly close proximity, one county away from each other. TN 70 is in Greeneville and US 70 passes through Newport.
Quote from: 1 on July 14, 2016, 09:56:44 AM
NE: There are 2 routes numbered NE 2, not counting the user on this forum.
Our forum member is not referring to Nebraska. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_England_road_marking_system#Route_2 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_England_road_marking_system#Route_2)
Louisiana does not duplicate State Highways and US Highways. The exceptions are LA 371 and LA 425 which existed before US 371 and US 425 were created in the 90's. I believe LA 371 has since been deleted or changed to an LA-3xxx number.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 14, 2016, 10:01:51 AM
It's...interesting seeing some states like New Mexico and California that have massive log books like this but never went through and truly cleaned things up. New Mexico is a complete disaster with random numbers...and California had the LRN renumberings that really fell short in terms of missing an opportunity to make signage more simple in an era we it would have been considered useful. But...that's where I think that I said some inflaming comments in another thread...before I get too side tracked I'll stop.
With regards to California: I think the biggest flaws in how the post-1964 numbering has been handled are 1. forcing every route designation to be reviewed legislatively (when pre-1964, the signed designations were handled by the old Division of Highways) and 2. by extension, inconsistent in-the-field signage requirements if cities decide to maintain their own portions of what was a numbered route.
One side effect of this too is a certain inflexibility in rerouting highways to reflect current traffic patterns. For instance, the new Route 78/Route 111 bypass of Brawley is a perfect spot to clean up the 86/111 designations from there to the border, yet no changes have been made beyond a planned decommissioning of Route 86 through El Centro. The existence of Route 14U and the past existence of Route 86S also are unintended consequences of how the California numbering system is used in practice.
Quote from: TheStranger on July 14, 2016, 12:30:34 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 14, 2016, 10:01:51 AM
It's...interesting seeing some states like New Mexico and California that have massive log books like this but never went through and truly cleaned things up. New Mexico is a complete disaster with random numbers...and California had the LRN renumberings that really fell short in terms of missing an opportunity to make signage more simple in an era we it would have been considered useful. But...that's where I think that I said some inflaming comments in another thread...before I get too side tracked I'll stop.
With regards to California: I think the biggest flaws in how the post-1964 numbering has been handled are 1. forcing every route designation to be reviewed legislatively (when pre-1964, the signed designations were handled by the old Division of Highways) and 2. by extension, inconsistent in-the-field signage requirements if cities decide to maintain their own portions of what was a numbered route.
One side effect of this too is a certain inflexibility in rerouting highways to reflect current traffic patterns. For instance, the new Route 78/Route 111 bypass of Brawley is a perfect spot to clean up the 86/111 designations from there to the border, yet no changes have been made beyond a planned decommissioning of Route 86 through El Centro. The existence of Route 14U and the past existence of Route 86S also are unintended consequences of how the California numbering system is used in practice.
Which was the point of contention I've always had primarily with the system being handled legislatively. You have a state with 38 million residents which makes passage of almost any law extremely difficult. Granted I'm well aware that as a current California resident and twice passerby with two previous jobs around L.A./San Francisco a lot of my observations are from an outside perspective. I always kind of gotten the gist that largely as the years have worn on that the legislative requirements have really ground down any will to make improvements at least from a numbering/navigation perspective. It's just surprising that all the way back in 1964 there wasn't a bigger push to have the highway system make more sense rather than just slapping a legislative designation that matched what was being signed in the field. Given the huge effort, why not go the extra mile like a lot of other states did? Regardless it's still an improvement over the LRN system and I would be remiss to say that there wasn't bigger issues on the plate of legislatures...but then again, hand the numberings over to Caltrans and there might be some traction but it will likely never happen. Makes me wonder though, why not just have something like I-238 signed as I-180 but legislatively it exists as part of route 238? Would that technically be a duplication in the eyes of the legislatures?...I would suspect not with all ye unsigned routes throughout the state.
Quote from: roadman on July 13, 2016, 11:30:44 AMUS 3/MA 3 - which is mile posted as a continuous route, was also grandfathered in because, due to AASHO requirements, it was not practical to re-designate MA 3 as an extension of US 3 due to low clearances in Cambridge (Memorial Drive) and Boston (Storrow Drive), nor were there alternate roadways that met AASHO standards.
Prior to 1971, Route 3 never touched Storrow Drive and exited off Memorial Drive at the B.U. Bridge. After crossing into Boston, Route 3 would eventually
piggyback w/then-US 1 along the Riverway & Jamaicaway and then followed the current MA 203 corridor. In hindsight & IMHO, the US/MA 3 routing should've stayed in its pre-1971 alignment; but that's another story for another thread.
I'm still sticking to the story that the reason why MA 3 wasn't US 3 is due to the DPW not wanting any odd-numbered US routes located east of US 1 (despite such occurring in other states).
Indiana does have duplicates, however, these are largely due to discontinuities created by other routes being built and supplanting the original, or the *Non-BBC2 Word* removal of routes from within major cities.
AFAIK Washington, Oregon, California, and Idaho are anal about preventing duplication in the visible route numbers, except of course for 99/99W/99E for historical reasons.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 14, 2016, 12:42:12 PM
Makes me wonder though, why not just have something like I-238 signed as I-180 but legislatively it exists as part of route 238? Would that technically be a duplication in the eyes of the legislatures?...I would suspect not with all ye unsigned routes throughout the state.
I think the non-duplication thing is more a Caltrans push than a legislative one: no duplicate numbers means that there's no confusion as to what route refers to what, and the reduction of concurrencies in theory was supposed to simplify how much travelers would have to remember for navigation.
Of course, the I-15E/Route 194 and Business 80/Route 51 dual-designation situations subvert this to some degree.
I've always liked the system used elsewhere (particularly Massachusetts) where the numbered routes do not reflect state maintenance, but rather (generally) logical navigational routings.
Quote from: Quillz on July 12, 2016, 06:52:05 PM
I do wonder about states that do have duplication, such as Texas... There is both a TX-10 and an Interstate 10. I suppose in those states, you simply always prefix the highway type when speaking.
In some of them, yes. In Michigan, it is very common to us M-nn, US-nn, or I-nn when speaking, such as "Take M-96 to M-294 to I-94 to US-127". Even in the UP, where one can hear "highway", it's "Highway M-28", or "Highway US-41". In Illinois, not so much. There, just plain "route" or "highway" can be heard.
Other Virginia duplications -- US and VA 13, and the infamous US/VA 33 which is a "kind of but not really" continuation, in the same vein as US and KY 79.
Quote from: TEG24601 on July 14, 2016, 01:20:22 PM*Non-BBC2 Word*
Err, odd cultural reference...
BBC2 is much more sweary than BBC1. It's also far more likely to have nudity - that more niche and artsy brief vs the populist brief of BBC1.
The third and fourth seasons of (the excellent)
The Thick of It aired first on BBC2. (very NSFW - this is perhaps one of less OTT ones)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i93-u39XV7I
But the c-word is always post-10pm, unlike news channels (Radio 4, and today SkyNews (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pa70fCLZ4_A)) where Jeremy Hunt's name seems to get mispronounced more often than not ;)
Colorado is debatable -- especially when it comes down to CO-470 and E-470. CO-470 is maintained by CDOT, while E-470 is a privately run Toll Road. They also use different shields even though 470 is a continuous road skirting Denver on 3 sides.
Otherwise CO-25 became CO-55, CO-70 became CO-51 and CO-76 became CO-78 when their interstate counterparts were established.
The lists given for Michigan duplicates are incomplete. Each 2dI has a corresponding 2dM someplace: I-69 and M-69, I-75 and M-75, I-94 and M-94, I-96 and M-96. Several of the 2dUSes have duplicates: US 8 and M-8, US 10 and M-10, US 24 and M-24, US 45 and M-45. Historically, US 25 and M-25, US 27 and M-27, US 33 and M-33, US 112 and M-112, US 131 and M-131 have also both existed at the same times. US 102 and M-102 have have also briefly existed at the same time in 1928; if not, it was a near miss by a matter of weeks. M-2 may have been used on the Jeffries Freeway service drives in the 1970s, duplicating US 2's number at that time.
In 1926, the state renumbered highways and avoided duplicating US Highway numbers except where highways were renumbered as implied continuations of new US Highways: US 24 and M-24 had a common terminus in Pontiac, and US 131 and M-131 had a common terminus near Fife Lake. Other later changes resulted in M-25 as an extension of US 25 in the Thumb. Later M-10 was used for former sections of US 10, and M-27 was assigned to a former section of US 27. So over the years, any internal rule against duplication was relaxed and then disregarded completely by the time the Interstates were designated.
Quote from: 1 on July 14, 2016, 09:56:44 AM
GA: I-20 and GA 20, which intersect.
US 27 and GA 27 also intersect. Most US and I-routes below 400 have state route duplicates, and so does I-520.
Quote from: thenetwork on July 14, 2016, 03:41:31 PM
Colorado is debatable -- especially when it comes down to CO-470 and E-470. CO-470 is maintained by CDOT, while E-470 is a privately run Toll Road. They also use different shields even though 470 is a continuous road skirting Denver on 3 sides.
Is the entire route referred to simply as "
the 470" or "
Highway 470"? Or do locals differentiate between the two? Just a question, not necessarily related to the topic at hand.
Quote from: bulldog1979 on July 14, 2016, 03:42:53 PM
The lists given for Michigan duplicates are incomplete. Each 2dI has a corresponding 2dM someplace: I-69 and M-69, I-75 and M-75, I-94 and M-94, I-96 and M-96. Several of the 2dUSes have duplicates: US 8 and M-8, US 10 and M-10, US 24 and M-24, US 45 and M-45. Historically, US 25 and M-25, US 27 and M-27, US 33 and M-33, US 112 and M-112, US 131 and M-131 have also both existed at the same times. US 102 and M-102 have have also briefly existed at the same time in 1928; if not, it was a near miss by a matter of weeks. M-2 may have been used on the Jeffries Freeway service drives in the 1970s, duplicating US 2's number at that time.
In 1926, the state renumbered highways and avoided duplicating US Highway numbers except where highways were renumbered as implied continuations of new US Highways: US 24 and M-24 had a common terminus in Pontiac, and US 131 and M-131 had a common terminus near Fife Lake. Other later changes resulted in M-25 as an extension of US 25 in the Thumb. Later M-10 was used for former sections of US 10, and M-27 was assigned to a former section of US 27. So over the years, any internal rule against duplication was relaxed and then disregarded completely by the time the Interstates were designated.
I always thought it was weird that M16 wasn't reused after US 16 was decommissioned. I mean....US 16 largely WAS M-16 originally even before the US Route system existed. You'd think with the M-27s and M-25s out there that the original designation would have come back instead of a crap ton of new ones.
Quote from: TheStranger on July 14, 2016, 12:30:34 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 14, 2016, 10:01:51 AM
It's...interesting seeing some states like New Mexico and California that have massive log books like this but never went through and truly cleaned things up. New Mexico is a complete disaster with random numbers...and California had the LRN renumberings that really fell short in terms of missing an opportunity to make signage more simple in an era we it would have been considered useful. But...that's where I think that I said some inflaming comments in another thread...before I get too side tracked I'll stop.
With regards to California: I think the biggest flaws in how the post-1964 numbering has been handled are 1. forcing every route designation to be reviewed legislatively (when pre-1964, the signed designations were handled by the old Division of Highways) and 2. by extension, inconsistent in-the-field signage requirements if cities decide to maintain their own portions of what was a numbered route.
One side effect of this too is a certain inflexibility in rerouting highways to reflect current traffic patterns. For instance, the new Route 78/Route 111 bypass of Brawley is a perfect spot to clean up the 86/111 designations from there to the border, yet no changes have been made beyond a planned decommissioning of Route 86 through El Centro. The existence of Route 14U and the past existence of Route 86S also are unintended consequences of how the California numbering system is used in practice.
I agree. The current California system is a complete mess. Looking at older highway maps, there was actually an order to how numbers were assigned. There were more concurrencies, but nothing extreme, and I'd argue they were better for the sake of maintaining continuity and navigation. Now numbers are just assigned randomly, even numbers travel south-north, odd numbers travel west-east, routes simply "disappear" from community to community, it's a mess. Too bad it will never really be fixed, either.
Quote from: TheStranger on July 14, 2016, 01:24:08 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 14, 2016, 12:42:12 PM
Makes me wonder though, why not just have something like I-238 signed as I-180 but legislatively it exists as part of route 238? Would that technically be a duplication in the eyes of the legislatures?...I would suspect not with all ye unsigned routes throughout the state.
I think the non-duplication thing is more a Caltrans push than a legislative one: no duplicate numbers means that there's no confusion as to what route refers to what, and the reduction of concurrencies in theory was supposed to simplify how much travelers would have to remember for navigation.
Of course, the I-15E/Route 194 and Business 80/Route 51 dual-designation situations subvert this to some degree.
I've always liked the system used elsewhere (particularly Massachusetts) where the numbered routes do not reflect state maintenance, but rather (generally) logical navigational routings.
Yeah, that's the issue. Practice has not reflected theory. Say you don't have a paper map, or a GPS, and you want to navigate a route, such as CA-16. Suddenly, you hit I-5 and it just disappears entirely, only to reappear down in Sacramento, and even then, only if you know to get on US-50. If a CA-16 shield was posted alongside I-5, you wouldn't have that confusion. And I really doubt motorists really had much difficulty navigating concurrencies. Plenty of other routes do things like that, too. Wouldn't be too much of an issue if the local communities maintained shields like they are (supposed?) to.
Minnesota has four duplications. 61, 65, and 169 are extensions (or in 61's case a replacement) of US routes. MN 62 is duplicated differently. The original MN 62 is in southwest Minnesota. When the Hennepin County 62 freeway was turned over to the state in 1988, it became MN 62. The original, a rural route, was not renumbered.
MN 35 and MN 94 were renumbered to MN 135 and MN 194 when I-35 and I-94 were commissioned.
Quote from: jakeroot on July 14, 2016, 06:45:26 PM
Quote from: thenetwork on July 14, 2016, 03:41:31 PM
Colorado is debatable -- especially when it comes down to CO-470 and E-470. CO-470 is maintained by CDOT, while E-470 is a privately run Toll Road. They also use different shields even though 470 is a continuous road skirting Denver on 3 sides.
Is the entire route referred to simply as "the 470" or "Highway 470"? Or do locals differentiate between the two? Just a question, not necessarily related to the topic at hand.
No, it's either C-470 OR E-470.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 14, 2016, 09:05:48 PM
I always thought it was weird that M16 wasn't reused after US 16 was decommissioned. I mean....US 16 largely WAS M-16 originally even before the US Route system existed. You'd think with the M-27s and M-25s out there that the original designation would have come back instead of a crap ton of new ones.
It makes a bit of sense though. At the time it was removed, most of US 16 was essentially I-196 or I-96. The western end in Muskegon became BS I-196 for a year and then BS I-96. The eastern end in the Detroit area was similarly BS I-96, leaving just the middle segment in Lansing needing a new number. They could have resurrected M-16 there in a greatly reduced form, but the northwestern part of old US 16 in Lansing became part of BL I-96, and it like appeared easier to just extend M-43 over the rest rather than add another number to the system overall.
Quote from: Quillz on July 12, 2016, 06:45:22 PM
Does Oregon have a rule? Other than OR-82 and OR-84, which are relatively short routes and not near either I-82 or I-84, seems the state does not do duplication. There used to be a OR-26, but it was later replaced by US-20 and likely due to the US-26 also having been created.
There is no OR 84.
OR 26 was removed in 1945.
The only two duplicated routes in Oregon are 82 and 205; OR 82 could be argued it's an extension by way of unsigned overlap on I-84 from I-82 (it's not), and OR 205 has absolutely no relation to I-205. Neither cause any confusion.
Quote from: 1 on July 14, 2016, 09:56:44 AM
Let's make a list for all states. (This is mostly from the other replies on this thread, so there may be some inaccuracies.)
OR: I-84 and OR 84.
No 84 duplication in Oregon.
Quote from: bulldog1979 on July 15, 2016, 03:26:34 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 14, 2016, 09:05:48 PM
I always thought it was weird that M16 wasn't reused after US 16 was decommissioned. I mean....US 16 largely WAS M-16 originally even before the US Route system existed. You'd think with the M-27s and M-25s out there that the original designation would have come back instead of a crap ton of new ones.
It makes a bit of sense though. At the time it was removed, most of US 16 was essentially I-196 or I-96. The western end in Muskegon became BS I-196 for a year and then BS I-96. The eastern end in the Detroit area was similarly BS I-96, leaving just the middle segment in Lansing needing a new number. They could have resurrected M-16 there in a greatly reduced form, but the northwestern part of old US 16 in Lansing became part of BL I-96, and it like appeared easier to just extend M-43 over the rest rather than add another number to the system overall.
I think the BL Routes had a lot more equity back in those days given the Interstates were a new shinny thing in the 1960s. I would be fine with it so long as you could travel between Lansing and Detroit via Grand River on signed trunk lines. It was always kind of fun to get off I-96 and just explore the older road when I was in high school, it was really the first time I had an opportunity to explore something like that...92 Sunbird and all. :-D
Quote from: english si on July 14, 2016, 02:37:41 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on July 14, 2016, 01:20:22 PM*Non-BBC2 Word*
Err, odd cultural reference...
BBC2 is much more sweary than BBC1. It's also far more likely to have nudity - that more niche and artsy brief vs the populist brief of BBC1.
The third and fourth seasons of (the excellent) The Thick of It aired first on BBC2. (very NSFW - this is perhaps one of less OTT ones)
But the c-word is always post-10pm, unlike news channels (Radio 4, and today SkyNews (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pa70fCLZ4_A)) where Jeremy Hunt's name seems to get mispronounced more often than not ;)
It is something James May says, and indicates to me something more severe than what BBC 2 would allow. In this case a word that is even rare on US Premium Cable.
NJ has strict rules.
No Duplication, any US route takes precident over a State Route.
Any Interstate takes precident over a State Route
If a State Route meets an out of state route, it takes that number. NJ73 NJ440 NJ413 are prime examples I think NJ17, and 94 are as well.
Quote from: briantroutman on July 12, 2016, 06:14:28 PMAnd about the section of NY 17/I-86 near Sayre, does it even show up in PennDOT route logs at all? I was under the impression that it was a NYSDOT designed, built, and maintained road that incidentally crossed the PA border for a very short distance.
Interesting question because there definitely aren't any "Entering Pennsylvania/New York" signs there, unless my observation skills are just really that bad and I somehow missed them. I'll actually be traveling that route again Sunday morning (07/17/2016) so I'll keep an eye out.
As I read into it, Nebraska technically does not have duplicates. Several highways are discontinuous. For NE 2, or as the Nebraska log book calls it, N-2, when the western segment ends, it says in the log book, which can be found at http://www.transportation.nebraska.gov/docs/logbook.pdf , "N-2 STOPS. RESUMES APPROXIMATELY 81.77 MILES". I personally think it looks stupid the way they do it, though.
Iowa has both an IA 136 and a US 136. There were two IA 15's and both IA 77 and US 77 prior to July 1, 2003.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 15, 2016, 09:29:10 AM
I think the BL Routes had a lot more equity back in those days given the Interstates were a new shinny thing in the 1960s. I would be fine with it so long as you could travel between Lansing and Detroit via Grand River on signed trunk lines. It was always kind of fun to get off I-96 and just explore the older road when I was in high school, it was really the first time I had an opportunity to explore something like that...92 Sunbird and all. :-D
Maybe, but Grand River Avenue between Grand Rapids and the Lansing area hasn't been a trunkline since I-96 was built to the south of it, and the same goes for the section between Webberville and Farmington, other than the business loop at Howell. Once the new freeway was built, the old road was turned back to the local jurisdictions. The core purpose of the road had been usurped, and there wasn't any reason for the state to retain it in most places.
Quote from: bulldog1979 on July 16, 2016, 02:49:21 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 15, 2016, 09:29:10 AM
I think the BL Routes had a lot more equity back in those days given the Interstates were a new shinny thing in the 1960s. I would be fine with it so long as you could travel between Lansing and Detroit via Grand River on signed trunk lines. It was always kind of fun to get off I-96 and just explore the older road when I was in high school, it was really the first time I had an opportunity to explore something like that...92 Sunbird and all. :-D
Maybe, but Grand River Avenue between Grand Rapids and the Lansing area hasn't been a trunkline since I-96 was built to the south of it, and the same goes for the section between Webberville and Farmington, other than the business loop at Howell. Once the new freeway was built, the old road was turned back to the local jurisdictions. The core purpose of the road had been usurped, and there wasn't any reason for the state to retain it in most places.
True...guess it goes back to the old signage for navigation argument rather than who maintains it. I suppose it really doesn't matter really because if there was a problem on I-96 most of the locals knew Grand River was there to get around it.
Quote from: TEG24601 on July 15, 2016, 12:08:30 PMIt is something James May says, and indicates to me something more severe than what BBC 2 would allow. In this case a word that is even rare on US Premium Cable.
OK, it was on a 'Red Button' bonus feature after a special episode on BBC4, but this kind of thing (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mss7ZNIEhfo) is what got
The Thick of It mainstream enough to move from the artsy BBC4 to the cult-TV BBC2 for Seasons 3 and 4 (has more c-words than the last season of GoT crammed into a few seconds - very much not safe for work).
Capaldi became a massive star in the UK via swearing on BBC2 (and BBC4 before that) - including the c-word (he did an ad for a cancer charity saying he was going to talk about "the 'c-word' and not his usual one").
The issue is timeslot (TG starting at 8pm, not 10pm, and thus TV needing to be something equivalent to TV-14 in the US), and James May is wrong about any word being a 'non-BBC2' word. BBC2 is probably more willing than HBO et al to use that particular word.
NJ: no duplication across Interstate, US, state, and primary county (500-series) routes. secondary county routes can be duplicated in other counties.
Quote from: 8.Lug on July 16, 2016, 12:57:55 AM
Quote from: briantroutman on July 12, 2016, 06:14:28 PMAnd about the section of NY 17/I-86 near Sayre, does it even show up in PennDOT route logs at all? I was under the impression that it was a NYSDOT designed, built, and maintained road that incidentally crossed the PA border for a very short distance.
Interesting question because there definitely aren't any "Entering Pennsylvania/New York" signs there, unless my observation skills are just really that bad and I somehow missed them. I'll actually be traveling that route again Sunday morning (07/17/2016) so I'll keep an eye out.
There are just small signs there.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmillenniumhwy.net%2F2009_Milford_PA_Day_2%2FImages%2F156.jpg&hash=c7096c334e12a1abce467215ab58749b12b1d3bd)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmillenniumhwy.net%2F2009_Milford_PA_Day_2%2FImages%2F157.jpg&hash=cd171a6325193ce6e29089c621341c77e8c51bb8)
More photos -- http://millenniumhwy.net/2009_Milford_PA_Day_2/index2.html
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 16, 2016, 07:02:03 AM
Quote from: bulldog1979 on July 16, 2016, 02:49:21 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 15, 2016, 09:29:10 AM
I think the BL Routes had a lot more equity back in those days given the Interstates were a new shinny thing in the 1960s. I would be fine with it so long as you could travel between Lansing and Detroit via Grand River on signed trunk lines. It was always kind of fun to get off I-96 and just explore the older road when I was in high school, it was really the first time I had an opportunity to explore something like that...92 Sunbird and all. :-D
Maybe, but Grand River Avenue between Grand Rapids and the Lansing area hasn't been a trunkline since I-96 was built to the south of it, and the same goes for the section between Webberville and Farmington, other than the business loop at Howell. Once the new freeway was built, the old road was turned back to the local jurisdictions. The core purpose of the road had been usurped, and there wasn't any reason for the state to retain it in most places.
True...guess it goes back to the old signage for navigation argument rather than who maintains it. I suppose it really doesn't matter really because if there was a problem on I-96 most of the locals knew Grand River was there to get around it.
And now that they have the "Emergency" orange signs for Interstates, it's probably signed for navigation again. But not as M-16. (I wonder if M16 is too much associated with the military rifle.)
Quote from: GaryV on July 16, 2016, 05:28:55 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 16, 2016, 07:02:03 AM
Quote from: bulldog1979 on July 16, 2016, 02:49:21 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 15, 2016, 09:29:10 AM
I think the BL Routes had a lot more equity back in those days given the Interstates were a new shinny thing in the 1960s. I would be fine with it so long as you could travel between Lansing and Detroit via Grand River on signed trunk lines. It was always kind of fun to get off I-96 and just explore the older road when I was in high school, it was really the first time I had an opportunity to explore something like that...92 Sunbird and all. :-D
Maybe, but Grand River Avenue between Grand Rapids and the Lansing area hasn't been a trunkline since I-96 was built to the south of it, and the same goes for the section between Webberville and Farmington, other than the business loop at Howell. Once the new freeway was built, the old road was turned back to the local jurisdictions. The core purpose of the road had been usurped, and there wasn't any reason for the state to retain it in most places.
True...guess it goes back to the old signage for navigation argument rather than who maintains it. I suppose it really doesn't matter really because if there was a problem on I-96 most of the locals knew Grand River was there to get around it.
And now that they have the "Emergency" orange signs for Interstates, it's probably signed for navigation again. But not as M-16. (I wonder if M16 is too much associated with the military rifle.)
When did that happen? I haven't lived there since the 1990s but I don't recall seeing any orange signage last year between Detroit and Lansing. Yes...crossed my mind with M-16 but wouldn't kind of already exist with M-14 and M-1 having similar designation to military rifles? I'm fairly certain the M14 is still even used in limited service capacity.
Quote from: 8.Lug on July 16, 2016, 12:57:55 AM
Quote from: briantroutman on July 12, 2016, 06:14:28 PMAnd about the section of NY 17/I-86 near Sayre, does it even show up in PennDOT route logs at all? I was under the impression that it was a NYSDOT designed, built, and maintained road that incidentally crossed the PA border for a very short distance.
Interesting question because there definitely aren't any "Entering Pennsylvania/New York" signs there, unless my observation skills are just really that bad and I somehow missed them. I'll actually be traveling that route again Sunday morning (07/17/2016) so I'll keep an eye out.
I drove there in April. They have signs that say "State Border", but they're certainly smaller and less noticeable than regular state border signs.
I've seen Chinese expressway plans (which can be resumed in FritzOwling the entire country) and I observed the same phenomenon in several provinces, where a Sxx designation is skipped if the Gxx designation of the same number enters the province. However this is not eligible for this thread as it asks specifically for states, not provinces.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 16, 2016, 06:40:01 PM
Quote from: GaryV on July 16, 2016, 05:28:55 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 16, 2016, 07:02:03 AM
Quote from: bulldog1979 on July 16, 2016, 02:49:21 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 15, 2016, 09:29:10 AM
I think the BL Routes had a lot more equity back in those days given the Interstates were a new shinny thing in the 1960s. I would be fine with it so long as you could travel between Lansing and Detroit via Grand River on signed trunk lines. It was always kind of fun to get off I-96 and just explore the older road when I was in high school, it was really the first time I had an opportunity to explore something like that...92 Sunbird and all. :-D
Maybe, but Grand River Avenue between Grand Rapids and the Lansing area hasn't been a trunkline since I-96 was built to the south of it, and the same goes for the section between Webberville and Farmington, other than the business loop at Howell. Once the new freeway was built, the old road was turned back to the local jurisdictions. The core purpose of the road had been usurped, and there wasn't any reason for the state to retain it in most places.
True...guess it goes back to the old signage for navigation argument rather than who maintains it. I suppose it really doesn't matter really because if there was a problem on I-96 most of the locals knew Grand River was there to get around it.
And now that they have the "Emergency" orange signs for Interstates, it's probably signed for navigation again. But not as M-16. (I wonder if M16 is too much associated with the military rifle.)
When did that happen? I haven't lived there since the 1990s but I don't recall seeing any orange signage last year between Detroit and Lansing. Yes...crossed my mind with M-16 but wouldn't kind of already exist with M-14 and M-1 having similar designation to military rifles? I'm fairly certain the M14 is still even used in limited service capacity.
"Emergency" routes went up in Metro Detroit about 2 or 3 years ago. I've seen them along I-94 further west. I was in Grand Rapids / Walker area this spring, and I'm trying to remember if there was an Emergency I-96 there at that time. I'm thinking so, but don't remember for sure.
I haven't been on Grand River Ave for a long time, so I can't say if it is posted as Emergency or not, but it would be a good guess.
Quote from: GaryV on July 17, 2016, 07:26:08 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 16, 2016, 06:40:01 PM
Quote from: GaryV on July 16, 2016, 05:28:55 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 16, 2016, 07:02:03 AM
Quote from: bulldog1979 on July 16, 2016, 02:49:21 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 15, 2016, 09:29:10 AM
I think the BL Routes had a lot more equity back in those days given the Interstates were a new shinny thing in the 1960s. I would be fine with it so long as you could travel between Lansing and Detroit via Grand River on signed trunk lines. It was always kind of fun to get off I-96 and just explore the older road when I was in high school, it was really the first time I had an opportunity to explore something like that...92 Sunbird and all. :-D
Maybe, but Grand River Avenue between Grand Rapids and the Lansing area hasn't been a trunkline since I-96 was built to the south of it, and the same goes for the section between Webberville and Farmington, other than the business loop at Howell. Once the new freeway was built, the old road was turned back to the local jurisdictions. The core purpose of the road had been usurped, and there wasn't any reason for the state to retain it in most places.
True...guess it goes back to the old signage for navigation argument rather than who maintains it. I suppose it really doesn't matter really because if there was a problem on I-96 most of the locals knew Grand River was there to get around it.
And now that they have the "Emergency" orange signs for Interstates, it's probably signed for navigation again. But not as M-16. (I wonder if M16 is too much associated with the military rifle.)
When did that happen? I haven't lived there since the 1990s but I don't recall seeing any orange signage last year between Detroit and Lansing. Yes...crossed my mind with M-16 but wouldn't kind of already exist with M-14 and M-1 having similar designation to military rifles? I'm fairly certain the M14 is still even used in limited service capacity.
"Emergency" routes went up in Metro Detroit about 2 or 3 years ago. I've seen them along I-94 further west. I was in Grand Rapids / Walker area this spring, and I'm trying to remember if there was an Emergency I-96 there at that time. I'm thinking so, but don't remember for sure.
I haven't been on Grand River Ave for a long time, so I can't say if it is posted as Emergency or not, but it would be a good guess.
I'll have to check that out next year when head out that way. It might be fun to check out Grand River in full from Lansing to Brighton since I'm planning visiting family in both cities.
Colorado can be complicated. Routes are defined on the state route log by segment (nnnA). There is no duplication of routes on a single highway segment; it's designated by route class (Interstate>U.S.>State), and then by the lower of the duplicated numbers. U.S. 50 is listed by Route 050A west of Pueblo, then because it is concurrent with I-25 for a short stretch, Route 050B extends east of Pueblo to Kansas. Likewise, Route 6 is not continuous across the state because its segments (006A, 006B, etc.) are connected by I-70, I-25, and I-76. There is a CO-36 that runs parallel to I-70 east of Denver because U.S. 36 is technically carried with I-70. Same with CO-40 further east. But, they're all segments of Route 36 or 40. In other words, there wouldn't be a CO-25 somewhere not connected somehow with I-25.
New Mexico definitely has no duplications. there is a NM-412, but U.S. 412 is not a route designated independently of U.S. 56 and so does not technically exist in the state system, where like Colorado each piece of highway has a single designation. New Mexico does acknowledge in its route logs where U.S. routes duplicate, listing where Interstates or Interstate Business Routes are "dominant" in a segment, and the U.S. route is "subordinate".
Kansas prefers not to duplicate numbers although I don't know if this an actual rule or law. The only duplicate number is 177, with K-177 being a very long route and U.S. 177 existing for just a few miles after crossing the Oklahoma State Line.
When I-35 came into existence, K-35 was renumbered to K-135. Then when I-35W was changed to I-135, K-135 became K-152.
There once was a K-70 but I don't know if it was renumbered or decommissioned because of I-70.
Quote from: formulanone on July 14, 2016, 09:34:42 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 13, 2016, 01:57:25 PM
I suppose Florida "technically" doesn't do route duplication. I say "technically" since all US and Interstate Highways all have a secret state designation. So while there is a FL 17 and U.S. 17 for example the latter is legislatively know by a Florida State Road number. In this case FL 5, 35, 555 and 600 if memory serves correct.
There are State Roads 4, 10, 75, 95, 295, 375, and 595 for each Interstate of the same number, but only FL 10 is somewhat close to I-10. So there are "secret" numbers for each, but they were typically first, since many US Routes did not extend into Florida until after the post-WWII state-wide renumbering. In many cases, the SR continues after the US Route moves away onto another road alignment.
There's US 17 near FL 17, with deprecated sections labelled CR 17 (or even 17A/17B) which is probably rather confusing. US 17 is hidden FL 35 in many places, hidden FL 15 in others.
There might be some decommissioned secondary routes (795, for example) or roads like FL 1 or FL 27 which were renamed to prevent confusion.
So, I'd say that Florida only prevents number duplication if it's locally confusing. FL 27 became FL 9336* because it was close to US 27. Not sure if FL 1 / US 90 was changed to FL 10 (although FL 90 and FL 10 are used as hidden designations for US 41's "east-west" section [former US 94]).
* I've always wanted an answer to why this number was chosen, with many others available.
I didn't see anyone mention routes nineteen (19) and forty-one (41) in Florida. Although SR41 was never a major artery and was downgraded to county maintenance long ago, it ran in very close proximity to US41. SR/US19 is a different story. SR19, although it lies a good distance east of US19 is much more heavily-traveled than SR/CR41. But it is very confusing, especially since Florida does not mark its US routes with the corresponding state route numbers.
Quote from: Fred Defender on July 18, 2016, 01:35:07 PM
Quote from: formulanone on July 14, 2016, 09:34:42 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 13, 2016, 01:57:25 PM
I suppose Florida "technically" doesn't do route duplication. I say "technically" since all US and Interstate Highways all have a secret state designation. So while there is a FL 17 and U.S. 17 for example the latter is legislatively know by a Florida State Road number. In this case FL 5, 35, 555 and 600 if memory serves correct.
There are State Roads 4, 10, 75, 95, 295, 375, and 595 for each Interstate of the same number, but only FL 10 is somewhat close to I-10. So there are "secret" numbers for each, but they were typically first, since many US Routes did not extend into Florida until after the post-WWII state-wide renumbering. In many cases, the SR continues after the US Route moves away onto another road alignment.
There's US 17 near FL 17, with deprecated sections labelled CR 17 (or even 17A/17B) which is probably rather confusing. US 17 is hidden FL 35 in many places, hidden FL 15 in others.
There might be some decommissioned secondary routes (795, for example) or roads like FL 1 or FL 27 which were renamed to prevent confusion.
So, I'd say that Florida only prevents number duplication if it's locally confusing. FL 27 became FL 9336* because it was close to US 27. Not sure if FL 1 / US 90 was changed to FL 10 (although FL 90 and FL 10 are used as hidden designations for US 41's "east-west" section [former US 94]).
* I've always wanted an answer to why this number was chosen, with many others available.
I didn't see anyone mention routes nineteen (19) and forty-one (41) in Florida. Although SR41 was never a major artery and was downgraded to county maintenance long ago, it ran in very close proximity to US41. SR/US19 is a different story. SR19, although it lies a good distance east of US19 is much more heavily-traveled than SR/CR41. But it is very confusing, especially since Florida does not mark its US routes with the corresponding state route numbers.
Some of them actually do on the eastern side of Lake Okeechobee, Martin County comes to mind with the US/FL Route co-signage actually being displayed. When I first moved YEARS ago to Florida I was actually looking for some sort of connection for Old FL 41 which was CR 541 in Hernando and CR 41 in Pasco County which is actually led me to discover the hidden grid around the state. If memory serves US 41 (which is a very short distance west of old FL 41 in Hernadno/Pasco County) is FL 45 to Naples and of course FL 90 from Naples to Miami. FL 19 is mostly known for running Ocala National Forest and never really gets anywhere close to US 19 which is westward near the coast line. The even stranger thing is that there are still state route level FL 41 and 39 that multiplex US 301 south of Dade City.