Beltways and directions

[Duke87]

One thing that's always bothered me about beltways is the way they're signed. DOTs always insist on using East/West and North/South, changing at the four "corners" of the loop.
Personally, I think this is silly, since one does not take a highway that runs in a circle in any compass direction, really.

I say that if a beltway actually makes a full complete loop it should uniformly have its directions signed as "clockwise" and "counterclockwise" on any BGS. On standalone shields where fitting this would be problematic, use "CW" and "CCW" for short.

Thoughts?

[74/171FAN]

"Inner Loop" and "Outer Loop" are already being used on signposts on I-64/I-664(also known as the Hampton Roads Beltway) and I believe that they are also used on the Capital Beltway(I-495/I-95) and maybe even I-695(Baltimore Beltway).

[deathtopumpkins]

Yeah, Inner Loop/Outer Loop is what is supposed to be used if I'm not mistaken...

And it looks like 74/171FAN beat me to it...

[Bryant5493]

I-285, the Atlanta beltway, would be better served by using the Inner/Outer Loop designation. I finally got the jist gist of the east-west/north-south designation, a few years ago.


Be well,

Bryant

[akotchi]

I think the "Inner" and "Outer" designations are being applied more to the logo for the beltway than to the interstate highway shields.  I've seen cardinal directions for the interstate highways (including on the BGSs), but inner/outer only on the confirming assemblies.  I don't think Baltimore uses inner/outer yet, but I have not been on there in awhile.  Many confirming assemblies show both.  I-440 in Raleigh is the one exception I know of, but I thought that was to be changed when the 440 designation is removed from the I-40 overlap.

BTW, I only have the 495 (D.C.), 695 (Balt.) and 440 (Raleigh) beltways to go on, so things may be done differently elsewhere.

[mightyace]

I know from personal experience that Louisville, KY (I-265, KY 841); Cincinnati, OH (I-275); Columbus, OH (I-270); and Nashville, TN (TN 155) do not use Inner and Outer.  They simply change directions at some point.

And, yes, I know that the I-265 in Louisville and TN 155 in Nashville are not full loops, but they have enough of one for the direction to be an issue.

[Bryant5493]

I was just looking at a map of the Hampton Roads Beltway (I-64/664). Wouldn't it have been easier to just end I-64 East in Hampton, and then have I-664 take over the eastern portion of the beltway? It's already on the western portion of the beltway, at I-64's "eastern" end. That would be a little less confusing, I think.


Be well,

Bryant

[Greybear]

I know that I-635 in Dallas and I-820 in Ft. Worth do not use Inner and Outer. Both of them change directions as well at some point.

Neither highway is a loop around its respective city.

[WillWeaverRVA]

I-295 in VA is not a complete beltway, but it does enter a directional dilemma. I-295 ceases to be a north/south highway at about US 301 or so, and goes east/west for a while before reaching I-64 in such a way that I-295 NB is actually going south. VDOT gets around this by simply not marking I-295 with any cardinal direction banners between I-95 and I-64 (in Short Pump), similar to I-64 between I-264 and I-664. This only applies to signage on surface streets; reassurance markers on I-295 itself still say north or south.

VDOT internally assigns I-295 as an east-west route between I-64/US 60 near Bottoms Bridge and I-64 in Short Pump, according to the annual traffic counts.

[Voyager]

I've never understood that. The inner and outer works so much better than anything though.

[mightyace]

I have a recollection of watching Baltimore traffic reports in the early 80s when I was at Johns Hopkins.  The reports generally talked about Inner Loop and Outer Loop even though 695 was not signed as such.

[Alps]

I-295 in VA is not a complete beltway, but it does enter a directional dilemma. I-295 ceases to be a north/south highway at about US 301 or so, and goes east/west for a while before reaching I-64 in such a way that I-295 NB is actually going south. VDOT gets around this by simply not marking I-295 with any cardinal direction banners between I-95 and I-64 (in Short Pump), similar to I-64 between I-264 and I-664. This only applies to signage on surface streets; reassurance markers on I-295 itself still say north or south.

VDOT internally assigns I-295 as an east-west route between I-64/US 60 near Bottoms Bridge and I-64 in Short Pump, according to the annual traffic counts.

Would be nice to have it signed East-West between 64 and 295.  95/295 is a major interchange, former end of 295, and certainly where the direction changes.

[Alps]

I think the "Inner" and "Outer" designations are being applied more to the logo for the beltway than to the interstate highway shields.  I've seen cardinal directions for the interstate highways (including on the BGSs), but inner/outer only on the confirming assemblies.  I don't think Baltimore uses inner/outer yet, but I have not been on there in awhile.  Many confirming assemblies show both.  I-440 in Raleigh is the one exception I know of, but I thought that was to be changed when the 440 designation is removed from the I-40 overlap.

I-440 is being changed to EAST/WEST, although the US 1 concurrency frequently gets signed NORTH/SOUTH out of laziness.  The INNER/OUTER references are only around because NCDOT gets its laziest in Raleigh.

[roadfro]

The Standard Highway Signs book of the MUTCD does not include signs for "Inner" and "Outer", so they are probably not used very much on official signs, even though they may be common in local's terms. 

To me, if in an unfamiliar area, Inner/Outer would be a bit more confusing than referring to cardinal directions.  But this is coming from someone whose main experience with beltways consists of the Las Vegas Beltway which uses cardinal directions that switch at two of its corners...

[Avalanchez71]

Inner/Outer is too confusing to the average sheeple I mean motorist out there.

[HighwayStar]

Inner/Outer is too confusing to the average sheeple I mean motorist out there.

It becomes an issue when more than one Beltway exists for certain. If DC had the freeway network that it should have had there would be 2 possibly 3 beltways, and it would be an issue.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

I have never heard the inner/outer terms referred to on 494/694 in any capacity, nor do I know of anyone who has been confused by 494 swapping cardinal directions twice, though the east side changeover in Woodbury is probably short and subtle enough that few people realize or use it in local parlance. Locals know when you say "494 North/South" you mean the west suburbs and "494 East/West" means Bloomington, the airport, and the stretch east of the river. I think the east side changeovers of both 494 and 694 are de facto "east/west" with most people even though the signs change, since that's where you're ultimately headed or coming from anyway off I-94 or MN 36.

But then again, we're the only metro that has this number setup going on, so...

I know this post is 12 years old, but if people were really struggling the DOT would do something different. MN axed MN 110 because people couldn't keep 62 and 110 straight.

[thspfc]

The only city where I could see "Inner" and "Outer" working is Houston, because of its very neat network of beltways. But you would need to add other titles, since there are four beltways.

[ahj2000]

Charlotte's 485 and 277 typically uses NORTH/SOUTH (I-485 sign) INNER/OUTER. It certainly has other issues, in my book, (485's different control cities for one as well as the control cities they used on the newer 77 signs) but the standardization to one, preferably inner/outer would be good.
In my experience, 3/4 beltways just pick their primary direction. i.e. Richmond/Petersburg's 295, which uses just a north/south, even when it goes southwest/northeast on the NW side of town, albeit with very infrequent signing for cardinal directions

[achilles765]

The only city where I could see "Inner" and "Outer" working is Houston, because of its very neat network of beltways. But you would need to add other titles, since there are four beltways.

Actually we only have three. The fourth will probably be proposed as soon as they finish the grand parkway though.
None of them use inner or outer. I think that may confuse people here since we designate areas of the city as "inner loop"  "outside loop."   And we have three of them so people would be confused as to exactly what that meant.
I actually find the directions to be beneficial but then again I have a weird affinity and strangely keen sense of direction. And I see everything in directions rather than left or right.
The thing I wish they would do on the signs is use some sort of control point or city.
Like for IH 610 (starting at IH 10 west and going clockwise
Austin/Houston Heights–> Beaumont–-> Port of Houston–->TX Medical Center/Stadium–-> Bellaire–-> Galleria/Uptown

For beltway 8 (same direction)
Spring Branch/Jersey Village–-> Race Track/Tomball–-> Bush Intercontinental Airport––>Lake Houston–>Pasadena/ La Porte–->Pearland–> Missouri City/Stafford–-> Westchase–-> Memorial City

For SH 99 Tolk
Katy–-> Cypress–->Tomball–>Spring–-> Porter/Kingwood–-> Crosby–-> Baytown–-La Porte–->Alvin–-> Sugar Land

[SkyPesos]

The thing I wish they would do on the signs is use some sort of control point or city.

I'm the opposite; I don't really like control cities on beltways. There's some beltways that used to have control cities, but got rid of them. For example, I-270 in Columbus used to have Dayton, Wheeling, Cincinnati and Cleveland as its controls, now that field is blank.

[US 89]

Holy 12-year necrobump.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

The thing I wish they would do on the signs is use some sort of control point or city.

I'm the opposite; I don't really like control cities on beltways. There's some beltways that used to have control cities, but got rid of them. For example, I-270 in Columbus used to have Dayton, Wheeling, Cincinnati and Cleveland as its controls, now that field is blank.

494/694 could really use them at both 94 junctions, especially the Maple Grove one, since that's the first major decision eastbound 94 traffic coming into the metro is facing. They'd still be helpful at the Oakdale/Woodbury junction to emphasize 694 being the MSP bypass.

[ran4sh]

I don't see why beltways shouldn't have control cities. Surely we want thru traffic to use the beltway instead of the urban/downtown route, right?

[epzik8]

I don't see why beltways shouldn't have control cities. Surely we want thru traffic to use the beltway instead of the urban/downtown route, right?

On the northern half of the Baltimore Beltway, one of the inner loop's control cities is New York City and one of the outer loop's control cities is Washington, so it can work.