I noticed the US 218, which is a north-south route from Keokuk, IA via Cedar Rapids to Owatonna in Minnesota. As a clear north-south route, the number is a violation of the numbering system, which says even routes should run east-west. It does intersect with it's parent though (US 18) in Charles City, IA. Are there plans to renumber this route? It's too important to just downgrade to a State Route in my opinion, especially from Iowa City to Keokuk.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fd%2Fd2%2FUS_218_map.png%2F290px-US_218_map.png&hash=0187f93921ccd802cc3530428d02fa2c852d5c22)
QuoteAs a clear north-south route, the number is a violation of the numbering system, which says even routes should run east-west.
The numbering system doesn't apply to 3-digit routes. Just the 2-digit routes.
There are far worse violations: US 104 never was intended to meet US 4, for example. And don't get me started on 101.
Quote from: froggie on August 30, 2009, 02:35:44 PM
The numbering system doesn't apply to 3-digit routes. Just the 2-digit routes.
I believe this is true (that number-direction parity was not originally intended to apply to 3dus routes), yet when you look at how the routes were actually numbered, it appears the concept was indeed extended to the vast majority of 3dus routes. There are very few exceptions (US 218 being one of the blatant ones)... see this page for some maps illustrating this point:
https://www.usends.com/numbering.html
As for US 218, I think "US 265" was considered for that route, but I don't know why they ultimately went with US 218.
Certainly some DOTs today seem to think that number-direction parity
does apply to 3dus routes. I know when they were considering renumbering options for US 666, the three DOTs involved operated under the assumption that it had to be an odd number. And someone else's recent research indicates that Utah and Arizona originally considered US 164 for the Kayenta-Bluff corridor (actually it was Kayenta-Crescent Junction at the time), but then decided that because it's a north-south route, it had to be an odd number, so they subtracted one to come up with today's oddly-numbered US 163.
[edited to correct URL]
What I've read of AASHTO policy suggests that there is no policy that 3-digit routes have to be even for E/W or odd for N/S, like the 2-digit routes. What's happened, as you pointed out examples of, is that the states have assumed that the numbering rules apply to the 3-digit routes too.
Quote from: froggie on August 31, 2009, 06:21:49 PM
What I've read of AASHTO policy suggests that there is no policy that 3-digit routes have to be even for E/W or odd for N/S, like the 2-digit routes. What's happened, as you pointed out examples of, is that the states have assumed that the numbering rules apply to the 3-digit routes too.
My home state of PA has no such assumptions. US 220 is a north south route and so are US 202, 222 and 522.
Hell, US-83 south of Laredo changes to an E/W route. US-62 in PA and OH are listed as N/S.
Whatever floats your boat.
I just think, generally, it should be signed the same for the whole state, as opposed to Texas' odd, but needed, US-83 switch.
Sykotyk
Actually, US 83 in Texas is technically supposed to be signed north-south even on the stretch south of Laredo where it runs generally east-west. TxDOT policy is to sign the book direction, unlike other states which sign the actual compass bearing.
US 218 between Keokuk and Cedar Rapids was once part of a US 161 - which went back to US 61 in Dubuque via what is now US 151. IMHO US 161 should have stayed between Keokuk and Cedar Rapids and taken up the rest of US 218.
Quote from: AlpsROADS on August 30, 2009, 05:14:39 PM
There are far worse violations: US 104 never was intended to meet US 4, for example. And don't get me started on 101.
101 was planned from the outset to be a "major" route...as I'm sure you know the U.S. route system uses "x1" for the same purpose the Interstate system uses "x5's". So when they needed another major route to serve California, they went up from 91 to get 101. So starting from U.S. 61, you get 6-1, 7-1, 8-1, 9-1, and 10-1.
If it were several decades later and AASHTO were significantly nerdier, they could have named it U.S. A1...
Quote from: algorerhythms on September 02, 2009, 01:13:23 PM
If it were several decades later and AASHTO were significantly nerdier, they could have named it U.S. A1...
Hexadecimal road numbers.
AAARRRGGGGHHHH!!!!! :fight:
Quote from: Scott5114101 was planned from the outset to be a "major" route...as I'm sure you know the U.S. route system uses "x1" for the same purpose the Interstate system uses "x5's". So when they needed another major route to serve California, they went up from 91 to get 101. So starting from U.S. 61, you get 6-1, 7-1, 8-1, 9-1, and 10-1.
But did US 101 really need to be a major route? North of San Francisco, most of the major cities were along US 99.
Maybe had so many numbers not been squandered farther east, US 101 could have been better numbered. One really shouldn't cross four major routes in less than 260 miles (US 31, US 41, US 51, and US 61)
Quote from: usends on August 31, 2009, 10:35:53 AMAnd someone else's recent research indicates that Utah and Arizona originally considered US 164 for the Kayenta-Bluff corridor (actually it was Kayenta-Crescent Junction at the time), but then decided that because it's a north-south route, it had to be an odd number, so they subtracted one to come up with today's oddly-numbered US 163.
wasn't it formerly Utah state route 163 in one stretch? or did the state route designation come later to the stretch just past where US-163 ends?
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 03, 2009, 01:30:56 AM
wasn't it formerly Utah state route 163 in one stretch? or did the state route designation come later to the stretch just past where US-163 ends?
My understanding is that Utah 163 was commissioned sometime after US 163.
http://usends.com/60-69/163/163.html (http://usends.com/60-69/163/163.html)
(As an aside, U-163 was changed to U-162 in 2003 or 2004.)
oh, it's all 162 now? My GPS was utterly confused, switching between 163 and 162. My 2010 Rand McNally shows 162 only on the segment east of Aneth, so I had assumed 163 turned to 162 either there or at the 262 junction.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 03, 2009, 01:05:26 PM
oh, it's all 162 now? My GPS was utterly confused, switching between 163 and 162. My 2010 Rand McNally shows 162 only on the segment east of Aneth, so I had assumed 163 turned to 162 either there or at the 262 junction.
Yep, it's all 162 now. I have a few photos here:
http://www.usends.com/Focus/Bluff/index.html (http://www.usends.com/Focus/Bluff/index.html)
Before the change, U-262 started at the Colorado line, went through Aneth to Montezuma Creek Jct, then north and west along its current route, ending at US 191 between Bluff and Blanding. The road from Montezuma Creek to Bluff was U-163. But now U-262 is only the portion north and west of Montezuma Creek. The road from Bluff through Montezuma and Aneth to the Colorado line is now U-162.