I was looking at Google Maps, and got to wondering why certain highways are signed east/west when they appear to travel on more of a north/south pattern.
The few that come to mind
I-24 could be N/S, though this one isn't quite as bad as....
I-26 really seems to head further south than it does east, and the one I really think should be signed N/S is...
I-4, especially since it's routed N/S in the main city that it serves (Orlando)
Any other "angled" highways that are up for debate?
I-81. It's really more E-W IMHO than N-S between I-40 and I-78.
I-44 west of I-35.
I-85 is more east-west than north-south, but is signed north-south.
I-82 is more north-south than east-west, but is signed east-west.
There are some routes that are signed either way depending on where you are (US 52, US 62, US 202, all an almost perfect diagonal).
Quote from: 1 on August 22, 2014, 12:08:51 PM
I-85 is more east-west than north-south, but is signed north-south.
I-82 is more north-south than east-west, but is signed east-west.
There are some routes that are signed either way depending on where you are (US 52, US 62, US 202, all an almost perfect diagonal).
I-85 would've made a great I-30, IMHO.
Oh well.
NY 8 is more east-west than N-S. In fact, it's L shaped with the turn at the end of a multiplex; just make the southern section an extension of NY 840 (which would then need to be resigned N-S).
NY 28 is C shaped and signed N-S on nearly the entire route. This is rather comical as you're actually traveling south at the northern end. The majority of the road is E-W, it just flips on itself via a N-S segment between Oneonta and Alder Creek.
My interstate pet peeves have already been mentioned.
Had MA 128 been completely exorcised from the I-95 section of the YDH; the remaining Peabody-to-Gloucester segment of 128 would be an E/W highway.
In South Jersey, the short leg of I-76 goes N/S and the mile markers are numbered as such but it's tagged with E/W cardinals.
Once upon a time, and prior to it receiving an Interstate designation; the Schuylkill Expressway was a N/S highway (the original PA 43). Until recently, old button-copy BGS' reading Schuylkill Expressway Northbound at the PA 291/Passyunk Ave. interchange was the last surviving sign that gave hint of such.
My own list, which I've researched a little to determine actual direction between their two ends, is:
I-82 (should be I-9)
I-85 - this was a surprise to me, but it's actually more E-W by about 100 miles. So, if it were corrected would you choose a number consistent with either end (e.g. I-46 or I-18)? or the average of its ends (I-32)?
U.S. 33 (should be U.S. 32)
U.S. 79. It's pretty obvious that it angles easterly from its beginning. I've thought it would make a good U.S. 88 for its starting position in Texas.
There are also the doubly non-compliant routes like the single-state U.S. 57 and U.S. 96 in Texas.
I-980 is north-south, yet it's signed east-west.
Georgia State Route 20...I don't even know.. :-D It goes east from the Alabama Line then make a circle through the Atlanta Metro Area and ends up going WEST to then end in Hampton. It's east-west most of its way, but to be making a partial circle, I just don't know what I can say about GA SR 20 :-D
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on August 22, 2014, 03:56:26 PM
Georgia State Route 20...I don't even know.. :-D It goes east from the Alabama Line then make a circle through the Atlanta Metro Area and ends up going WEST to then end in Hampton. It's east-west most of its way, but to be making a partial circle, I just don't know what I can say about GA SR 20 :-D
don't ask about CA-18, then ...
I-238 runs East-West, yet it is signed North-South due to 'being part of' CA 238.
US 321 in TN, clearly. Runs essentially East-West, yet it is signed North-South with the famous U-turn at Elizabethton.
WA-16 is signed east-west, but would be better off being north-south. WA-19, anyone?
(The existing WA-19 should be a child route of WA-20, anyway)
Any of the diagonals mentioned might qualify, as well as others.
If I-24 and I-26 could (should) be N-S, then I-71 could just as easily be E-W. (And its parallel, US 42, is signed E-W in Kentucky but N-S in Ohio.)
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on August 22, 2014, 01:20:17 PM
U.S. 33 (should be U.S. 32)
Signed E-W in West Virginia and Virginia.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 22, 2014, 04:30:40 PM
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on August 22, 2014, 03:56:26 PM
Georgia State Route 20...I don't even know.. :-D It goes east from the Alabama Line then make a circle through the Atlanta Metro Area and ends up going WEST to then end in Hampton. It's east-west most of its way, but to be making a partial circle, I just don't know what I can say about GA SR 20 :-D
don't ask about CA-18, then ...
Just consider if it still had its original southern terminus in Long Beach.
How about the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway (I-278) in New York? It's signed as east/west even though it's really north/south. It's especially confusing at the approach to the RFK Bridge, where there's a wrong-way multiplex with the Grand Central Parkway. The only downside of making it north/south is that I-278 would then be east/west on Staten Island, north/south in Brooklyn and Queens, and then east/west again in the Bronx, changing direction twice within a single state. Still, it might be less confusing than the current setup.
US 421 in North Carolina. The freeway section leads almost due east into Winston-Salem, multiplexes with I-40 to Greensboro, and then goes diagonally toward Wilmington. Signing it east-west east of Boone wouldn't hurt anything. (come to think of it, why have the bump at Boone with US 321? It would make more sense if the N-S section of 321 south of Boone became 421, and the Boone-Winston-Salem corridor would be an extended E-W 321. I realize this is jumping into the realm of fictional, though.)
Wyoming signs US 310 as E-W, despite Montana signing it N-S. (187, 789?)
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on August 22, 2014, 05:49:35 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 22, 2014, 04:30:40 PM
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on August 22, 2014, 03:56:26 PM
Georgia State Route 20...I don't even know.. :-D It goes east from the Alabama Line then make a circle through the Atlanta Metro Area and ends up going WEST to then end in Hampton. It's east-west most of its way, but to be making a partial circle, I just don't know what I can say about GA SR 20 :-D
don't ask about CA-18, then ...
Just consider if it still had its original southern terminus in Long Beach.
That'd at least give it a direction.. sorta. As it stands, both directions ought just be signed "Snoweath"
I believe Iowa signs Iowa 136 as a north-south highway throughout, even though it is east-west from Oxford Junction eastward into Illinois at Clinton. It would be better served as two highways, with Iowa 136 north of Wyoming getting a different number.
Speaking of highways in Iowa, US 151 seems like an obvious candidate to change to east-west signing, including its route in Wisconsin.
As for my home state of Nebraska, there's the nonsense that is I-76.
Quote from: OCGuy81 on August 22, 2014, 12:04:40 PM
I was looking at Google Maps, and got to wondering why certain highways are signed east/west when they appear to travel on more of a north/south pattern.
The few that come to mind
I-24 could be N/S, though this one isn't quite as bad as....
I-26 really seems to head further south than it does east, and the one I really think should be signed N/S is...
I-4, especially since it's routed N/S in the main city that it serves (Orlando)
Any other "angled" highways that are up for debate?
US 52 from S.C. to W.Va. should be renamed to US 53, or become a state highway.
Not an entire route, but as US-491 is labeled E-W between the Utah-Colorado state line and Monticello, the same logic should apply for US-89 between Kanab and the Arizona state line near Lake Powell. Whether you agree that US-89 should be labeled E-W or US-491 N-S, some consistency would be nice.
Quote from: mjb2002 on August 23, 2014, 11:28:13 AM
US 52 from S.C. to W.Va. should be renamed to US 53, or become a state highway.
The people in Minnesota and Wisconsin laugh at that renumbering suggestion. I personally would go with US 801 for the segment from Charleston, SC to I-81 near Wytheville, VA and an extended US 21 from Wytheville to the Huntington, WV area.
How about CA 51 Sacramento its North/South but is signed as east west for Business 80.
Quote from: Brandon on August 22, 2014, 12:06:34 PM
I-81. It's really more E-W IMHO than N-S between I-40 and I-78.
I-44 west of I-35.
I-81 should be part of I-40
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on August 22, 2014, 01:20:17 PM
My own list, which I've researched a little to determine actual direction between their two ends, is:
I-82 (should be I-9)
I-85 - this was a surprise to me, but it's actually more E-W by about 100 miles. So, if it were corrected would you choose a number consistent with either end (e.g. I-46 or I-18)? or the average of its ends (I-32)?
U.S. 33 (should be U.S. 32)
U.S. 79. It's pretty obvious that it angles easterly from its beginning. I've thought it would make a good U.S. 88 for its starting position in Texas.
There are also the doubly non-compliant routes like the single-state U.S. 57 and U.S. 96 in Texas.
Angled highways should have the 11/22/33/44/55/66/77/88/99 numbers that would be cool. Like US 62.
How About I-210 Between I-5 to the CA-134 @ CA-710 interchange its more North/ South rather than East West. Once I-210 goes into the San Gabriel Valley and run parallel to US-66 Huntington Drive in Arcadia Its East/ West.
Then There is US-101 Ventura Freeway in San Fernando Valley its East/West until you reach the CA-134 and CA-170 Interchange.
CA-160 in Sacramento the short Freeway from CA-51 to 12th Street is East/ West but CA-160 overall is North South.
Quote from: bing101 on August 23, 2014, 10:09:25 PM
How About I-210 Between I-5 to the CA-134 @ CA-710 interchange its more North/ South rather than East West. Once I-210 goes into the San Gabriel Valley and run parallel to US-66 Huntington Drive in Arcadia Its East/ West.
Then There is US-101 Ventura Freeway in San Fernando Valley its East/West until you reach the CA-134 and CA-170 Interchange.
CA-160 in Sacramento the short Freeway from CA-51 to 12th Street is East/ West but CA-160 overall is North South.
3-digit Interstates don't need to meet odd-even parity of their parent routes. U.S. 101 is a valid north-south route considering its entire length in California (not just the E-W segment from the Valley to west of Santa Barbara. California routes haven't had to conform to even-E/W and odd-N/S since the renumbering of 1064 (see CA-14).
Quote from: texaskdog on August 23, 2014, 06:42:36 PM
Angled highways should have the 11/22/33/44/55/66/77/88/99 numbers that would be cool. Like US 62.
There is a tendency to use x4 numbers on angled interstates. 4, 24, 44, 74, 84 (western) and a good portion of 94.
The new I-495 in NC would fit this bill.
I-74 between Asheboro and Rockingham. Can't get much more N-S than that. And although it can't change 95 is primarily an E-W interstate through Connecticut
iPhone
Out of curiosity, what "criteria" are you guys using for determining if it should be N-S or E-W?
I'm kind of going with the philosophy where it should be E-W if the traveling said route takes you more West than (North, South).
I've used Google Earth to find a location that is north/south and east/west of the route's endpoints, then measured the length of the lines. Now, some map genius will tell me that, due to the curvature of the earth, this isn't a totally accurate way to do it.
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on August 25, 2014, 11:44:58 AM
I've used Google Earth to find a location that is north/south and east/west of the route's endpoints, then measured the length of the lines. Now, some map genius will tell me that, due to the curvature of the earth, this isn't a totally accurate way to do it.
If you want to do it accurately, use coordinates.
Quote from: 1 on August 25, 2014, 11:50:16 AM
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on August 25, 2014, 11:44:58 AM
I've used Google Earth to find a location that is north/south and east/west of the route's endpoints, then measured the length of the lines. Now, some map genius will tell me that, due to the curvature of the earth, this isn't a totally accurate way to do it.
If you want to do it accurately, use coordinates.
If by "coordinates" you mean taking the latitude of one endpoint and the longitude of another and finding that point, that's what I do. Then use Google Earth's line tool to find the length of each line.
US 98 in Martin and Okeechobee Counties should be signed N-S instead of E-W to be consistent with its N-S signing from Okeechobee to Perry. There should be only one change along US 98 and that being at Perry for obvious reasons, however from Okeechobee to Palm Beach the road only runs a short distance East to West compared to the several hundred miles North and South from Okeechobee to Perry. To me it makes it more confusing to sign such a little stretch as E-W, especially while concurrent with N-S US 441 at the same time most of the way.
However we are talking about FDOT D-4 the same people who cannot figure out if US 98 terminates at US 1 or SR A1A.
In South Carolina, SC Route 9 is signed North/South when it very clearly runs in an East/West direction.
Quote from: PColumbus73 on August 29, 2014, 03:53:38 PM
In South Carolina, SC Route 9 is signed North/South when it very clearly runs in an East/West direction.
SC SR 9 should definitely be an East/West SR, should at least be
signed as E/W I can say that :-D
Quote from: Bruce on August 22, 2014, 04:47:40 PM
WA-16 is signed east-west, but would be better off being north-south. WA-19, anyone?
(The existing WA-19 should be a child route of WA-20, anyway)
Actually, following the grid in WA, SR-16 really should just be an extension of SR-7, or SR-16 and SR-3 should be swapped. SR-19 doesn't fit either, but should be 211 (since the 20x numbers come from US 2).
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on August 22, 2014, 01:20:17 PM
U.S. 33 (should be U.S. 32)
When i asked about that issue regarding US routes 33, 35, 42 and 62 since Ohio discarded the N-WEST, N-EAST, S-WEST, S-EAST tabs years before, the ODOT engineering-type i spoke with told me that ODOT assigned the directions to those four highways based upon how much further they travelled...so US 35 traveled further E-W than N-S, so it was given EAST-WEST tabbing.,...same with US 33....
My picks:
NY 400 is signed N/S, but the majority of its' routing is more E/W.
NY 391 is signed N/S, but its' routing is more E/W.
NY 225 is signed N/S, but the majority of its' routing is more E/W.
NY 383 is signed N/S, but its' routing is more E/W.
Quote from: WNYroadgeek on August 30, 2014, 10:04:42 PM
My picks:
NY 400 is signed N/S, but the majority of its' routing is more E/W.
Original plans had it extending to NY 17/ I-86, hence the former stub ending. This would have been almost entirely north-south. They decided to upgrade US 219 instead.
Additionally, since is a bypass of NY 16 (signed
north-south), it makes sense to keep the directions the same, as bypass routes, especially those where both termini are at/near their "parent", typically keep the cardinal directions of said parent unless it's a loop.
Quote from: TEG24601 on August 29, 2014, 10:11:00 PM
Quote from: Bruce on August 22, 2014, 04:47:40 PM
WA-16 is signed east-west, but would be better off being north-south. WA-19, anyone?
(The existing WA-19 should be a child route of WA-20, anyway)
Actually, following the grid in WA, SR-16 really should just be an extension of SR-7, or SR-16 and SR-3 should be swapped. SR-19 doesn't fit either, but should be 211 (since the 20x numbers come from US 2).
At first I was confused, since SR 3 is just as north-south as SR 16, but now I see what you're saying. SR 3 is slightly L-shaped, and the section south of the current split is kind of east-west-ish, so I suppose that could work. SR 7 could work as well, but I'd rather see it extended along I-705, and up the waterfront to Point Defiance. Regardless, I think the number 16 is too ingrained in the local populace, and doesn't cause any confusion, whereas renumbering it would cause loads of confusion. The only way its number would ever be changed would be if it were to become an interstate.
To get off the fictional tangent, I do remember reading an article once regarding why it's numbered the way it is. (It was kind of a fluff piece, one of those things where people send in questions to the local rag; I think it was someone actually from WSDOT answering it though.) Basically, since it connects two north-south highways (SR 3 and I-5), it makes sense for it to be east-west. Also, SR 3 and I-5 both run somewhat SW-NE through the area, and SR 16 is slightly NW-SE, so it makes sense for it to be signed in the perpendicular direction. Also also, there's a prominent body of water separating Tacoma and Bremerton, and in local parlance, Tacoma is east of Puget Sound (even though it's mostly south) and Bremerton is west of the Sound, therefore SR 16 goes from east to west and is signed as such.
Quote from: Kacie Jane on August 31, 2014, 08:44:20 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on August 29, 2014, 10:11:00 PM
Quote from: Bruce on August 22, 2014, 04:47:40 PM
WA-16 is signed east-west, but would be better off being north-south. WA-19, anyone?
(The existing WA-19 should be a child route of WA-20, anyway)
Actually, following the grid in WA, SR-16 really should just be an extension of SR-7, or SR-16 and SR-3 should be swapped. SR-19 doesn't fit either, but should be 211 (since the 20x numbers come from US 2).
At first I was confused, since SR 3 is just as north-south as SR 16, but now I see what you're saying. SR 3 is slightly L-shaped, and the section south of the current split is kind of east-west-ish, so I suppose that could work. SR 7 could work as well, but I'd rather see it extended along I-705, and up the waterfront to Point Defiance. Regardless, I think the number 16 is too ingrained in the local populace, and doesn't cause any confusion, whereas renumbering it would cause loads of confusion. The only way its number would ever be changed would be if it were to become an interstate.
To get off the fictional tangent, I do remember reading an article once regarding why it's numbered the way it is. (It was kind of a fluff piece, one of those things where people send in questions to the local rag; I think it was someone actually from WSDOT answering it though.) Basically, since it connects two north-south highways (SR 3 and I-5), it makes sense for it to be east-west. Also, SR 3 and I-5 both run somewhat SW-NE through the area, and SR 16 is slightly NW-SE, so it makes sense for it to be signed in the perpendicular direction. Also also, there's a prominent body of water separating Tacoma and Bremerton, and in local parlance, Tacoma is east of Puget Sound (even though it's mostly south) and Bremerton is west of the Sound, therefore SR 16 goes from east to west and is signed as such.
That makes some sense. If I had my druthers, I would actually extend SR 16 along either 509 or I-5 to build the future freeway portion of 167, and if you really wanted to, they could replace 410 as well, but not required.
I still say that both NJ 42 should be signed as E-W instead of N-S. Yes, i know I have been told on this forum before that the endpoints are more away from each other more N-S than E-W, but considering it connects to US 322 and E-W signed US route at its east end and connects to E-W I-76 at its west end, it would be more less confusing if it were done this way. Plus the ACE runs mainly E-W too so it would be more consistent to say take I-76 E to NJ 42 E to the ACE E than follow I-76 E into NJ 42 S until the freeway becomes the ACE EB.
Quote from: roadman65 on September 01, 2014, 01:17:00 PM
I still say that both NJ 42 should be signed as E-W instead of N-S. Yes, i know I have been told on this forum before that the endpoints are more away from each other more N-S than E-W, but considering it connects to US 322 and E-W signed US route at its east end and connects to E-W I-76 at its west end, it would be more less confusing if it were done this way. Plus the ACE runs mainly E-W too so it would be more consistent to say take I-76 E to NJ 42 E to the ACE E than follow I-76 E into NJ 42 S until the freeway becomes the ACE EB.
"Take the North-South Freeway east..."
Besides that, 42 goes south past the ACE down to 322. My preference would be to extend 76 (which permits signing that segment as E/W, among other things) and either shift the 42 designation back to its old alignment (168) or just truncate 42 back to the expressway (so the Black Horse Pike would be 168 from 130 to 76 and 42 from 76 to 322) - while the former is more elegant, the latter would cut down on the confusion factor.
Yeah and NJ 42 connects to US 322 by default at Williamstown after leaving the N-S Freeway.
You are right about extending 76 though. However, NJ would never go for it as they have not ever extended their interstate mileage since the original proposal. Even NJ 55 would make an excellent I-x76 as it is up to standards.
I don't understand why US 35 is marked E-W in Ohio while it exists as an odd numbered US route and it primarily traverses N-S. The highway is marked N-S in Indiana and West Virginia.
Quote from: monty on September 06, 2014, 10:25:19 PM
I don't understand why US 35 is marked E-W in Ohio while it exists as an odd numbered US route and it primarily traverses N-S. The highway is marked N-S in Indiana and West Virginia.
(repeat of earlier post) When i asked about that issue regarding US routes 33, 35, 42 and 62 since Ohio discarded the N-WEST, N-EAST, S-WEST, S-EAST tabs years before, the ODOT engineering-type i spoke with told me that ODOT assigned the directions to those four highways based upon how much further they travelled...so US 35 traveled further E-W than N-S, so it was given EAST-WEST tabbing.,....
In the case of some of these interstates, I think people in general can more easily visually process "east/west" than "north/south" or "north/south" than "east/west."
For example, if you're in Tampa and take I-4 to Daytona Beach, you're not going to think that Daytona is "north" of Tampa. You're going to think it's "east" of Tampa because it's on the eastern side of the Peninsula.
Similarly, if you are in Charlotte and take I-85 to Petersburg, you're not going to think Petersburg is "east" of Charlotte. You're going to think it's "north" of Charlotte because Petersburg is in Virginia and Virginia is "north" of North Carolina.
(EDIT: PENINSULA, not Panhandle!)
US 151 - Signed north-south, should be east-west, especially if my recommended reroute (replace WI 23 between Fond du Lac and Sheboygan, WI) is ever implemented.
Mike
Quote from: roadman65 on September 01, 2014, 01:17:00 PM
I still say that both NJ 42 should be signed as E-W instead of N-S. Yes, i know I have been told on this forum before that the endpoints are more away from each other more N-S than E-W, but considering it connects to US 322 and E-W signed US route at its east end and connects to E-W I-76 at its west end, it would be more less confusing if it were done this way. Plus the ACE runs mainly E-W too so it would be more consistent to say take I-76 E to NJ 42 E to the ACE E than follow I-76 E into NJ 42 S until the freeway becomes the ACE EB.
But if you change the ACE to North-South instead, you get an excuse to keep the wrong-way mileage and exit numbers. Ditto for I-76 in NJ (really, I-76 is messed up almost from the moment it leaves the PA Turnpike with major sections of the "eastbound" roadway going SW).
Quote from: bzakharin on September 08, 2014, 09:56:54 AMI-76 is messed up almost from the moment it leaves the PA Turnpike with major sections of the "eastbound" roadway going SW
S
W????? Last time I checked, Valley Forge to the Walt Whitman Bridge is in a S
E direction. Yes I-76 East makes some westerly bulges (and vice-versa for I-76 West), but such doesn't change the
overall direction of the Schuylkill Expressway (which was originally a N-S highway as previously mentioned).
I did not say all, I said major sections. I didn't notice that the Schuylkill was already mentioned in this thread. When was the I-76 designation assigned to it? Was that when it was changed to East-West?
Quote from: bzakharin on September 08, 2014, 03:18:46 PMI didn't notice that the Schuylkill was already mentioned in this thread. When was the I-76 designation assigned to it? Was that when it was changed to East-West?
Quote from: PhillyRoads WebsiteThe Schuylkill Expressway, which previously had been designated PA 43, had the following Interstate designations over the years:
June 1958-October 1958: I-280 from Valley Forge to the Walt Whitman Bridge. Pennsylvania officials proposed this designation.
October 1958-November 1958: I-380 from Valley Forge to Center City (Vine Street Expressway); I-395 from Center City to the Walt Whitman Bridge. New Jersey officials suggested these separate designations to correspond with that state's proposed Interstate segments.
November 1958-early 1964: I-80S from Valley Forge to Center City (Vine Street Expressway); I-680 from Center City to the Walt Whitman Bridge. These were the final designations given by the American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHO).
1964-1973: I-76 from Valley Forge to Center City (Vine Street Expressway); I-676 from Center City to the Walt Whitman Bridge; approved by AASHO. The I-76 designation was desired because none of the existing spur routes (I-180, I-280, I-480 and I-680) touched their parent route. Designations on the spur routes also were changed.
1973-present: I-76 along entire length from Valley Forge to the Walt Whitman Bridge. (Interestingly, the current routing of the I-76 designation from the Ohio border to the Walt Whitman Bridge had been suggested by some Pennsylvania officials since 1963.)
Source (http://www.phillyroads.com/roads/schuylkill/)
I'm
guessing that it became an E/W route when it first received an Interstate designation circa June 1958.
The way I'm reading it, the first two don't necessarily represent designations that were actually posted. Pennsylvania suggested one set of numbers in June, New Jersey suggested a different set in October, and the first ones actually posted would be the completely different set that AASHO approved in November.
But I would guess the same thing regardless. Though if an x95 number were ever posted, perhaps that would have been N/S?
Quote from: Kacie Jane on September 09, 2014, 02:58:23 AM
The way I'm reading it, the first two don't necessarily represent designations that were actually posted. Pennsylvania suggested one set of numbers in June, New Jersey suggested a different set in October, and the first ones actually posted would be the completely different set that AASHO approved in November.
But I would guess the same thing regardless. Though if an x95 number were ever posted, perhaps that would have been N/S?
Not necessarily; Center City (more precisely 30th St. Station) to the Walt Whitman Bridge is still more of an E/W direction rather than a N/S direction. Elsewhere there are plenty of I-x95s that are E/W routes.
One needs to remember that the odd numbers being N/S and even numbers being E/W only applies to
one or 2-digit Interstates (& US routes) not the 3-digit ones.
Quote from: bzakharin on September 08, 2014, 09:56:54 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 01, 2014, 01:17:00 PM
I still say that both NJ 42 should be signed as E-W instead of N-S. Yes, i know I have been told on this forum before that the endpoints are more away from each other more N-S than E-W, but considering it connects to US 322 and E-W signed US route at its east end and connects to E-W I-76 at its west end, it would be more less confusing if it were done this way. Plus the ACE runs mainly E-W too so it would be more consistent to say take I-76 E to NJ 42 E to the ACE E than follow I-76 E into NJ 42 S until the freeway becomes the ACE EB.
But if you change the ACE to North-South instead, you get an excuse to keep the wrong-way mileage and exit numbers. Ditto for I-76 in NJ (really, I-76 is messed up almost from the moment it leaves the PA Turnpike with major sections of the "eastbound" roadway going SW).
One of the things about NJ and PA is that many roads are just built without true direction in mind. Unlike many places where the roads are mostly built with actual alignments following the compass with the exception of subdivision streets and some urban arterials, New Jersey builds them just mainly to go from a point a to a point b.
It might have to do with the fact New Jersey is one of the original 13 states that had a large population base already started that the roads were designed to weave around the built up areas. Also the fact that NJ lengthwise really goes from SW to NE. If you built a true N-S road it would actually go from the Atlantic Ocean to the Delaware River on a very shallow angle. An E-W roadway would go on an angle instead of straight across as it would appear.
Back to the original topic, I would say sign PA 291 as N-S as well. Because it parallels I-95 and US 13 that both are signed as N-S it would make things less confusing. For example years ago my dad was following PA 291 and got scared that he was heading away from the Delaware River when he saw a WEST PA 291 assembly. He was trying to find I-95 South, as the freeway was not totally complete through the Philly area back in the 1970's when this happened. He was going to Wilmington, DE from Philadelphia and was following PA 291. So you could imagine why he got totally confused as he has been around for many years where normally he would be taking US 13 between the two cities, but we drifted off to see the visual sights of Philly and was on Broad Street, which at the time was PA 291 south of City Hall.
Seeing a PA 291 shield labeled west would throw most travelers off considering we have the tendency to think that the Delaware River (the eastern border of PA which PA 291 follows) is true North to South not so much of ignorance, but because of naturally thinking that an eastern border of anything would be N-S.
Quote from: roadman65 on September 09, 2014, 09:43:12 AM
One of the things about NJ and PA is that many roads are just built without true direction in mind. Unlike many places where the roads are mostly built with actual alignments following the compass with the exception of subdivision streets and some urban arterials, New Jersey builds them just mainly to go from a point a to a point b.
Aren't all roads built to go from point A to point B? Does anyone really ever build a road to go due north (or whatever) just so that one exists even though there is nothing due north worth going to? And if you're planning new subdivisions, I'd guess the new roads would roughly parallel existing roads in the area rather than follow compass directions.
What does that mean for directions that should be chosen? I guess there are various strategies. The ACE seems to de-emphasize directions in favor of "Camden/Philadelphia" and "Atlantic City", at least at entrances. But it's East-West, and despite what I said above, my gut tells me I'm going East-West when I'm on it (also 42, even the non-freeway section. It parallels the ACE after all), so I do feel like most highways in NJ are signed with the correct directions.
As a side note, if you drew a line from NJ's southernmost point (in Cape May county) to its northernmost (in Sussex County), you'd get an almost due north-south line, though it would cross into PA and back. It's more fair to say that the major population centers in NJ are clustered around the SW-NE direction, and that the major cities you connect by going through NJ follow that direction as well.
AR 60 can be E-W OR N-S, depending where you are.
One section runs N-S AND E-W, but is posted E-W
Quote from: JustDrive on August 22, 2014, 03:14:19 PM
I-980 is north-south, yet it's signed east-west.
If the first number in a 3di is odd then it should be a spur; if even it should be a loop.
Now if it's a spur, it figures to be opposite to its parent route (I-80, being even, is east-west. So its spurs figure to be north-south.)
I've seen beltways signed E-W from bearings 315-45 and 135-225, then N-S from bearings 45-135 and 225-315.
Maybe they should be clockwise and counter-clockwise though.
IA 137, which runs between Albia and Eddyville, is a diagonal that is mostly east-west but is signed north-south. That is because it followed what is now US 63 between Eddyville and Oskaloosa before 1997.
Quote from: woodpusher on September 09, 2014, 01:16:27 PM
Now if it's a spur, it figures to be opposite to its parent route (I-80, being even, is east-west. So its spurs figure to be north-south.)
That's not always the case at all: for two California examples that come to mind, I-505 is north/south like I-5 is, and I-580 is east/west like parent route I-80.
(980 does not intersect 80 at all, for that matter, though its eastern terminus at 580 is about a mile or two from the MacArthur Maze)
Quote from: roadman65 on September 09, 2014, 09:43:12 AMBack to the original topic, I would say sign PA 291 as N-S as well. Because it parallels I-95 and US 13 that both are signed as N-S it would make things less confusing. For example years ago my dad was following PA 291 and got scared that he was heading away from the Delaware River when he saw a WEST PA 291 assembly. He was trying to find I-95 South, as the freeway was not totally complete through the Philly area back in the 1970's when this happened. He was going to Wilmington, DE from Philadelphia and was following PA 291. So you could imagine why he got totally confused as he has been around for many years where normally he would be taking US 13 between the two cities, but we drifted off to see the visual sights of Philly and was on Broad Street, which at the time was PA 291 south of City Hall.
Seeing a PA 291 shield labeled west would throw most travelers off considering we have the tendency to think that the Delaware River (the eastern border of PA which PA 291 follows) is true North to South not so much of ignorance, but because of naturally thinking that an eastern border of anything would be N-S.
If memory serves, back when PA 291 ended at City Hall; the Broad Street portion of it was signed as a N/S route while the rest of the route was signed as E/W. Until the very early 90s, the BGS' for the Broad St. exit off I-95 still listed Broad St. as
NORTH 291.
Not sure when it happened, but when PennDOT redesignated Broad St. south of City Hall as an extension of PA 611 and moved PA 291 over to 26th St. (where it currently terminates at I-76); all of 291 was an E/W.
The reason behind not marking I-95 & US 13 in this area as E/W routes is due to those routes continuing
beyond South Philly & Delaware County whereas 291 does not.
Once upon a time, much of I-95 (the CT Turnpike portion) & US 1 in CT had E/W cardinals on trailblazer & assurance signs.
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 09, 2014, 08:27:39 AM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on September 09, 2014, 02:58:23 AM
The way I'm reading it, the first two don't necessarily represent designations that were actually posted. Pennsylvania suggested one set of numbers in June, New Jersey suggested a different set in October, and the first ones actually posted would be the completely different set that AASHO approved in November.
But I would guess the same thing regardless. Though if an x95 number were ever posted, perhaps that would have been N/S?
Not necessarily; Center City (more precisely 30th St. Station) to the Walt Whitman Bridge is still more of an E/W direction rather than a N/S direction. Elsewhere there are plenty of I-x95s that are E/W routes.
One needs to remember that the odd numbers being N/S and even numbers being E/W only applies to one or 2-digit Interstates (& US routes) not the 3-digit ones.
Regarding your last paragraph, of course. I was merely spitballing (and perhaps looking at a faulty mental map).
The two examples that come to mind involve fairly significant segments of much longer interstates: I-95 through Connecticut is a west-east highway for all intents and purposes. Yes, I know it's farther "north" at the RI border than at the NY border, but not by much. As people in that area use it as an east-west thoroughfare, it can be confusing as Stratford is not north of Bridgeport (it's east), nor is New Haven "south" of Brantford (it's actually northwest).
Example #2 is I-94 between it's junction with I-80 (south of Chicago) to downtown Milwaukee. It's almost entirely north-south for this 100+ mile stretch. In fact, at one point, I-94 westbound actually curves east (and vice-versa) near it's connection with US-41 in northern Lake County, IL. The signage says Chicago is "east" and Milwaukee is "west", which is 90 degrees off from reality.
Of course, in each case, the overall interstate does follow it's appropriate cardinal direction but for the fairly significant stretches that serve the above-described regions, it's somewhat confusing.
I just drove the entirety of I-26 on Monday --- this one should definitely be north-south instead of east-west IMO.
Of course, there is the fact that I-26 runs fairly close to DUE North-South in both Tennessee and North Carolina. But if we made I-26 N-S in South Carolina as well, we get the "zero mile marker" in downtown Charleston at the Ravenel Bridge Interchange --- the "zero mile marker" being there versus a relatively indistinct point along the NC/SC border would be pretty cool. The Ravenel Bridge, of course, is a wonder to behold and fully worthy of being an interstate's "finishing point."
CA 183 between Castroville and Salinas is east-west, yet it's signed north-south.
The westernmost portion of CA 68 (west of the CA 1 overlap) is north-south, yet it's signed east-west
Quote from: JustDrive on September 19, 2014, 12:10:18 AM
CA 183 between Castroville and Salinas is east-west, yet it's signed north-south.
Looks to me that 183 and 101 are relatively parallel in their trajectories; 183 still seems diagonal enough that north-south isn't illogical:
http://goo.gl/maps/8QiMS
I've always considered 183 to be east-west, since it connects 101 with 1. And the portion within Salinas city limits along Market Street is east-west, and then there's that turn onto Main Street which gives it a wrong-way direction.
Interstate 82.
*Drops mic*
Quote from: JustDrive on September 19, 2014, 04:50:16 PM
I've always considered 183 to be east-west, since it connects 101 with 1.
Route 17 also connects 1 and 101 and is most definitely not east-west...(and further south there's Route 23 and Route 27, also north-south routes, though admittedly connecting 101 and 1 when the latter two are at their most east-west in trajectory)
For comparison, while Route 41 is mostly signed as a north-south route...I'm not sure if it is signed as north-south on the former US 466 portion that does connect Route 1 in Morro Bay with US 101 in Atascadero.
US 62 in PA should be E-W instead of N-S. Maybe north of US 6 it should be N-S to match New York, as in the Empire State is does run N-S more so than in PA.
Diagonal routes are always tricky. Look at I-24. It could also been a N-S odd numbered interstate the way it runs. US 92 is tricky too as for most of it is running concurrent with N-S US 17. Only east of DeLand for 24 miles,from Tampa to Lake Alfred, and the Gandy Bridge does US 92 really align close to its E-W signing.
Quote from: roadman65 on September 20, 2014, 11:24:47 AMUS 92 is tricky too as for most of it is running concurrent with N-S US 17. Only east of DeLand for 24 miles,from Tampa to Lake Alfred, and the Gandy Bridge does US 92 really align close to its E-W signing.
Personally, I don't see it as "tricky" at all. Yes, it spends almost exactly half its length multiplexed with N/S US routes. But even there, it's fairly SW/NE. Before it hits US 17, it heads pretty solidly east for 70 miles on its own out of Tampa. And I-4, the route it parallels for it's entire length, not just a section, is signed E/W as well.
I'd have a really hard time saying any route that connects the Gulf Coast with the Atlantic Coast should be signed N/S. I'm sure there are more, but besides the Turnpike, the two exceptions I can think of (I-75 and US 41) both used to be signed E/W along the portion where they cross the peninsula.