Interstate 2

[TheStranger]

For instance California leaves gaps in routes rather than co-sign them

really?  I can't think of an example of this other than I-10 being invisible on the I-5 segment of the East LA interchange.  that one took me a while to get used to: that there's, effectively, two I-10s.  before I learned the LA freeway system (and the relative locations of San Bernardino and Santa Monica) I would get onto the wrong one every so often.

there are definitely gaps in California routes ...try following 39 or 84 from beginning to end, for example - but that isn't the problem described here.

Route 193 along I-80 in Auburn is probably another example of this.  Route 16 through Sacramento fits to some degree too.

[NE2]

I think SR 1 has some unsigned overlaps on US 101.

[silverback1065]

I think SR 1 has some unsigned overlaps on US 101.

I think you're right, the part around the golden gate bridge is unsigned I think.

[TheStranger]

I think SR 1 has some unsigned overlaps on US 101.

I think you're right, the part around the golden gate bridge is unsigned I think.

There are Route 1/US 101 sign assemblies on the Marin end; in SF though the portion from the 1/101 junction to the bridge seems to only be signed for 101 now.

More notable is the longer concurrency in Santa Barbara in which only 101 signage can be found.

[kkt]

For instance California leaves gaps in routes rather than co-sign them

really?  I can't think of an example of this other than I-10 being invisible on the I-5 segment of the East LA interchange.  that one took me a while to get used to: that there's, effectively, two I-10s.  before I learned the LA freeway system (and the relative locations of San Bernardino and Santa Monica) I would get onto the wrong one every so often.

there are definitely gaps in California routes ...try following 39 or 84 from beginning to end, for example - but that isn't the problem described here.

Maybe I don't see the distinction you're making.

For instance CA-99 has a gap from where it meets US-50 at the SE side of Sacramento to where it splits off from I-5 NW of Sacramento...

[TheStranger]

Maybe I don't see the distinction you're making.

For instance CA-99 has a gap from where it meets US-50 at the SE side of Sacramento to where it splits off from I-5 NW of Sacramento...

But there is signage (not the best, but still quite a bit) for Route 99 along US 50 and I-5.

In comparison, Route 84 between Rio Vista and Livermore has no signage whatsoever, to use the example brought up there

[Alps]

Maybe I don't see the distinction you're making.

For instance CA-99 has a gap from where it meets US-50 at the SE side of Sacramento to where it splits off from I-5 NW of Sacramento...

But there is signage (not the best, but still quite a bit) for Route 99 along US 50 and I-5.

In comparison, Route 84 between Rio Vista and Livermore has no signage whatsoever, to use the example brought up there

Legislatively, I think CalTrans doesn't do overlaps, but they may sign the more important ones. Most states will allow overlaps. Another example: NY allows them, but reference markers almost always only follow one of the two routes. (I have a 42/52 exception in the next update.)

I hate to get back on topic, ha, but I personally would like to see Bussiness Route 83 decommissioned and US 83 rerouted on Bussiness 83.  I cannot stand long concurencies and seeing how all of Interstate 2 will be concurent with US 83, this really chaps my hide.  I think eventually (especially if Interstate 2 gets extended to Laredo) US 83 will be truncated, but for now, US 83 should be the local route and Interstate 2 should be the express route.

I agree. I don't know why AASHTO has such a rule, because it makes a lot more sense to do this as opposed to keeping the US Route merged onto the Interstate, where it might (generally inadvertently) go hidden.

The rule makes sense.  The primary purpose of numbering routes is to help motorists find the most efficient route to where they're going on the current highway system, not to help roadgeeks memorialize a previously important route that has now been bypassed.  Call the old route "business I-2" or "historic US-83" maybe, but not US-83.

See though, I'm on the East Coast, where you have US 1, US 301, and I-95. Everyone knows I-95 is the route to take, and you use 1 or 301 if you're going locally. It's really not hard to figure out. The old route serves towns and local traffic and deserves to continue being a route. As long as it's state maintained, why not keep it a US highway?

[ethanhopkin14]

Maybe I don't see the distinction you're making.

For instance CA-99 has a gap from where it meets US-50 at the SE side of Sacramento to where it splits off from I-5 NW of Sacramento...

But there is signage (not the best, but still quite a bit) for Route 99 along US 50 and I-5.

In comparison, Route 84 between Rio Vista and Livermore has no signage whatsoever, to use the example brought up there

Legislatively, I think CalTrans doesn't do overlaps, but they may sign the more important ones. Most states will allow overlaps. Another example: NY allows them, but reference markers almost always only follow one of the two routes. (I have a 42/52 exception in the next update.)

I hate to get back on topic, ha, but I personally would like to see Bussiness Route 83 decommissioned and US 83 rerouted on Bussiness 83.  I cannot stand long concurencies and seeing how all of Interstate 2 will be concurent with US 83, this really chaps my hide.  I think eventually (especially if Interstate 2 gets extended to Laredo) US 83 will be truncated, but for now, US 83 should be the local route and Interstate 2 should be the express route.

I agree. I don't know why AASHTO has such a rule, because it makes a lot more sense to do this as opposed to keeping the US Route merged onto the Interstate, where it might (generally inadvertently) go hidden.

The rule makes sense.  The primary purpose of numbering routes is to help motorists find the most efficient route to where they're going on the current highway system, not to help roadgeeks memorialize a previously important route that has now been bypassed.  Call the old route "business I-2" or "historic US-83" maybe, but not US-83.

See though, I'm on the East Coast, where you have US 1, US 301, and I-95. Everyone knows I-95 is the route to take, and you use 1 or 301 if you're going locally. It's really not hard to figure out. The old route serves towns and local traffic and deserves to continue being a route. As long as it's state maintained, why not keep it a US highway?

This is exactly what I am saying.  Everyone will know Interstate 2 is for long haul freeway traffic and U.S. 83 is for local traffic.  Say you are on the west side of the Valley and you want to go to South Padre Island.  You will know staying on the freeway is the way to go, and you know all interstates are freeways.  If you want to instead go to down town Mission for some fun at the Tom Landry Museum, you know US 83 is your guy!!  Again, even the stupidest motorist that never pays attention to the road and drives by landmarks knows this. 

Another thing about concurrences that I hate is exactly what is being said.  Example:  The Interstate route is always the most primary route, and will always be signed, but a lot of times, the US highway gets skipped a sign post or two (ie: US 67 on Interstate 30, or US 85 on Interstate 25 through ALL of New Mexico).  When one of these posts gets skipped, the driver thinks the US route left the freeway and panics.  Eliminating concurrences helps reduce the information overload and the possibility the concurrency was miss marked. 

[vdeane]

Agreed.  Concurrences should be avoided where possible; instances where a route ends in a concurrency should be banned (the only one I tolerate is NY 332/NY 21, and that's because NY 332's routing was burned into my brain before I was old enough to realize that NY 21 existed south of Canandaigua).

For an extreme example of this, go look at NYSDOT traffic information concerning routes in the Utica/Rome area.  You have to stare at a map a REALLY long time to figure out what they're talking about, even if you're local, because of the routes darting in and out of multiplexes.  I didn't even realize that the ramp from NY 365 east to NY 49 west was NY 26 north (and only NY 26 north) until two months into a bridge closure because there's a triplex on two on the sides of the interchange and a duplex on the third.  The intersection not even one mile to the north has the same situation (without the closure).  And there's the infamous quadplex with I-790; most people refer to NY 5/8/12 as only NY 12, with other segments freeways having similar treatments, leading to the disappearances of routes in local parlance (a la CalTrans) even though they're all signed.

[Perfxion]

I am all for elimination of concurrences if possible. Here is a fun example. US 90 in Houston west of the Liberty freeway. The only signed routing if the Alt route. The unsigned concurrency with I-10 means someone could drive 40 miles out of their way to to stay on a road that mainly stays hugged to I-10. It makes for pointless remembering if you need to be on the Alt or regular to go somewhere. Because its listed both as US90.

I am all for a concurrency like the GWB where the is only 3 bridges for NYC and somethings might need to double up. But for every bridge, there are a ton of roads like I-69 and US59 in Houston with more names than they know what to do with.

[roadman65]

Shouldn't this be in the topic of useless multiplexes?
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=437.msg10401#msg104014

BTW, I am not telling the moderators how to do their jobs here, just being friendly and reminding those that there is already a discussion about this very same subject someplace else.

[Alps]

Shouldn't this be in the topic of useless multiplexes?
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=437.msg10401#msg104014

BTW, I am not telling the moderators how to do their jobs here, just being friendly and reminding those that there is already a discussion about this very same subject someplace else.

Yeah, the I-2 discussion has drifted a little, but that's because I-2 is tied up in the I-69 mess.

[ethanhopkin14]

Back to moving US 83 to the Business route, That happened in Round Rock, TX years ago.  Back before the truncation of US 81, it used to run concurrent with I-35 except in certain locations.  In Round Rock, it was signed on the freeway with I-35, while Business 81 was signed on Mays Street.  This might have been a hold over from the old days when I-35 was being built and the freeway part was just US 81 and Mays Street was Business 81 until I-35 came along.  Then in the early 90's, US 81 was moved to the Business route on Mays Street leaving the freeway to just Interstate 35.  This didn't last very long since it was a few years later that US 81 was truncated to the north side of Fort Worth leaving Mays St. with the designation of Business Loop 35.

[ethanhopkin14]

Since Texas hasn't signed an interstate since 1991 (Interstate 27) until now (2012) with Interstate 69 in various places, I am curious to see if the signing of Interstate 2 will be done more like they sign a normal interstate.  To explain, Interstate 69 seems to have "makeshift" signage, like they only signed it on the mainlanes in some areas, and where they signed it on the mainlanes they just cut the pole where the US 59 shield was, put a "Y" pole up there and signed both I-69 and US 59.  In other words, Interstate 69 is signed just like any state route in Texas: every other mile or every mile with the Texas Reference Marker placed below the shield, with a 24"X 24" shield, and not consistent with how interstates in any state are signed (after on ramps, a 36"X 36" reassurance shield is followed by a speed limit sign and a distance sign).  I understand that the Interstate 69 segments are signed the way they are because they are kind of a temporary solution, especially since I-69 in Texas technically doesn't go anywhere, so big time signage is kind of pointless.  But in contrast, Interstate 2 is complete mostly finished and it actually does go somewhere, so it is a viable route.  So after all of this I wonder if we will see our first new 36"X 36" shields in Texas since 1991 coming to Interstate 2, or will they just do the sign replacement of US 83 like they did for I-69, and it will be signed like other state highways in Texas complete with 24"X 24" shields and inconsistent with Texas Interstate Highways.

[ethanhopkin14]

I was wondering if there are any Texas Rio Grande Valley road geeks here who can keep us updated on the signing progress on Interstate 2.  I am so curious about it because it is a different situation than the previous Interstate 69 segments that have been signed.  Interstate 2, even though, according to the I-69 Alliance website will extend to Laredo (please, please, please!!), has a definite beginning point, for now. With that being said, I am wondering if there will be a mile 0 post and mile post set up along the route.  And of course, as you can see in my previous post, I am wondering if there will be 36"X 36" shields set up after every on ramp.

[Scott5114]

My guess would be that I-2 would be done the same way as I-69(C,E), and both of these will be rationalized to a more typical signage scheme whenever the next total resignage is scheduled.

[ethanhopkin14]

My guess would be that I-2 would be done the same way as I-69(C,E), and both of these will be rationalized to a more typical signage scheme whenever the next total resignage is scheduled.

I figured that would be the case.  I was wanting an update in the field.

[Bobby5280]

One thing I'm curious about regarding I-2 and signage is how it will be treated on overhead "big green signs." Texas has a pretty odd-ball way of handling Interstate shields on BGS displays. They'll often use a 3 digit shield for a 2-digit route. And then they'll stick a 3-digit route on 2-digit shields.


It will be interesting to see if they use some 3-digit shields for I-2 markers -especially if routes like I-69C and I-69E are shown on the same sign panel in 2-digit shields.

Perhaps this is some highway sign design supervisor's version of non-conformity, kind of like all the people entering a Walmart through the exit doors rather than the place marked "entrance."

[agentsteel53]

It will be interesting to see if they use some 3-digit shields for I-2 markers -especially if routes like I-69C and I-69E are shown on the same sign panel in 2-digit shields.

this is precisely how it is done.  the 2 looks goofy, the 69C in Series D looks badly squished in.  Alex, can you post some of JeffR's photos?

[ethanhopkin14]

It will be interesting to see if they use some 3-digit shields for I-2 markers -especially if routes like I-69C and I-69E are shown on the same sign panel in 2-digit shields.

this is precisely how it is done.  the 2 looks goofy, the 69C in Series D looks badly squished in.  Alex, can you post some of JeffR's photos?

.
I think the usage of 3di shields for 2di (or in this case 1di) interstates has been phased out of TxDOT standards, since I have seen more and more correct shields on BGSs.  Although, some 3di for 2di have remained.  To correct you, the only place I have ever seen 2di for 3dis are on I-35E and a few on I-610.  Other than that, 3dis get 3di treatment in Texas.

[agentsteel53]

you're right, the "69C" is in an identical wide shield as the 2.  it just doesn't look correct because the digits are too wide and thus crammed in.

[ethanhopkin14]

Here is a situation where both are used.

[Alex]

It will be interesting to see if they use some 3-digit shields for I-2 markers -especially if routes like I-69C and I-69E are shown on the same sign panel in 2-digit shields.

this is precisely how it is done.  the 2 looks goofy, the 69C in Series D looks badly squished in.  Alex, can you post some of JeffR's photos?

Sure thing, here they are from this Monday:



Interstate 69C south at Interstate 2/U.S. 83.



Interstate 2 east at Interstate 69C/U.S. 281.

[Alps]

It will be interesting to see if they use some 3-digit shields for I-2 markers -especially if routes like I-69C and I-69E are shown on the same sign panel in 2-digit shields.

this is precisely how it is done.  the 2 looks goofy, the 69C in Series D looks badly squished in.  Alex, can you post some of JeffR's photos?

Sure thing, here they are from this Monday:



Interstate 69C south at Interstate 2/U.S. 83.



Interstate 2 east at Interstate 69C/U.S. 281.

Worst. Of. Road. Signs.

[NE2]

Is US 83 normally signed east-west there?