What I mean by route number duplication (RND) is that a state numbers its state highways the same number as a US or Interstate route within its borders. Utah does not do this; instead, UDOT has a "one route, one number" policy--there is no UT-15, UT-80, UT-70, UT-89, UT-6, etc. as there are Interstates and US Routes that have these numbers.
In some apparent cases, the state may just seem to have too many routes (Texas), but do you think it's a good idea? I think not using it for Utah works, as people refer to a given route as "highway ##" and the state isn't exactly packed with roads, though that's a bit of a nutshell answer.
Quote from: Rover_0 on November 30, 2009, 08:54:28 PM
What I mean by route number duplication (RND) is that a state numbers its state highways the same number as a US or Interstate route within its borders. Utah does not do this; instead, UDOT has a "one route, one number" policy--there is no UT-15, UT-80, UT-70, UT-89, UT-6, etc. as there are Interstates and US Routes that have these numbers.
I think the MUTCD discourages duplication, but Missouri duplicates 64, 72 , 170 and 49.
Arkansas has NO duplicates (for now... until I-49 gets officially posted)
If the state route is far enough away from the Interstate or US Route, I see no problem.
For the longest time, though, I was confused by 2 Hwy 59's within a few miles of each other (AR 59 in Siloam Springs, US 59 in Oklahoma).
California is a good example of a state that does not permit such duplications, although there are several exceptions - CA 15, CA 110, I-238 etc.
I think duplication of route numbers should be avoided in all states. In a highway system based on numbered routes, duplicating a number for two unrelated highways can cause confusion to drivers. This is especially troublesome to those drivers unfamiliar with an area, or in region where highways are referred to as "route X" or "highway X" regardless of classification. An understandable exception to this viewpoint comes in certain cases (such as I-15/CA SR 15 in San Diego or I-215/Clark CR 215 in Las Vegas) where the route numbers are used to denote a single highway facility and the classification changes solely due to ownership/maintenance/future Interstate status.
It should be worth noting that the original Interstate Highway grid was designed to mirror the numbering methods of the U.S. Highway system, yet was done in such a way that Interstates would not duplicate the number of any U.S. Route within a state.
I also see no problem with route duplication, if the roads are far enough apart.
Oregon has two of these: I-205/OR 205, which are nowhere near each other, and I-82/OR 82, which unfortunately are close enough to potentially cause confusion.
Quote from: US71 on November 30, 2009, 09:28:41 PM
For the longest time, though, I was confused by 2 Hwy 59's within a few miles of each other (AR 59 in Siloam Springs, US 59 in Oklahoma).
isn't AR-59 an old US-59 alignment?
I definitely don't agree with that especially because in Virginia the only duplicate route number(not including state highway extensions of US Routes or interstates) is 13 but US 13 is over in Hampton Roads and the Eastern Shore while VA 13 exists near US 60 in Powhatan and Cumberland Counties over 100 miles west.
Bad idea, unless the two routes are continuous with each other (e.g. I-390/NY 390).
Actually, it's probably best that even three digit numbers that could potentially be spurs of an interstate within the state be avoided unless they have some relation to the interstate. For instance, VA 895 is okay since it does meet I-95 even if it isn't officially a spur of it. But routes like CT 195 (exists in the same state as I-95 but is completely unrelated to it) are probably less than ideally numbered.
This is also good because it means CA 180 has to get axed, making the number available for you-know-what. :sombrero:
No, for the simple reason that I store routes by route number on my FTP server and when there's duplication (eg I-82/OR 82, US-14/WYO 14, US-30/WYO 30, US-310/WYO 310, US-212/WYO 212, US-89/WYO 89, etc), it becomes annoying.
In seriousness, for the most part I frown upon it, but I find anomalies like WYO 89 where it's signed as such just because Wyoming was pissed off that Idaho and Utah got US-89 to be hilarious.
Really, it would be easily avoided if states would just inventory their routes by highway number instead of some random control number (without prefix), like Washington or California does...in Wyoming US-212 is ML 38 and ML 488, and WYO 212 is ML 212. Oregon does the same thing except even more annoyingly.
I think it depends upon the length of the routes in question, the types of routes, and the proximity of said routes. In Illinois, there doesn't seem to be any problems with having I-24 and US 24 in the same state.
In Missouri, the letter routes are duplicated many times, yet this only becomes a problem when two routes with the same letter suggest a route that is continuous yet is not - such as the two Rte T's near St. Joesph, one in Holt County, the other in Andrew County, which are separated by a narrow gravel road in a continuous corridor. The other problematic case is when two routes with the same letter are very close to each other. There are two Rte F's, one in Andrew County, the other in Dekalb County within five miles of each other that both run north-south.
Then there's the somewhat annoying Nebraska cases, such as with NE 103, which has two separate sections that someone never bothered to connect. This one is wrong because a causal motorist (one who is not seriously planning their trip with detail studies of maps) can come across NE 103 on NE 8 and make the incorrect assumption that the route can be followed north to I-80 easily.
As for duplicating three digit interstate numbers, I don't see how having an I-470 in Missouri around Kansas City and possibly having another one in the St. Louis area (say changing MO 370 to another I-470) would be any worse for the general public than the proximity of the Kansas City I-470 to the Topeka I-470. Only people who might really have a problem with this are the Feds and those in MoDOT's central office who might have to process data and distinguish between the two.
Cosmetically there appears to be several duplicates in Pennsylvania, but technically there are none.
Michigan has that unfortunately policy, Southern US-10 is now M-10, old US-27 is M-27, and old US-25 is now M-25. Also there's M-24 and a US-24 nearly on the same route.
Quote from: SyntheticDreamer on November 30, 2009, 09:59:38 PM
California is a good example of a state that does not permit such duplications, although there are several exceptions - CA 15, CA 110, I-238 etc.
Technically, these aren't duplications. CA-15 and CA-110 are extensions of I-15 and I-110 where the freeway does not meet interstate standards. CA-15 will eventually become I-15 once improvements are made. CA-110 will never get upgraded to interstate standards because of the historic nature of the road. I-238 was originally the freeway extension of CA-238 between I-580 and I-880 so technically it falls under the same classification as CA-15 and CA-110.
If you want to get technical about CA/I-110, there are two CA 110s, but both are extensions of I-110. The southern portion isn't freeway, though.
Quote from: roadfro on November 30, 2009, 10:07:53 PMIt should be worth noting that the original Interstate Highway grid was designed to mirror the numbering methods of the U.S. Highway system, yet was done in such a way that Interstates would not duplicate the number of any U.S. Route within a state.
Other than in the middle - hence the lack of E-W numbers between I-44 and I-64.
Being English, I don't have a problem with it - it's not that confusing - we have it all the time - some things like the A23 being bypassed by the M23, other things like the M11, where it bypasses the A11 for a bit then goes elsewhere. The M57 and A57 are perpendicular too each other, which while less good, doesn't cause a problem. In part this is because we navigate by place a lot more (though not as much as mainland Europe), and also it's the case that we've learnt to cope.
I also fail to see how this duplication thing is such an issue, when there's business routes, various suffixes (E, W, N, S, A), spurs (eg I-270 Spur), bypass routes and so on, prevalent across the country - not in every state, but in a lot.
I am not fussed either way, but it is certainly true that if a state permits duplicates, they have to be treated in a way which is user-friendly to motorists who don't pay much attention to system classification. For instance, Texas has interchanges with both SH 121 and FM 121 on US 75 north of Dallas, and drivers passing the FM 121 exit have to be warned not to exit there for DFW Airport.
Quote from: myosh_tino on December 01, 2009, 12:35:23 AMI-238 was originally the freeway extension of CA-238 between I-580 and I-880 so technically it falls under the same classification as CA-15 and CA-110.
Originally? You mean it's being renamed CA-238? :eyebrow: :biggrin: ;-)
WI has two duplicates.
*I-39 was put in place with a WIS-39 already in place, but the latter is 50 miles west of the former. WIS-794 is an extension of I-794 over a parkway that was originally to be a freeway but fell to NIMBYism. Wisconsin otherwise despises duplication.
MD has a rather blatant example: the exits for I-68 and MD 68 on I-70 are only about ten miles apart. The State Highway Administration installed signs on I-70 at the MD 68 exit to warn drivers that it's not the exit for I-68. I suppose that was less expensive than renumbering MD 68 when I-68 received its number.
I see no problem what-so-ever with route number duplication. There is a distinct differenct between I-24 and US-24, between I-72 and Illinois 72, between I-96 and M-96. Route duplication seems to promote awareness that there are different route (I, US, state, etc). In states that don't duplicate, everything is simply a highway (Highway 94, Highway 141, and Highway 16) with no difference made between types of routes. People tend to get sloppier IMHO. I've also noticed fewer shield mistakes in the Midwestern states that duplicate (IDOT, InDOT, MDOT) over those that don't (yeah, WisDOT, I'm looking at you!).
Quote from: agentsteel53 on November 30, 2009, 10:37:33 PM
Quote from: US71 on November 30, 2009, 09:28:41 PM
For the longest time, though, I was confused by 2 Hwy 59's within a few miles of each other (AR 59 in Siloam Springs, US 59 in Oklahoma).
isn't AR-59 an old US-59 alignment?
Sort of. It appears to have been TEMP US 59 while modern-day US 59 was being built. Maps are somewhat vague and AHTD isn't very knowledgeable about highway history (I asked them once when they changed from State ## Road to Arkansas ## and was told they quit using cut-outs in 1971).
Quote from: algorerhythms on December 01, 2009, 10:38:30 AM
MD has a rather blatant example: the exits for I-68 and MD 68 on I-70 are only about ten miles apart. The State Highway Administration installed signs on I-70 at the MD 68 exit to warn drivers that it's not the exit for I-68. I suppose that was less expensive than renumbering MD 68 when I-68 received its number.
And then you have Indiana, where I-64 actually has an interchange with IND 64 and the two routes parallel each other heading westward from the Louisville metro area.
I think that one of the few exceptions is to use state numbers as an alternative (i.e., Business, Alternate, Truck Routes, etc.) to Interstate and U.S. Highways. Of course, that's why we have bannered US routes and Interstate business loops. AASHTO could be leaning toward this approach in the future.
Good Utah US dup. examples could be a UT-6 running along what is now UT-198 as a city/surface alternative to the I-15/US-6 freeway in Utah County, a UT-89 along current UT-118 from Sevier to Salina with the same purpose, or a UT-91 along UT-252 in the Logan area (as that is a bypass for truckers on US-91 that want to avoid downtown Logan, aka Stoplight Hell). This could also be a good option for Interstate Business routes; all of I-15's business routes could be UT-15, I-70's UT-70, and so on. However, people may still get confused.
Number duplication was, in my opinion, one of the reasons why the 3-mile stretch of US-89A in Utah was signed (and defined) as UT-11 for so long. Now UDOT just needs to sign it (which they should be doing soon).
Quote from: algorerhythms on December 01, 2009, 10:38:30 AM
MD has a rather blatant example: the exits for I-68 and MD 68 on I-70 are only about ten miles apart. The State Highway Administration installed signs on I-70 at the MD 68 exit to warn drivers that it's not the exit for I-68. I suppose that was less expensive than renumbering MD 68 when I-68 received its number.
Maryland has a few others: MD 70 and I-70; MD 97 and I-97; MD 270 and I-270; MD 495 and I-495. There used to be a MD 95 but I think it's been decommissioned. There is a MD 170, but I-170 of course is long gone.
Revive 755: I know Quebec does that with Autoroute 440, using it twice...
Bickendan: I think the southern State Route 110 has been decomissioned in recent years, I've never been to San Pedro though.
Pennsylvania seems to be drunk in this regard.
All duplicates were renumbered. Instead, with PA 380 and PA 283, (dups to I-283 and I-380), they just gave a different internal number. Why they can't just resign PA 283 as PA 300 and PA 380 as PA 400 is beyond me.
It's done down here, but the duplicates are not next to each other (instead, they are plenty of miles away from each other), except in a couple of instances:
It depends on the state and how many routes they decide to sign. Out west, it's not likely to happen because there is so many sparse areas compared to the bigger states back east.
Quote from: Roadgeek_Adam on December 01, 2009, 04:01:36 PMAll duplicates were renumbered. Instead, with PA 380 and PA 283, (dups to I-283 and I-380), they just gave a different internal number. Why they can't just resign PA 283 as PA 300 and PA 380 as PA 400 is beyond me.
PA 283 seems like a logical extension of I-283 and I-380 and PA 380 are at either ends of the state, so why bother.
Quote from: mefailenglish on December 01, 2009, 12:34:36 PM
Quote from: algorerhythms on December 01, 2009, 10:38:30 AM
MD has a rather blatant example: the exits for I-68 and MD 68 on I-70 are only about ten miles apart. The State Highway Administration installed signs on I-70 at the MD 68 exit to warn drivers that it's not the exit for I-68. I suppose that was less expensive than renumbering MD 68 when I-68 received its number.
Maryland has a few others: MD 70 and I-70; MD 97 and I-97; MD 270 and I-270; MD 495 and I-495. There used to be a MD 95 but I think it's been decommissioned. There is a MD 170, but I-170 of course is long gone.
True, though those are all farther away from each other. It's kind of interesting that MD avoided duplicating numbers between US routes and state highways (with a couple exceptions; MD 222 is a former section of US 222, and MD 219 is the Oakland bypass, which if ever completed would become part of US 219), yet there are so many Interstate highway duplications.
PA did a round of state route renumbering in the 1960s to get rid of all the duplicated numbers from the new Interstate highways. They even had a loose rule for what the new numbers were for those routes.
http://www.m-plex.com/roads/numberi.html
More Interstate numbers were assigned later, but PennDOH chose not to renumber all the same-numbered state highways. PA 380 survived because there was no I-380 then and so there was no need to renumber PA 380. Instead, there was I-81E or I-81S where I-380 is today.
The second instance of PA 283 was bypassed with the present I-283, which was then extended to Lancaster as PA 283. So that's a T-shaped highway signed as 283, not discontinuous pieces.
=======
In 1925, PA laid out a primitive numbering system for its state highway network, just to have it messed up by the US Highways in 1926. PA had to try again in 1928, and they removed the duplicated routes. This led to a few anomalies, such as the presence of US 22 causing PA 22 to become PA 29, a rule-breaking odd number on a north-south route, and three-digit numbers like PA 115 taking over the role of parent routes like PA 15 when three-digit numbers were normally given to child and spur routes instead.
http://www.m-plex.com/roads/numberus.html
========
The order of Maryland's numbering systems were:
US Highways first
State highways next
Interstate highways later
So there was never much conflict between state and US numbers. MD 48 was decommissioned long before US 48 arrived as present I-68.
NY is another example of a state that avoids US/state number duplication (with the exception of US 2/NY 2) but has many interstate duplications (NY 90 being the most infamous; I think it would be amusing if an interchange was built to it from I-90).
With four exceptions (three of which are arguable), MnDOT strictly avoids duplication between Interstate, U.S., and state routes.
- MN 169 could be argued, since it's a state-designated extension of US 169.
- Same thing with MN 65, which is a state-designated extension of US 65, though US 65 has since been truncated from Minneapolis to Albert Lea.
- Also the same thing with MN 61, though this one is a bit murkier. MnDOT truncated US 61 back to Wyoming ca. 1991, but they kept the stretch north of Duluth as a state route instead of a US route.
- The only one that is clearly a duplication is MN 62. MN 62 #2 (the original existed 1920-1933) is in southwestern Minnesota, running from US 59 in Fulda to US 71/MN 60 in Windom. In 1988, the former Hennepin CSAH 62 freeway was transferred to the state. Because of local familiarity with the 62 route number, and what was deemed a low probability of confusion between the two MN 62 routes, MnDOT designated this freeway as MN 62 (#3).
Now where Minnesota DOES have a good bit of duplication is between I/US/MN routes and county routes. One of the more prominent is where I-35 has an interchange with Freeborn CSAH 35 at Exit 22.
Kentucky only really has one duplication, that being US 79 and KY 79. And it could reasonably be argued that KY 79 is an extension of US 79.
While it's true that US 52 does enter the state, running along the US 119 route that dances in and out of Pike County along the West Virginia border, Kentucky really doesn't recognize US 52 as entering the state because this route is maintained by West Virginia. i don't think Kentucky actually acknowledges it as a Kentucky segment of US 119.
And then there's Tennessee, where there's no problem duplicating state route numbers with US or interstate numbers. All the US routes carry hidden state route designations, so in reality the US routes are only signed as such and are internally referred to by their state route numbers. But there is duplication between the state route numbers and interstate routes, and AFAIK the interstates don't carry any kind of state route designation (secret or otherwise).
CT has no duplications, and I believe MA has only one. MA 3 and US 3, but MA 3 is a southward continuation of US3 at it's southern terminus. They really are the same road, not two different roads within MA borders.
The only form of duplication the state of New Jersey has is in the 600-series county routes, which are duplicated, but are in different counties.
Quote from: deanej on December 01, 2009, 11:10:15 PM
NY is another example of a state that avoids US/state number duplication (with the exception of US 2/NY 2) but has many interstate duplications (NY 90 being the most infamous; I think it would be amusing if an interchange was built to it from I-90).
Don't forget NY 15 and US 15 (at least for now).
Quote from: WNYroadgeek on December 03, 2009, 08:00:05 PM
Quote from: deanej on December 01, 2009, 11:10:15 PM
NY is another example of a state that avoids US/state number duplication (with the exception of US 2/NY 2) but has many interstate duplications (NY 90 being the most infamous; I think it would be amusing if an interchange was built to it from I-90).
Don't forget NY 15 and US 15 (at least for now).
NYS loves to continue its US and I- routes with state routes. At least US/NY 2 are separate like I/NY 90 and I/NY 295.
I don't mind state duplication of routes but I would hope both routes are in good distance apart like in Michigan where I-94 in the lower southern part of the state and M-94 up in the Upper Peninsula. However US 24 and M-24 are not far enough apart and M-96 is a little too close to I-96. Oh well, it's not like anyone got lost or anything.
Yeah, US 15/NY 15 really is an extension situation. Even though NY 15 doesn't exist south of Wayland, as far as I know it's still signed all the way to US 15 (though I think I read that the situation changed recently). In either case, once I-99 is put on the road, there won't be a duplication anymore.
I actually like the extensions. US 2/NY 2 are due to US 2's short length in NY. I-90/NY 90 is just insane. The only thing preventing widespread confusion is that most locals think of I-90 only as the Thruway.
You might be surprised to hear that PennDOT's plan is to cosign I-99/US 15 (source: a reply from a PennDOT official to my inquiry on this very question, a few years ago). It may be difficult for NYSDOT to fully remove US 15 in its state with AASHTO approval if PA does not. So NY should have both US 15 and NY 15 for the foreseeable future.
Quote from: treichard on December 04, 2009, 04:23:28 PM
You might be surprised to hear that PennDOT's plan is to cosign I-99/US 15
So, it looks like I-99 will be co-signed with something (US 220, US 322, PA 26, I-80, US 15) it's entire length! (I am assuming here that I-99 stops at I-86/NY 17)
And, so I'm not totally off topic, I see that there is a PA 99 in NW PA running parallel to I-79. (from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_Route_99) According to Wiki, it has a different reference number (SR 0699).
I say let's keep that one and renumber the interstate.
The I-59 interchange along I-12 is only 20 miles from the interchange with LA-59. Nobody seems to get them confused. They are referred to as I-59 and LA-59 or Hwy 59 respectively.
Quote from: treichard on December 04, 2009, 04:23:28 PM
You might be surprised to hear that PennDOT's plan is to cosign I-99/US 15 (source: a reply from a PennDOT official to my inquiry on this very question, a few years ago). It may be difficult for NYSDOT to fully remove US 15 in its state with AASHTO approval if PA does not. So NY should have both US 15 and NY 15 for the foreseeable future.
Why? What's the point of having a road multiplexed for it's entire length? IMO cases where a route is multiplexed for its entire length or at a terminus should be eliminated.
Quote from: deanej on December 05, 2009, 12:32:54 PM
Quote from: treichard on December 04, 2009, 04:23:28 PM
You might be surprised to hear that PennDOT's plan is to cosign I-99/US 15 (source: a reply from a PennDOT official to my inquiry on this very question, a few years ago). It may be difficult for NYSDOT to fully remove US 15 in its state with AASHTO approval if PA does not. So NY should have both US 15 and NY 15 for the foreseeable future.
Why? What's the point of having a road multiplexed for it's entire length? IMO cases where a route is multiplexed for its entire length or at a terminus should be eliminated.
Well, that could go either way for US 15 because it does terminate at Painted Post, NY, along with where I-99 is proposed to end. You could curb it back to Williamsport where 15 and 99 meet, or keep it multiplexed since they'll end at the same point anyway.
Well, in thought, where would terminate US 15 back to? Williamsport? AASHTO would be better off just re-extending US 15 up to terminate in Rochester again, but that won't happen. We have the choice that US 15 can serve as the alignment it runs on currently and let 99 be on its own in NY, by diverting US 15 off at Lawrenceville, effectively terminating PA 287 at Lawrenceville and effectively decommissioning PA 1015 there at the state line
Quote from: njroadhorse on December 05, 2009, 02:06:45 PMWell, that could go either way for US 15 because it does terminate at Painted Post, NY, along with where I-99 is proposed to end. You could curb it back to Williamsport where 15 and 99 meet, or keep it multiplexed since they'll end at the same point anyway.
Isn't I-99 supposed to extend all the way north along I-390 to Rochester?
Quote from: deanej on December 05, 2009, 12:32:54 PM
Quote from: treichard on December 04, 2009, 04:23:28 PM
You might be surprised to hear that PennDOT's plan is to cosign I-99/US 15 (source: a reply from a PennDOT official to my inquiry on this very question, a few years ago). It may be difficult for NYSDOT to fully remove US 15 in its state with AASHTO approval if PA does not. So NY should have both US 15 and NY 15 for the foreseeable future.
Why? What's the point of having a road multiplexed for it's entire length? IMO cases where a route is multiplexed for its entire length or at a terminus should be eliminated.
Former I-181 in Tennessee carried US 23 for its entire length. In fact, US 23 continued along the four-lane freeway even after I-181 had ended at both its northern and southern termini.
QuoteIsn't I-99 supposed to extend all the way north along I-390 to Rochester?
That's a theoretical, but nobody has ever posted anything official about it...
Duplications don't bother me, but fragmented routes do. The only thing about duplications (Interstate and state routes) is that, if they're close in proximity, it can be killer in giving directions. S.R. 20 and I-20 cross one another in Conyers, Ga. At this point, S.R. 20 and S.R. 138 share pavement, so 138 is the highway given precedence here. Also, S.R. 85 and I-85 are close to one another, although they never meet. S.R. 85 is generally called "Highway 85" or "Ga. Hwy. 85."
Be well,
Bryant
Louisiana generally doesn't duplicate US and state routes, with the exception of 63 (US 63 being a very late addition and LA 63 being nowhere near it). With the last major renumbering being in 1955, Interstate numbers are duplicated. However, with the exception of the LA 59/I-59 situation, the duplicate routes tend to sit far enough apart not to be "confusing."
Quote from: Roadgeek_Adam on December 05, 2009, 03:44:51 PM
Well, in thought, where would terminate US 15 back to? Williamsport? AASHTO would be better off just re-extending US 15 up to terminate in Rochester again, but that won't happen. We have the choice that US 15 can serve as the alignment it runs on currently and let 99 be on its own in NY, by diverting US 15 off at Lawrenceville, effectively terminating PA 287 at Lawrenceville and effectively decommissioning PA 1015 there at the state line
I don't see what's wrong with terminating it at I-180 is Williamsport. There's really no need for it to go on once I-99 is signed between there and Painted Post (which is itself way more minor than Williamsport is).
Quote from: deanej on December 06, 2009, 02:14:04 PMI don't see what's wrong with terminating it at I-180 is Williamsport. There's really no need for it to go on once I-99 is signed between there and Painted Post (which is itself way more minor than Williamsport is).
I agree.
I can see co-signing for a while... but long term it's pretty dumb. Maybe PennDOT just meant they weren't going to immediately remove it. Oh well.
OK duplicates routes out the wazoo. Fortunately the state is large enough that chances are you won't run across both routes. US 54 and US 56 are both in the Panhandle, and OK 54 and 56 are in the main body of the state. US 59 runs along the east edge of the state, while OK 59 runs across central Oklahoma. I-35 and OK-35 are distant, with OK-35 being an unsigned park access route.
The only problem is US 270 and OK 270. OK 270 is the route of old US 270...meaning they parallel each other for the entire length. And ODOT has mixed up the shields a few times (fortunately corrected during the cleaverization movement). Good god!
AZ95 and US-95 and both Meet In Quartzite, AZ
AZ95 has a hidden status in CA and is part of a Quadruple (I-40, US95, Hidden Us-66 & Hidden AZ95)
Arkansas will have US 49 and I-49, but should be far enough apart to avoid any confusion. There used to be an AR 59 near Eudora in the 1930's, but US 59 changed that to AR 159, then part of US 59 became AR 59. That is the only duplication I can think of at the moment.
Missouri used to not duplicate (MO 57 became MO 171), but now has at least 2 (I-72/ Mo 72, I-64/Mo 64)
Michigan duplicates all of the 2dI numbers, and most of the 2dUS numbers. Of course, when US 45 and US 8 are in the Upper Peninsula and M-45 and M-8 are in the SW and SE Lower Peninsula, respectively, it makes things easier. Of course in Michigan, you can tell the tourists because they forget the "M" in the highway numbers.
Quote from: US71 on May 12, 2010, 06:27:23 AM
Arkansas will have US 49 and I-49, but should be far enough apart to avoid any confusion. There used to be an AR 59 near Eudora in the 1930's, but US 59 changed that to AR 159, then part of US 59 became AR 59. That is the only duplication I can think of at the moment.
Missouri used to not duplicate (MO 57 became MO 171), but now has at least 2 (I-72/ Mo 72, I-64/Mo 64)
Arkansas does appear to want to avoid most US/state route duplications though because they renumbered AR 371 when US 371 was created. This seemed unnecessary since AR 371 was a fairly short minor route running from AR 267 to AR 367 at McRae, far enough away from US 371 to avoid confusion. And when they changed it, they made it AR 13, thus creating a 3rd discontinuous portion of that highway-which seems more confusing to me than leaving it AR 371. I guess they figured AR 59 and US 59 weren't really a problem since they are far enough apart, and US 59 is multiplexed with either US 270 or US 71 through the state(the state highway map doesn't even show US 59 in Arkansas).
In general, I don't have a problem with duplicating route numbers in the same state, as long as they are far enough apart to avoid confusion. This is especially true of Interstate and US/state routes since most people understand the significance of an interstate highway and are unlikely to confuse one with a more minor US or state route.
Indiana has a duplicate of SR 11. It meanders through extreme So. Indiana at Maukport from the Ohio River up to New Albany and then gaps, shows back upstate in Central Southern Indiana around Seymore, IN on the other side of I-65.
God forbid drivers have to learn the difference between an interstate sign and a state route sign.... :pan:
Quote from: papaT10932 on July 16, 2010, 06:08:24 PM
God forbid drivers have to learn the difference between an interstate sign and a state route sign.... :pan:
not drivers. the Massachusetts highway department.
actually it's not as bad for interstate vs the other two route types, but state and US routes are always mixed up. Some states are especially bad at it, like Georgia. I swear, one resigning they'll completely screw things up and they'll have state route 27 intersecting state route 27.
My home state of Pennsylvania, as most of us know, doesn't duplicate numbers among types. However there are two "two part route" that I can think of off the top of my head.
The first is well known, the two segments of US 422. The eastern half starts at Hershey and end at US 202 near King of Prussia.
The western half starts at Ebensburg and heads west into Ohio.
The lesser known one is PA 29.
The southern segment goes from I-78 near Allentown at the north end to Malvern, PA on the south end.
The northern segment starts at I-81 near Ashley and Sugar Notch and passes near Nanticoke, Harvey's Lake, Tunkhannock and runs up to the New York state line.
mightyace, we also have two PA-97's. And then we have 3 parts of PA-43, but PA-43 is going to be joined together.
We also have PA-99 and I-99. Also I-380/PA-380 & I-86/PA-86.
^^^
That's why I said "off the top of my head." I knew there might be others.
And, before I-86 was created, you had two PA 17s as well.
Quote from: mightyace on July 16, 2010, 06:57:48 PMThe lesser known one is PA 29.
That used to be one continuous route until 1966.
The problem is the costs involved when a route number is changed to remove a duplication.
As an example, Indiana 64 existed for decades. Then the federal government built Interstate 64 parallel to it, and only about 10 miles away along its entire length.
Government should not have the right to impose costs on individuals by changing the name of the road. Anytime a road name or number is changed, people are required to spend money on the following:
- New business stationery
- Change if address procedures
- Notifying clients, relatives, and friends of the change of address
- Having to pay fees to change driver's licenses, business permits, plats, tax records, and other official government documents.
I don't care what the motive (and especially the desire to honor some stupid politician), it should be illegal to rename a road. It costs others too much money.
Quote from: Troubleshooter on July 30, 2010, 01:39:29 AM
I don't care what the motive (and especially the desire to honor some stupid politician), it should be illegal to rename a road. It costs others too much money.
There are plenty of legitimate reasons though to renumber roads - not simply to cut down on duplications, but to create more logical routings, etc.
Plus road renamings have occurred for decades, not simply something that started in recent years - i.e. when M Street in the downtown/midtown Sacramento grid was renamed "Capitol Avenue" ca. 1942-1943 (some time after 31st Street had become "Alhambra Boulevard.") All street names are ultimately arbitrary to the jurisdiction that contains them - and each jurisidction has the right to determine what those monikers will be, regardless of how many years that respective name has been used for that road.
For Troubleshooter's "issue", this is where having a streetname for address purposes (i.e. E-911) works. That way, if the route number changes, the street name will remain the same and the costs he/she complains about simply won't be there.
BTW, "change of address procedures", unless you do it online (in which case USPS charges you one dollar), has *ZERO* cost aside from spending a few minutes at the Post Office filling out the form. Trust me, I've had to do it several times thanks to the Navy.
Also, all of those costs also apply when businesses move locations...it's just the cost of doing business.
QuoteThere are plenty of legitimate reasons though to renumber roads - not simply to cut down on duplications, but to create more logical routings, etc.
Concur.
QuoteGovernment should not have the right to impose costs on individuals by changing the name of the road. Anytime a road name or number is changed, people are required to spend money on the following:
- New business stationery
- Change if address procedures
- Notifying clients, relatives, and friends of the change of address
- Having to pay fees to change driver's licenses, business permits, plats, tax records, and other official government documents.
I don't care what the motive (and especially the desire to honor some stupid politician), it should be illegal to rename a road. It costs others too much money.
That is absolutely not the case.
We're in the process of renaming several streets at the city I work for. On the 911 side, what happens is we won't re-use the old addresses for several years and the 911 dispatchers know that either the old address or the new address go to the same house.
On the USPS side, nobody has to fill out a change of address form. The Postal Service will continue recognizing either the old address or the new address for something like five years.
Pretty much all government agencies are required to recognize both the old and new addresses for several years into the future. The paperwork change of address within government agencies are done automatically- if I have a business on James St and it is renamed Madison St, the government will change the documents. If I get pulled over and my address is the old address, that will still be a valid address.
It would be far to complicated to instantly void an address every time one is changed, so they allow both addresses to be official ones for whatever location for several years into the future.
Also, since both addresses are recognized for several years, it is likely one would run out of business stationery before the old address becomes void.
But the burden to notify pretty much every government and utility agency falls squarely on our hands, not the people whose addresses are being changed. This includes the county, state, feds (where applicable), DMV, power company, sewer company, water company, telephone company, and whatever other agencies are involved with addresses that I'm forgetting
As far as plat documents, it's not like they go re-survey everytime a road changes names- only if the road geometry is also changing. Completely legal and official to have the city/county clerk take a red sharpie to the plat, cross out the old name, and write in the new name (and maybe initial by it)
At some point people have to be notified about new addresses, but since the old address is still good for several years (and we make this very clear), it is likely the people involved would talk to those folks anyway in that time frame.
The motive is often valid. Our renamings right now are to eliminate duplication- on one side of town we have a Merrywood Ct and on the other a Merrywood Place. A couple years ago, somebody fell and got quite injured and had to call an ambulance. The ambulance went to the wrong Merrywood, on the other side of town. As a result, we're dumping a bunch of duplicate road names. Another of our renamings were brought to us by a group of homeowners who wanted their street name changed because the old one was too hard to spell (in this instance, the residents have to pay for sign changes, but since both addresses are still valid that is the only cost to them).
This is applicable to road numbering because if I'm on highway 3 and they change it to 226, it's highly unlikely they'll put a highway 3 in the same zip code, otherwise why renumber?
I suppose renaming roads after politicians can seem wasteful, but renumbering a road to better fit a grid or renaming a road to keep the ambulance pointed in the right direction serves a greater good that is tangible for all involved.
I just bought a roll of address labels. It cost me $7. Then I kicked my roommate out and spent $7 to get another roll of address labels made up without her name.
It's not really a big deal.
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 01, 2010, 11:05:24 PM
I just bought a roll of address labels. It cost me $7. Then I kicked my roommate out and spent $7 to get another roll of address labels made up without her name.
It's not really a big deal.
Vista Print is cheaper ;)
There are definitely legitimate reasons to change the name (or number) of a road.
That said, doing it for the sake of renaming it after someone or just 'cause, I don't like.
One thing I would stipulate in addition is that once a street is renamed or removed, the old name should not be considered available for future use. My own town (Stamford, CT) had a Baker Place that was removed at some point in the 60's or 70's for the construction of an apartment building. In the 90's, completely unrelated and in a different part of town, a developer put in a new street and named it... Baker Place. That shouldn't have been permitted to happen.
Whenever I-22 is officially in business, it will duplicate Mississippi 22. I can't think of any other highways in the state that share the same number.
I would not be against duplication as long as they're in different portions of the state, like I-22 (through north Mississippi) and MS 22 (through the central part of the state) will be.
QuoteWhenever I-22 is officially in business, it will duplicate Mississippi 22. I can't think of any other highways in the state that share the same number.
69.
Is that a highway or a dirty thought? :P [/off topic] :-D :happy:
Quote from: Master son on August 03, 2010, 08:27:24 AM
Is that a highway or a dirty thought? :P [/off topic] :-D :happy:
Just say "no"
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.static.flickr.com%2F4138%2F4790644706_3b286e7b5e_m_d.jpg&hash=9437897747e79d799a67f76e0e19846fe8acc2d6) :cool:
Quote from: golden eagle on August 02, 2010, 10:15:11 PM
Whenever I-22 is officially in business, it will duplicate Mississippi 22. I can't think of any other highways in the state that share the same number.
Missouri never duplicated in the past (MO 57 became MO 171 after I-57 was built), but now has I-64 and MO 64, plus I-72 and MO 72.
Arkansas will eventually have I-49 and US 49 , but halfway across the state from each other ;)