US 6 may actually be LONGER than US 20

[Max Rockatansky]

Problem with US 20 is that there is no implied route though Yellowstone nor has there ever been one.  The only US Route ever to be signed at all in Yellowstone is US 191 in the Gallatin Mountains on the western extent of the park. 

[US 89]

Colorado and Utah don't, and Colorado especially seems to be extremely poor at it. But without counting these implied but unsigned concurrencies, US 6 would be a couple hundred miles shorter easily.

Utah doesn't really sign the US 6/I-70 concurrency, but it does sign the I-15 one quite well. Regardless of how well any overlaps are signed, the Utah log entry for US 6 definitely includes the mileage on them:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1BCLJ89rmFUTrXZaDJsdo4qHEj019h0md

[CNGL-Leudimin]

I still hold the view that US 20 is longer. Because if Yellowstone is omitted, then there are two separate routes sharing the US 20 number, one from Newport, Oregon to West Yellowstone, Montana; and the other from the East Entrance of Yellowstone, Wyoming to Boston, Massachusetts; thus making US 6 undisputably longer than either segment (and the Eastern US 20 would rank outside the top 10 even). If US 20 is to be considered continuous, then Yellowstone must be included in any capacity (since there must be no gaps in a continuous route), and this would make US 20 undisputably the longest.

[Max Rockatansky]

Really the whole situation with US 20 made sense when it ended at Yellowstone.  Once it was extended west of the park some sort of continuation signage should have been erected.  I never have understood why the National Park Service is so inconsistent with signing highways through their jurisdictions.  Locally here in California we get continuation signage for CA 140, CA 120 and CA 180 on NPS maintained roadways, so why not US Routes in Yellowstone?

[Quillz]

Really the whole situation with US 20 made sense when it ended at Yellowstone.  Once it was extended west of the park some sort of continuation signage should have been erected.  I never have understood why the National Park Service is so inconsistent with signing highways through their jurisdictions.  Locally here in California we get continuation signage for CA 140, CA 120 and CA 180 on NPS maintained roadways, so why not US Routes in Yellowstone?

I agree. I've always believed signage is first and foremost for navigation, and should be that way. Sign the routes and put "NO STATE MAINTENANCE"  banners next to the shields, or something similar.

[Max Rockatansky]

Really the whole situation with US 20 made sense when it ended at Yellowstone.  Once it was extended west of the park some sort of continuation signage should have been erected.  I never have understood why the National Park Service is so inconsistent with signing highways through their jurisdictions.  Locally here in California we get continuation signage for CA 140, CA 120 and CA 180 on NPS maintained roadways, so why not US Routes in Yellowstone?

I agree. I've always believed signage is first and foremost for navigation, and should be that way. Sign the routes and put "NO STATE MAINTENANCE"  banners next to the shields, or something similar.

I like how the NPS does it in Grant Grove.  They just put up Caltrans spec CA 180 shields and called it a day.  No need to advertise to the average driver who is maintaining a particular segment of a sign route. 

[KCRoadFan]

I still hold the view that US 20 is longer. Because if Yellowstone is ommited, then there are two separate routes sharing the US 20 number, one from Newport, Oregon to West Yellowstone, Montana; and the other from the East Entrance of Yellowstone, Wyoming to Boston, Massachusetts; thus making US 6 undisputably longer than either segment (and the Eastern US 20 would rank outside the top 10 even). If US 20 is to be considered continuous, then Yellowstone must be included in any capacity (since there must be no gaps in a continuous route), and this would make US 20 undisputably the longest.

I agree with you there. While US 20 may not technically exist inside Yellowstone and isn't signed in the park, my thought is that it still functionally goes through Yellowstone. After all, if I were to drive the entire length of US 20 from Newport, Oregon, all the way to Boston (which I would definitely love to do at some point), I would have to go through Yellowstone. Apple Maps, to their credit, seems to understand this and marks US 20 through the park, even though the National Park Service won't.

Incidentally, if you follow the route that Apple Maps indicates US 20 as following through Yellowstone (West Entrance -> Madison Junction -> Old Faithful -> West Thumb -> Fishing Bridge -> East Entrance), and add up the distances printed on the NPS map of the park, it gives a total distance of 14 + 16 + 17 + 21 + 27 = 95 miles through Yellowstone. Added to the length of 3,205 miles given a few posts upthread, it sums up to a total length of exactly 3,300 miles - not quite the 3,365-mile length that is commonly believed, but somewhat closer to it, and definitely long enough to be the longest highway in the country.

[Max Rockatansky]

Guys, there is seriously zero inference in the Yellowstone park how to get to the two segments of US 20.  I don't get how some of you are equating (Apple Maps is being used an argument?) that it somehow is implied to exist when it clearly does not.  Don't believe me, see for yourself:

https://www.gribblenation.org/2021/12/grand-loop-road-of-yellowstone-national.html

https://flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/sets/72157719819236751

I scanned the extension documents for US 20 west of Yellowstone in this blog from the AASHTO database, not a single reference to an implied route through the park:

https://www.gribblenation.org/2021/11/us-route-20-over-targhee-pass-to-west.html?m=1

[KCRoadFan]

Guys, there is seriously zero inference in the Yellowstone park how to get to the two segments of US 20.  I don't get how some of you are equating (Apple Maps is being used an argument?) that it somehow is implied to exist when it clearly does not.  Don't believe me, see for yourself:

https://www.gribblenation.org/2021/12/grand-loop-road-of-yellowstone-national.html

https://flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/sets/72157719819236751

I scanned the extension documents for US 20 west of Yellowstone in this blog from the AASHTO database, not a single reference to an implied route through the park:

https://www.gribblenation.org/2021/11/us-route-20-over-targhee-pass-to-west.html?m=1

Well, the techs in charge of programming Apple Maps clearly implied it to exist.

[Max Rockatansky]

Guys, there is seriously zero inference in the Yellowstone park how to get to the two segments of US 20.  I don't get how some of you are equating (Apple Maps is being used an argument?) that it somehow is implied to exist when it clearly does not.  Don't believe me, see for yourself:

https://www.gribblenation.org/2021/12/grand-loop-road-of-yellowstone-national.html

https://flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/sets/72157719819236751

I scanned the extension documents for US 20 west of Yellowstone in this blog from the AASHTO database, not a single reference to an implied route through the park:

https://www.gribblenation.org/2021/11/us-route-20-over-targhee-pass-to-west.html?m=1

Well, the techs in charge of programming Apple Maps clearly implied it to exist.

And since when has Apple been known for map data accuracy? 

[Quillz]

Really the whole situation with US 20 made sense when it ended at Yellowstone.  Once it was extended west of the park some sort of continuation signage should have been erected.  I never have understood why the National Park Service is so inconsistent with signing highways through their jurisdictions.  Locally here in California we get continuation signage for CA 140, CA 120 and CA 180 on NPS maintained roadways, so why not US Routes in Yellowstone?

I agree. I've always believed signage is first and foremost for navigation, and should be that way. Sign the routes and put "NO STATE MAINTENANCE"  banners next to the shields, or something similar.

I like how the NPS does it in Grant Grove.  They just put up Caltrans spec CA 180 shields and called it a day.  No need to advertise to the average driver who is maintaining a particular segment of a sign route. 

Exactly. Although Yosemite uses MUTCD-style 395 shields, not California spec.

There is also an instance where the shields are black and white instead. Most likely to look better on signage, but also works as sort of an indicator it's not state maintained.

[US 89]

Should be noted that even in the area, NPS is not afraid to sign US highways - there are shields in Grand Teton where 26/287 split off of 89/191, for example.

I think there's this obsession of sorts with keeping Yellowstone "special" and its own thing separate from the rest of the world. They also may not want to put shields on certain parts of the Grand Loop Road and artificially skew the traffic distributions on it, in a park that has enough traffic as it is. Better to keep the traffic as evenly distributed around the park roads as possible. Yeah, various online mapping services have filled in some implied routes for the various highways up there, but there's little to no cell service in the park so unless you downloaded offline maps in advance you're going to be using the paper NPS map anyway.

[amberjns]

And since when has Apple been known for map data accuracy?

Agree. It's like choosing a route using tarot cards 

[Max Rockatansky]

Should be noted that even in the area, NPS is not afraid to sign US highways - there are shields in Grand Teton where 26/287 split off of 89/191, for example.

I think there's this obsession of sorts with keeping Yellowstone "special" and its own thing separate from the rest of the world. They also may not want to put shields on certain parts of the Grand Loop Road and artificially skew the traffic distributions on it, in a park that has enough traffic as it is. Better to keep the traffic as evenly distributed around the park roads as possible. Yeah, various online mapping services have filled in some implied routes for the various highways up there, but there's little to no cell service in the park so unless you downloaded offline maps in advance you're going to be using the paper NPS map anyway.

Which I believe has much to do with the boundaries of Teton once being far smaller than present day.  The original alignments of the US Routes followed Teton Park Road instead of the the bypass used today.  Much of John D Rockefeller Parkway was also once outside the Teton Park boundary. 

Regarding Yellowstone, this is the paper map visitors get:

https://www.nps.gov/yell/planyourvisit/upload/YELL-GRTE-Tear-Off-Map-2022_508.pdf

Probably worth noting that the Grand Loop Road has an actual short limited access segment at Old Faithful.

[Max Rockatansky]

Really the whole situation with US 20 made sense when it ended at Yellowstone.  Once it was extended west of the park some sort of continuation signage should have been erected.  I never have understood why the National Park Service is so inconsistent with signing highways through their jurisdictions.  Locally here in California we get continuation signage for CA 140, CA 120 and CA 180 on NPS maintained roadways, so why not US Routes in Yellowstone?

I agree. I've always believed signage is first and foremost for navigation, and should be that way. Sign the routes and put "NO STATE MAINTENANCE"  banners next to the shields, or something similar.

I like how the NPS does it in Grant Grove.  They just put up Caltrans spec CA 180 shields and called it a day.  No need to advertise to the average driver who is maintaining a particular segment of a sign route. 

Exactly. Although Yosemite uses MUTCD-style 395 shields, not California spec.

There is also an instance where the shields are black and white instead. Most likely to look better on signage, but also works as sort of an indicator it's not state maintained.

My favorite was the white CA 120 shields displayed leaving Crane Flat:

https://flic.kr/p/VgfEQX

[kphoger]

While US 20 may not technically exist inside Yellowstone and isn't signed in the park, my thought is that it still functionally goes through Yellowstone. After all, if I were to drive the entire length of US 20 from Newport, Oregon, all the way to Boston (which I would definitely love to do at some point), I would have to go through Yellowstone.

And, if you did so, then you'd have two options to choose from–the more northerly route or the more southerly route.  Neither one has any more indication of being US-20 than the other.

[SEWIGuy]

I still hold the view that US 20 is longer. Because if Yellowstone is ommited, then there are two separate routes sharing the US 20 number, one from Newport, Oregon to West Yellowstone, Montana; and the other from the East Entrance of Yellowstone, Wyoming to Boston, Massachusetts; thus making US 6 undisputably longer than either segment (and the Eastern US 20 would rank outside the top 10 even). If US 20 is to be considered continuous, then Yellowstone must be included in any capacity (since there must be no gaps in a continuous route), and this would make US 20 undisputably the longest.

I agree with you there. While US 20 may not technically exist inside Yellowstone and isn't signed in the park, my thought is that it still functionally goes through Yellowstone. After all, if I were to drive the entire length of US 20 from Newport, Oregon, all the way to Boston (which I would definitely love to do at some point), I would have to go through Yellowstone.

Actually no you wouldn't.  You could drive to the park entrance, turn around, drive around the park to the other entrance and continue from there.  Of course you aren't going to do that, but if you did, you would still have driven the entire length of US-20.

Just like you don't *have* to take the S.S. Badger to drive the entire length of US-10.

[Rothman]

Just like you don't *have* to take the S.S. Badger to drive the entire length of US-10.

Sure, you do.

[SEWIGuy]

Just like you don't *have* to take the S.S. Badger to drive the entire length of US-10.

Sure, you do.

Yeah, I had forgotten they officially added the ferry to the route. So nevermind that....

[kphoger]

Just like you don't *have* to take the S.S. Badger to drive the entire length of US-10.

Sure, you do.

Yeah, I had forgotten they officially added the ferry to the route. So nevermind that....

Hey could someone please provide a link to the actual documentation of the SS Badger being added to US-10?

[NWI_Irish96]

Just like you don't *have* to take the S.S. Badger to drive the entire length of US-10.

Sure, you do.

Yeah, I had forgotten they officially added the ferry to the route. So nevermind that....

Hey could someone please provide a link to the actual documentation of the SS Badger being added to US-10?

Regardless of whether or not the ferry itself is part of US 10, on both ends you have to enter the ferry queue in order to clinch the road portion of US 10, so doing that without actually taking the ferry could be tricky.

[SEWIGuy]

Just like you don't *have* to take the S.S. Badger to drive the entire length of US-10.

Sure, you do.

Yeah, I had forgotten they officially added the ferry to the route. So nevermind that....

Hey could someone please provide a link to the actual documentation of the SS Badger being added to US-10?

https://www.ssbadger.com/news-media/us-10-designation.html

The link to aashto is broken however...

[thenetwork]

Just like you don't *have* to take the S.S. Badger to drive the entire length of US-10.

Sure, you do.

Badger!?!??
You don't need no stinkin' Badger!

[kphoger]

Hey could someone please provide a link to the actual documentation of the SS Badger being added to US-10?

https://www.ssbadger.com/news-media/us-10-designation.html

The link to aashto is broken however...

Yeah, I had seen that page, and I had seen the broken link.  But it's just a generic link (/Pages/Default.aspx) anyway.

[hbelkins]

OK, how about US 9 and the Cape May-Lewes Ferry?