I was noticing how near Atlanta Airport how most maps show a two route overlap of I-85 and I-285 where the two interstates interchange together. Yet in reality, both routes have separate carriageways with I-85 being inside of I-285.
In Northern New Jersey, some maps show I-80 and NJ 17 overlapping near Hackensack, but again I-80 is inside NJ 17 on two different grades.
Then you have the big tangle in Woodbridge Township, NJ where it shows the Garden State Parkway and US 9 to be on concurrent alignments. Even though US 9 does run concurrent with the GSP twice (and soon three), it does not here as the GSP is in the middle of US 9.
Are there any other such instances where map makers like Rand McNally or others distort two parallel alignments because of space limitations on the map?
The I-85/285 (shown) overlap probably dates back to the days when the two routes did indeed overlap. But it's been at least 20 years since separate carriageways were constructed for each route.
Most Maps show AZ64 and US-180 overlapping between Vail, AZ and Grand Canyon National Park.
US-180 Ends at Vail, However SB Only AZ64 & US-180 are co-signed
The US-180 should say "To US-180"
I think cases like 85/285 and GSP/US 9 where they don't share pavement but do share the same right of way are a bit different, as they are "kind of" concurrent.
But a good example of highways frequently marked as concurrent but aren't are 80 and 95 approaching the George Washington Bridge.
Another case where they show an overlap that isn't is I-94 and I-35W in downtown Minneapolis.
I also forgot about the interchange between I-10 and I-45 in Houston. My Rand McNally shows the two freeways as overlapped for a short distance, but when I drove I-45 through there last year I seen nothing of the sort.
Also in Syracuse, NY maps show both I-81 and I-690 overlapped in Downtown Syracuse, but they are indeed not. Just as I-85/ I-285 are braided, so are these two routes.
In some of these cases, the DOT actually inventories it as an overlap, with one route officially C/D roads of the overlap.
Quote from: NE2 on October 22, 2013, 04:15:04 AM
In some of these cases, the DOT actually inventories it as an overlap, with one route officially C/D roads of the overlap.
Sort of like the I-595 and FL 84 situation (at least the westernmost end of I-595)?
Regards,
Andy
Quote from: andy3175 on October 22, 2013, 09:32:57 AM
Quote from: NE2 on October 22, 2013, 04:15:04 AM
In some of these cases, the DOT actually inventories it as an overlap, with one route officially C/D roads of the overlap.
Sort of like the I-595 and FL 84 situation (at least the westernmost end of I-595)?
No, SR 84 is on the frontage roads there, with at-grade intersections. I-4 and US 92 at the US 301 interchange is more like this, though FDOT does inventory it separately. I can't remember any specific examples where they are inventoried as one, but I'm pretty sure I've seen them.
AAA has commonly made a mistake on their maps (including the Chicago inset) where I-88 and I-355 are shown as a concurrency. They are, as we well know, two parallel roadways separated by a jersey barrier.
Many maps (Rand-McNally being one of them) still marks I-95 between the NJ Turnpike and G.W. Bridge as I-80/95.
Most maps show I-84 and CT 72 overlapping through Cooke's Gap in Plainville. There are 5 lanes in each direction, but I-84 is the right 3 lanes eastbound, and the left 3 lanes westbound. One can cross between lanes, but at no time do the routes technically share lanes. Also, I-295 and US 6 in Johnston, RI. US 6 stays on the C/D roads.