Any roads out there where a number wasn't really needed or necessary?
One I could add to this would be TX Spur 97. It's the part of International Pkwy. at DFW Airport but (I think) outside the toll plazas. There's no real reason for the numbering, and it's not shown on BGSes, just on brief short posts in between TX 183 and Airfield Dr. Totally unnecessary IMO.
Could you narrow the topic a bit, such as by focusing on Texas and moving it to the Mid-South board? There are probably hundreds or thousands of them just in the U.S. (never mind other countries), and a more focused topic would help keep the discussion manageable.
Also, for the jurisdictions that feel compelled to slap a number on every road they maintain, the less important routes have numbers but no route signage. You might limit the topic to roads that are unnecessarily numbered and signed.
The "Spur" routes in Georgia always seemed pretty silly when they could just have X0X of the mainline number. Signing state routes along US Routes is pretty weird as well, Florida does it to in some places but for most part the state route is hidden.
Could some states with massive state route systems be included here? I'm thinking KY and MO.
Quote from: oscar on July 03, 2017, 12:43:06 AM
Could you narrow the topic a bit, such as by focusing on Texas and moving it to the Mid-South board? There are probably hundreds or thousands of them just in the U.S. (never mind other countries), and a more focused topic would help keep the discussion manageable.
Also, for the jurisdictions that feel compelled to slap a number on every road they maintain, the less important routes have numbers but no route signage. You might limit the topic to roads that are unnecessarily numbered and signed.
Well, so much for thinking I had a good topic idea....
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 03, 2017, 12:46:55 AM
The "Spur" routes in Georgia always seemed pretty silly when they could just have X0X of the mainline number.
No thanks. Most new state route markers posted today are ugly enough already without trying to cram a number like 2470247 into them. :spin:
Hmmm. There are a couple of interstates in New York that are completely multiplexed with a state route and probably confuse more people than they help by being signed. I-587 is a section of NY 28, and I-790 is a section of NY 5.
Quote from: txstateends on July 03, 2017, 06:51:58 AM
Quote from: oscar on July 03, 2017, 12:43:06 AM
Could you narrow the topic a bit, such as by focusing on Texas and moving it to the Mid-South board? There are probably hundreds or thousands of them just in the U.S. (never mind other countries), and a more focused topic would help keep the discussion manageable.
Also, for the jurisdictions that feel compelled to slap a number on every road they maintain, the less important routes have numbers but no route signage. You might limit the topic to roads that are unnecessarily numbered and signed.
Well, so much for thinking I had a good topic idea....
I think it's a good topic. Just my $.02
iPad
Quote from: Eth on July 03, 2017, 07:12:53 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 03, 2017, 12:46:55 AM
The "Spur" routes in Georgia always seemed pretty silly when they could just have X0X of the mainline number.
No thanks. Most new state route markers posted today are ugly enough already without trying to cram a number like 2470247 into them. :spin:
Really the whole state could use a Florida style renumbering to simplify things. I-575 and the whole GA 515 was confusing as all hell to figure out what was going on.
I-180 in WY is not necessary. :)
I think most of NJ's county routes are unnecessarily numbered, even the 500 series. Exceptions are where the routes have no other name, such as CR 510. Very few of those numbers get used in real life. A few of NJ's state routes could go too, NJ 154 comes to mind. It's just Brace Road.
Now, routes that should be unnumbered for other reasons than disuse of namme include NJ 32, which is just too short. NJ 133 is borderline as it *is* a full freeway with no obvious alternative designation to choose.
VA, at least near Fredericksburg, has even dead-one roads marked w/CR numbers (600-700 series).
CR 694 (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Fredericksburg,+VA+22401/@38.2923228,-77.5280897,15.25z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x89b6c1ebbaeae025:0x7fa6450a21a691a1!8m2!3d38.3031837!4d-77.4605399)
One has to ask, why?
I think it is a good topic.
Many states, including mine, use route numbers and miles as the accounting formula. In the old days, the cronies would pave pols driveways or sell the materials on the black market. The solution was that every supply and every man hour has to be charged of to a certain MP of a certain route, and an auditor can easily go see if the pavement, guardrail, ditch, cut brush, whatever is actually there. Of course, this can be acomplished by so-called "secret" numbers just as well.
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 03, 2017, 11:03:23 AM
VA, at least near Fredericksburg, has even dead-one roads marked w/CR numbers (600-700 series).
CR 694 (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Fredericksburg,+VA+22401/@38.2923228,-77.5280897,15.25z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x89b6c1ebbaeae025:0x7fa6450a21a691a1!8m2!3d38.3031837!4d-77.4605399)
One has to ask, why?
Virginia marks nearly all SR routes from its primary highways with advance warning circle shields and has for 50+ years. Some districts only mark the intersections themselves with the smaller rectangles. Prior to the 1950s I believe only tiny rectangles at the intersections were used.
SR intersections with other SR intersections almost always use just the rectangles (guessing 98% of the time).
North Carolina and South Carolina also nearly universally post all secondary routes, even the unpaved, dead-end ones, though not with specific shields or with advance markers. An obscure fact about NC is that when they started marking their secondary roads about 1959, they posted ALL routes like they do with the 10xx numbers today - a larger rectangle sign with the number and an arrow. By the mid-1970s they went to the tiny numerals on posts as is everywhere now.
West Virginia also posts all their maintained roads regardless of how primitive they are, including advance signs.
This one may be controversial, but I'd say I-580 in Nevada. I am 100% in favor of the new sections of freeway they have built between Reno and Carson City (and currently in progress around Carson City), however the I-580 number is unnecessary. US-395 was (and still is) perfectly adequate. It's a major highway from California to the USA/Canada Border, it doesn't need another number. You could completely remove the I-580 number and nothing would change.
Quote from: doorknob60 on July 03, 2017, 03:21:42 PM
This one may be controversial, but I'd say I-580 in Nevada. I am 100% in favor of the new sections of freeway they have built between Reno and Carson City (and currently in progress around Carson City), however the I-580 number is unnecessary. US-395 was (and still is) perfectly adequate. It's a major highway from California to the USA/Canada Border, it doesn't need another number. You could completely remove the I-580 number and nothing would change.
I would have made the freeway I-580 alone and left US 395 where it was. Problem solved.
Quote from: vdeane on July 03, 2017, 09:22:32 PM
Quote from: doorknob60 on July 03, 2017, 03:21:42 PM
This one may be controversial, but I'd say I-580 in Nevada. I am 100% in favor of the new sections of freeway they have built between Reno and Carson City (and currently in progress around Carson City), however the I-580 number is unnecessary. US-395 was (and still is) perfectly adequate. It's a major highway from California to the USA/Canada Border, it doesn't need another number. You could completely remove the I-580 number and nothing would change.
I would have made the freeway I-580 alone and left US 395 where it was. Problem solved.
US-395 was already routed on all the existing freeway segments before I-580 was created. No point in downgrading it.
Removing the unnecessary overlap would be the point in downgrading it, though I wonder why they didn't just make it I-580 to begin with (or a state route, which wouldn't have these problems). Of course, being from NY, I'm probably biased - around here the US route system is mainly for continuity with other states.
Quote from: roadman65 on July 03, 2017, 10:38:58 AM
I-180 in WY is not necessary. :)
Well, it would make a good
state route, just not an Interstate. If it were WY 180 it would be fine.
VA 73 is designated on about a mile's worth of the very lengthy Parham Rd in Henrico County, VA
Quote from: doorknob60 on July 03, 2017, 09:24:11 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 03, 2017, 09:22:32 PM
Quote from: doorknob60 on July 03, 2017, 03:21:42 PM
This one may be controversial, but I'd say I-580 in Nevada. I am 100% in favor of the new sections of freeway they have built between Reno and Carson City (and currently in progress around Carson City), however the I-580 number is unnecessary. US-395 was (and still is) perfectly adequate. It's a major highway from California to the USA/Canada Border, it doesn't need another number. You could completely remove the I-580 number and nothing would change.
I would have made the freeway I-580 alone and left US 395 where it was. Problem solved.
US-395 was already routed on all the existing freeway segments before I-580 was created. No point in downgrading it.
If anything the I-580 ought to be silent and just have US 395/US 50 signed. I've never understood what makes a 3d designation so much better than a US of State Route?
VA-306 and VA-312, routes which pretty much only exist to fulfill Newport News's weird need for all of the roads that connect US-17 and US-60 on the Peninsula to have primary numbers. It feels like VA-306 should be extended along Harpersville Rd / Hampton Rds Center Pkwy to the Langley AFB area, and VA-312 seems like it should be a facility route for CNU. (Facility routes with a "normal" portion do exist, see VA-321 in Williamsburg)
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 04, 2017, 07:55:23 PM
Quote from: doorknob60 on July 03, 2017, 09:24:11 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 03, 2017, 09:22:32 PM
Quote from: doorknob60 on July 03, 2017, 03:21:42 PM
This one may be controversial, but I'd say I-580 in Nevada. I am 100% in favor of the new sections of freeway they have built between Reno and Carson City (and currently in progress around Carson City), however the I-580 number is unnecessary. US-395 was (and still is) perfectly adequate. It's a major highway from California to the USA/Canada Border, it doesn't need another number. You could completely remove the I-580 number and nothing would change.
I would have made the freeway I-580 alone and left US 395 where it was. Problem solved.
US-395 was already routed on all the existing freeway segments before I-580 was created. No point in downgrading it.
If anything the I-580 ought to be silent and just have US 395/US 50 signed. I've never understood what makes a 3d designation so much better than a US of State Route?
My guess is that it's probably for recognition purposes. Many people perceive Interstates as a higher tier of route (which they are, as a whole), so maybe the fact that it's an interstate tells people that it's built to higher standards.
CT 97 north of US 44, all it does is curve back to US 44, and don't tell me it's because of CT 244, that can just go to US 44 directly.
Quote from: JJBers on July 04, 2017, 11:37:57 PM
CT 97 north of US 44, all it does is curve back to US 44, and don't tell me it's because of CT 244, that can just go to US 44 directly.
That's a consequence of the long shadow of history and the state's reluctance to change things.
The "stairstep" part of CT 97 north of US 44 was originally not part of 97; it was called CT 201. In 1934, CT 97 absorbed CT 201, leading to the alignment you have today.
CT 244 was a local road until 1963, and an unsignposted "secret route" until 1988.
Quote from: kurumi on July 05, 2017, 02:13:43 AM
Quote from: JJBers on July 04, 2017, 11:37:57 PM
CT 97 north of US 44, all it does is curve back to US 44, and don't tell me it's because of CT 244, that can just go to US 44 directly.
That's a consequence of the long shadow of history and the state's reluctance to change things.
The "stairstep" part of CT 97 north of US 44 was originally not part of 97; it was called CT 201. In 1934, CT 97 absorbed CT 201, leading to the alignment you have today.
CT 244 was a local road until 1963, and an unsignposted "secret route" until 1988.
I guess that's why Connecticut is the state of steady...pointless habits.
A lot of counties in Alabama seems to arbitrarily sign every road they maintain with a county route number. IMHO, County Routes should be used to designate the most important roads that aren't state maintained within the county.
US 19W. Here is the only portion (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/36.0870804,-82.4911189/35.9132417,-82.397377/@35.997006,-82.4607626,12z/data=!4m9!4m8!1m5!3m4!1m2!1d-82.3722551!2d35.9963371!3s0x885a0d6a1be00d73:0x31d6514305d8ed46!1m0!3e0) not multiplexed with any other route number.
Quote from: CYoder on July 05, 2017, 05:12:21 PM
US 19W. Here is the only portion (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/36.0870804,-82.4911189/35.9132417,-82.397377/@35.997006,-82.4607626,12z/data=!4m9!4m8!1m5!3m4!1m2!1d-82.3722551!2d35.9963371!3s0x885a0d6a1be00d73:0x31d6514305d8ed46!1m0!3e0) not multiplexed with any other route number.
I'm surprised that's still around, since it's a suffixed US route. It probably served a purpose before I-26 was built.
Quote from: roadguy2 on July 05, 2017, 06:50:44 PM
Quote from: CYoder on July 05, 2017, 05:12:21 PM
US 19W. Here is the only portion (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/36.0870804,-82.4911189/35.9132417,-82.397377/@35.997006,-82.4607626,12z/data=!4m9!4m8!1m5!3m4!1m2!1d-82.3722551!2d35.9963371!3s0x885a0d6a1be00d73:0x31d6514305d8ed46!1m0!3e0) not multiplexed with any other route number.
I'm surprised that's still around, since it's a suffixed US route. It probably served a purpose before I-26 was built.
US 19W was rendered obsolete when US 23 was moved from it to its pre-I-26 routing through Sams Gap about 1952.
US 19W is a difficult, winding, slow drive and should be downgraded to NC 36 and TN 36.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 04, 2017, 07:55:23 PM
If anything the I-580 ought to be silent and just have US 395/US 50 signed. I've never understood what makes a 3d designation so much better than a US of State Route?
At least members of the general public, unaware of the silent designation, won't include Nevada on the short list of states whose capitals aren't on the Interstate system.
But in the same spirit, Interstate H-201 was for a long time unsigned, and HDOT didn't really need to put up Interstate signs that perplexed the locals who long knew it as HI 78 or by its name the Moanalua Freeway.
Quote from: freebrickproductions on July 05, 2017, 02:51:51 AM
A lot of counties in Alabama seems to arbitrarily sign every road they maintain with a county route number. IMHO, County Routes should be used to designate the most important roads that aren't state maintained within the county.
There are several counties in north Alabama where it seems like they went hog-wild in designating county roads.
The most needless state route here in Alabama might be SR-151. It was the designation given to the connector road between AL-75 and AL-79 in Pinson. I don't think it's more than 3/4 mile long.
Second on my list of needlessly numbered roads: the (mainly) secret state routes assigned to U.S. routes. Given that Alabama doesn't duplicate U.S. and state route numbers, why don't they just make U.S. 31's partner AL-31, U.S. 78, AL-78, etc. Nah, that would make too much sense. That also would free up low route numbers to avoid the Interstate-state route duplications (10, 20, 22, 59, 65, 85 and 165).
Quote from: Charles2 on July 05, 2017, 08:54:22 PM
Second on my list of needlessly numbered roads: the (mainly) secret state routes assigned to U.S. routes. Given that Alabama doesn't duplicate U.S. and state route numbers, why don't they just make U.S. 31's partner AL-31, U.S. 78, AL-78, etc. Nah, that would make too much sense. That also would free up low route numbers to avoid the Interstate-state route duplications (10, 20, 22, 59, 65, 85 and 165).
Utah made the change you describe in 1977, but they haven't used the lowest (1-5) numbers.
US 19W is not a through route to anywhere. It should either stay on the US 23/I-26 routing or be decommissioned.
I remember when Coffee County, Alabama got E911 service.
To make that happen, everyone needed a conventional street address.
Since most of the roads in the county lacked formal names, the county numbered them all, and slapped blue pentagons everywhere.
It makes sense in a way, but it feels excessive.
Quote from: Mapmikey on July 05, 2017, 08:35:58 PM
Quote from: roadguy2 on July 05, 2017, 06:50:44 PM
Quote from: CYoder on July 05, 2017, 05:12:21 PM
US 19W. Here is the only portion (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/36.0870804,-82.4911189/35.9132417,-82.397377/@35.997006,-82.4607626,12z/data=!4m9!4m8!1m5!3m4!1m2!1d-82.3722551!2d35.9963371!3s0x885a0d6a1be00d73:0x31d6514305d8ed46!1m0!3e0) not multiplexed with any other route number.
I'm surprised that's still around, since it's a suffixed US route. It probably served a purpose before I-26 was built.
US 19W was rendered obsolete when US 23 was moved from it to its pre-I-26 routing through Sams Gap about 1952.
US 19W is a difficult, winding, slow drive and should be downgraded to NC 36 and TN 36.
Quote from: vdeane on July 03, 2017, 09:22:32 PM
Quote from: doorknob60 on July 03, 2017, 03:21:42 PM
This one may be controversial, but I'd say I-580 in Nevada. I am 100% in favor of the new sections of freeway they have built between Reno and Carson City (and currently in progress around Carson City), however the I-580 number is unnecessary. US-395 was (and still is) perfectly adequate. It's a major highway from California to the USA/Canada Border, it doesn't need another number. You could completely remove the I-580 number and nothing would change.
I would have made the freeway I-580 alone and left US 395 where it was. Problem solved.
I disagree. The US route should be following the best and fastest route, not a business route. I understand the old route is now signed US 395A? That's good.
In retrospect, I think it was a mistake to number the interstates with different numbers from their old US routes. Should have kept the numbers and just had freeway segments and nonfreeway segments.
Quote from: kkt on July 06, 2017, 04:12:02 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 03, 2017, 09:22:32 PM
Quote from: doorknob60 on July 03, 2017, 03:21:42 PM
This one may be controversial, but I'd say I-580 in Nevada. I am 100% in favor of the new sections of freeway they have built between Reno and Carson City (and currently in progress around Carson City), however the I-580 number is unnecessary. US-395 was (and still is) perfectly adequate. It's a major highway from California to the USA/Canada Border, it doesn't need another number. You could completely remove the I-580 number and nothing would change.
I would have made the freeway I-580 alone and left US 395 where it was. Problem solved.
I disagree. The US route should be following the best and fastest route, not a business route. I understand the old route is now signed US 395A? That's good.
In retrospect, I think it was a mistake to number the interstates with different numbers from their old US routes. Should have kept the numbers and just had freeway segments and nonfreeway segments.
I've never understood the point of having a secondary route that overlaps with the primary route while a tertiary route covers the secondary corridor. But then I never did see the point in having US routes once the interstate
system came to be.
Quote from: vdeane on July 06, 2017, 09:54:27 PM
Quote from: kkt on July 06, 2017, 04:12:02 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 03, 2017, 09:22:32 PM
Quote from: doorknob60 on July 03, 2017, 03:21:42 PM
This one may be controversial, but I'd say I-580 in Nevada. I am 100% in favor of the new sections of freeway they have built between Reno and Carson City (and currently in progress around Carson City), however the I-580 number is unnecessary. US-395 was (and still is) perfectly adequate. It's a major highway from California to the USA/Canada Border, it doesn't need another number. You could completely remove the I-580 number and nothing would change.
I would have made the freeway I-580 alone and left US 395 where it was. Problem solved.
I disagree. The US route should be following the best and fastest route, not a business route. I understand the old route is now signed US 395A? That's good.
In retrospect, I think it was a mistake to number the interstates with different numbers from their old US routes. Should have kept the numbers and just had freeway segments and nonfreeway segments.
I've never understood the point of having a secondary route that overlaps with the primary route while a tertiary route covers the secondary corridor. But then I never did see the point in having US routes once the interstate system came to be.
Multiplexes aside, there is still a lot of "Interstate" corridors covered primarily by the US Route system instead of the Interstate System itself...US 50 in Nevada and California come to mind. With I-580, is it really worth adding signage to an already existing through route just to sign with Interstate shields? Would it not be easier to take any state maintained highway (which I believe US 395A still is) and have US 395 signed on that instead? That would be a decent solution to breaking the two routes apart...I'm fairly certain a lot old alignment of US 395/50 has already been relinquished in Carson City though.
Quote from: JJBers on July 05, 2017, 02:16:40 AM
Quote from: kurumi on July 05, 2017, 02:13:43 AM
Quote from: JJBers on July 04, 2017, 11:37:57 PM
CT 97 north of US 44, all it does is curve back to US 44, and don't tell me it's because of CT 244, that can just go to US 44 directly.
That's a consequence of the long shadow of history and the state's reluctance to change things.
The "stairstep" part of CT 97 north of US 44 was originally not part of 97; it was called CT 201. In 1934, CT 97 absorbed CT 201, leading to the alignment you have today.
CT 244 was a local road until 1963, and an unsignposted "secret route" until 1988.
I guess that's why Connecticut is the state of steady...pointless habits.
Add CT 361 to that list. Vey rural 3 1/2 mile road that was a former piece of CT 4 but was renumbered to match NY 361. NYSDOT subsequently handed over maintenance of its road to Dutchess County, and it is now CR 62. Another unnecessary number is CT 272 north of US 44. MA doesn't number the road north of the border.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 06, 2017, 10:12:42 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 06, 2017, 09:54:27 PM
Quote from: kkt on July 06, 2017, 04:12:02 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 03, 2017, 09:22:32 PM
Quote from: doorknob60 on July 03, 2017, 03:21:42 PM
This one may be controversial, but I'd say I-580 in Nevada. I am 100% in favor of the new sections of freeway they have built between Reno and Carson City (and currently in progress around Carson City), however the I-580 number is unnecessary. US-395 was (and still is) perfectly adequate. It's a major highway from California to the USA/Canada Border, it doesn't need another number. You could completely remove the I-580 number and nothing would change.
I would have made the freeway I-580 alone and left US 395 where it was. Problem solved.
I disagree. The US route should be following the best and fastest route, not a business route. I understand the old route is now signed US 395A? That's good.
In retrospect, I think it was a mistake to number the interstates with different numbers from their old US routes. Should have kept the numbers and just had freeway segments and nonfreeway segments.
I've never understood the point of having a secondary route that overlaps with the primary route while a tertiary route covers the secondary corridor. But then I never did see the point in having US routes once the interstate system came to be.
Multiplexes aside, there is still a lot of "Interstate" corridors covered primarily by the US Route system instead of the Interstate System itself...US 50 in Nevada and California come to mind. With I-580, is it really worth adding signage to an already existing through route just to sign with Interstate shields? Would it not be easier to take any state maintained highway (which I believe US 395A still is) and have US 395 signed on that instead? That would be a decent solution to breaking the two routes apart...I'm fairly certain a lot old alignment of US 395/50 has already been relinquished in Carson City though.
If the old alignments are still state maintained, I prefer to have the US route signed on the old alignments.
Any designation that is either just a ramp, unsigned or concurrent with another route for its entire length is unnecessary for me.
Iowa 27 and Iowa 163 east of Oskaloosa
I think with all of its concurrencies and the fact that Camden County maintains the majority of it, NJ 41 seems pretty unnecessary.
Oh, let me count the places where US 202 is unnecessarily numbered:
1. On DE 141 and on I-95 in DE
2. Pretty much anywhere in NJ from Somerville Circle north (US 206 and many CR concurrencies)
3. Haverstraw, NY to New Milford, CT (many concurrencies, and standalone pieces can be replaced with extensions of state routes)
4. Canton, CT to Westfield, MA
5. Pretty much anywhere from Hillsborough, NH north.
Not sure if this would count, but there are a lot of concurrencies I've seen around Maine that exist for the sole purpose of both routes ending at a larger/more important highway. ME 125/136 north of US 1 in Freeport, ME 127/197 south of ME 27 in Dresden, ME 6/15 east of Jackman to name a few.
ME 6 is actually another crazy one; only about 61 of its 207-mile-long length (the eastmost segment, Lincoln to Vanceboro/Canadian border) isn't concurrent with another numbered route. The state wanted a continuous numbered road connecting Quebec and New Brunswick, and thus ME 6 was born. While it only spends a smaller percentage by itself, it at least makes more sense than some of the other very long "concurrency" routes around the state. ME 9, I'm looking at you...
Quote from: Ian on July 07, 2017, 04:52:31 PM
While it only spends a smaller percentage by itself, it at least makes more sense than some of the other very long "concurrency" routes around the state. ME 9, I'm looking at you...
100 is worse. In fact, 100 and 202 can both be removed without (almost) anything happening.
There is a stretch of Interstate-480 near Cleveland, Ohio, that is stylisized as I-480N, although even Google Maps has it listed on their map as a stretch of I-480.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/I-480,+Warrensville+Heights,+OH/@41.4284042,-81.5107679,17.5z/data=!4m13!1m7!3m6!1s0x8830e29ff2f65c83:0xe312e6340e57ac20!2sI-480,+Warrensville+Heights,+OH!3b1!8m2!3d41.4290585!4d-81.5083751!3m4!1s0x8830e29ff2f65c83:0xe312e6340e57ac20!8m2!3d41.4290585!4d-81.5083751 (if you zoom in, it is listed as I-480N).
VA 162, which is only about 900 feet long and ends at the Williamsburg city limits just off US 60. It was truncated and removed from the city years ago, leaving the stub that's barely in York County.
Too many to list but all the "I-81 to US 11 connectors" in central and western Virginia could easily be secondary.
VA 98 transitions to SR 605 just outside Bland...SR 605 is a dead-end road.
VA 73 in Henrico County doesn't need a number either (it began as a US 1 to I-95 connector). Either extend it along East Parham Road from US 250 to US 301 (and make North Parham Road an extension of VA 150), or drop it.
MN 308, which is just a glorified leg of a Y-intersection between MN 11 and MN 89 in Roseau County. Keep it on the state highway system but take the number away and just sign it as "TO MN 89" and "TO MN 11".
I'm surprised no one else has cited the uncrowned king of the unnecessary numbers: MSR 110, the infamous CKC Expressway. Not only does it not contain any portions not already otherwise signed, but it simply isn't the most efficient (or cost-effective!) corridor between the two named end points. It's simply a publicity stunt by a few folks from Western Illinois who are miffed due to the historic dismissal or avoidance of their neck of the woods. It's basically an attempt to do the impossible -- get commercial traffic (and the presumed $$ it will potentially generate) to schlep around a bunch of right angles from I-80 to I-72/US 36 rather than do the intuitive thing and head straight down from Chicago to Springfield and then turn right. They didn't even do the previously successful Illinois ploy and make the damn thing an Interstate from Quincy up to Galesburg (I-172 extension or even I-53!!!); they just posted a bunch of "110" signs along the expressway alongside the existing routes. At this point regarding this corridor, it's hard to tell where hubris leaves off and plain stupidity begins! :eyebrow:
Quote from: Mapmikey on July 03, 2017, 11:19:00 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 03, 2017, 11:03:23 AM
VA, at least near Fredericksburg, has even dead-one roads marked w/CR numbers (600-700 series).
CR 694 (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Fredericksburg,+VA+22401/@38.2923228,-77.5280897,15.25z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x89b6c1ebbaeae025:0x7fa6450a21a691a1!8m2!3d38.3031837!4d-77.4605399)
One has to ask, why?
Virginia marks nearly all SR routes from its primary highways with advance warning circle shields and has for 50+ years. Some districts only mark the intersections themselves with the smaller rectangles. Prior to the 1950s I believe only tiny rectangles at the intersections were used.
SR intersections with other SR intersections almost always use just the rectangles (guessing 98% of the time).
North Carolina and South Carolina also nearly universally post all secondary routes, even the unpaved, dead-end ones, though not with specific shields or with advance markers. An obscure fact about NC is that when they started marking their secondary roads about 1959, they posted ALL routes like they do with the 10xx numbers today - a larger rectangle sign with the number and an arrow. By the mid-1970s they went to the tiny numerals on posts as is everywhere now.
West Virginia also posts all their maintained roads regardless of how primitive they are, including advance signs.
I am with you on that one. Many roads in Virginia are just as minor as my residential street which is maintained by the city. If it had a number and a name everyone would just call it by it's name anyways. Most of the 4 digit roads in Virginia don't need numbers they are just fine with the name only. North Carolina is the same as Virginia and they don't number every road.
The hidden roads in fl and ga.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on August 02, 2017, 03:25:31 PM
The hidden roads in fl and ga.
The SR under the US higways are generally not signed in Florida
LGMS428
Quote from: jwolfer on August 02, 2017, 03:29:18 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on August 02, 2017, 03:25:31 PM
The hidden roads in fl and ga.
The SR under the US higways are generally not signed in Florida
LGMS428
Not signed, but they are numbered.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on August 02, 2017, 03:34:39 PM
Quote from: jwolfer on August 02, 2017, 03:29:18 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on August 02, 2017, 03:25:31 PM
The hidden roads in fl and ga.
The SR under the US higways are generally not signed in Florida
LGMS428
Not signed, but they are numbered.
In Florida they fit in the grid so i think they are ok.. And they are not signed.. Only people who know are roadgeeks, law enforcement and highway contractors...
Georgia and Alabama no grid so they can go
LGMS428
Quote from: jwolfer on August 02, 2017, 03:47:30 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on August 02, 2017, 03:34:39 PM
Quote from: jwolfer on August 02, 2017, 03:29:18 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on August 02, 2017, 03:25:31 PM
The hidden roads in fl and ga.
The SR under the US higways are generally not signed in Florida
LGMS428
Not signed, but they are numbered.
In Florida they fit in the grid so i think they are ok.. And they are not signed.. Only people who know are roadgeeks, law enforcement and highway contractors...
Georgia and Alabama no grid so they can go
LGMS428
And people randomly looking at wikipedia pages would also know.
Quote from: sparker on August 02, 2017, 01:37:01 AM
I'm surprised no one else has cited the uncrowned king of the unnecessary numbers: MSR 110, the infamous CKC Expressway. ...They didn't even do the previously successful Illinois ploy and make the damn thing an Interstate from Quincy up to Galesburg (I-172 extension or even I-53!!!); they just posted a bunch of "110" signs along the expressway alongside the existing routes. At this point regarding this corridor, it's hard to tell where hubris leaves off and plain stupidity begins! :eyebrow:
The IL 110 project did add some bypasses that were not there previously, and the Macomb bypass is still being built...so its not all existing routes...there were some upgrades involved
Now, if IL had any money for roads...Solve the no direct Chicago-Peoria route AND the Western IL no connectivity problem all at once, and built a diagonal Interstate from about I-80/I-39, or even use the short I-180 route, run it down to Peoria, and then SW of Peoria to meet up with I-172/I-72 near Quincy, IL/Hannibal, MO. Call it the IL River Expressway, and a REAL CKC
But even that fictional route, not sure it would be much of a route advantage over I-55 to I-72/US 36
Quote from: ilpt4u on August 02, 2017, 08:43:00 PM
Quote from: sparker on August 02, 2017, 01:37:01 AM
I'm surprised no one else has cited the uncrowned king of the unnecessary numbers: MSR 110, the infamous CKC Expressway. ...They didn't even do the previously successful Illinois ploy and make the damn thing an Interstate from Quincy up to Galesburg (I-172 extension or even I-53!!!); they just posted a bunch of "110" signs along the expressway alongside the existing routes. At this point regarding this corridor, it's hard to tell where hubris leaves off and plain stupidity begins! :eyebrow:
The IL 110 project did add some bypasses that were not there previously, and the Macomb bypass is still being built...so its not all existing routes...there were some upgrades involved
Now, if IL had any money for roads...Solve the no direct Chicago-Peoria route AND the Western IL no connectivity problem all at once, and built a diagonal Interstate from about I-80/I-39, or even use the short I-180 route, run it down to Peoria, and then SW of Peoria to meet up with I-172/I-72 near Quincy, IL/Hannibal, MO. Call it the IL River Expressway, and a REAL CKC
But even that fictional route, not sure it would be much of a route advantage over I-55 to I-72/US 36
IIRC, an IL 336 extension from Macomb east to Peoria is still on the books as a future expressway corridor; more or less a way to put Peoria into the CKC mix. Probably not a particularly viable project given IL's fiscal issues -- but at least the number wasn't pulled out of someone's ass!
WV-55 comes to mind. Other than a short 7 mile segment it is duplexed with another highway for it's entire length.
Certain three-digit state highways in Maryland, those being stub roads that don't really lead anywhere. Example, Maryland Route 591 in Cecil County is actually two disconnected dead-end streets off U.S. Route 1. I do understand that there are a few of these stubs that actually lead to facilities such as State Highway Administration buildings.
Quote from: dvferyance on August 02, 2017, 01:32:14 PM
I am with you on that one. Many roads in Virginia are just as minor as my residential street which is maintained by the city. If it had a number and a name everyone would just call it by it's name anyways. Most of the 4 digit roads in Virginia don't need numbers they are just fine with the name only. North Carolina is the same as Virginia and they don't number every road.
North Carolina numbers all the roads it maintains. Some counties are into the 5000s. They do not prominently post their SR routes the way Virginia does, though they used to when the system was first introduced about 1959. NC decided that tiny number squares on sign posts was good enough.
South Carolina also numbers all the roads it maintains, and for the most part posts them in the field.
Quote from: roadguy2 on July 04, 2017, 02:45:02 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 03, 2017, 10:38:58 AM
I-180 in WY is not necessary. :)
Well, it would make a good state route, just not an Interstate. If it were WY 180 it would be fine.
Exactly. It's a slap in the face to the entire Interstate system.
In my opinion, I-41. US 41 is just fine; no need to put a fancy red-white-and-blue shield on everything.
Also on the list is any county or state highway that is very lightly used and not paved.
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on July 07, 2017, 08:53:24 AM
Any designation that is either just a ramp, unsigned or concurrent with another route for its entire length is unnecessary for me.
Agreed.
Quote from: Ian on July 07, 2017, 04:52:31 PM
Not sure if this would count, but there are a lot of concurrencies I've seen around Maine that exist for the sole purpose of both routes ending at a larger/more important highway. ME 125/136 north of US 1 in Freeport, ME 127/197 south of ME 27 in Dresden, ME 6/15 east of Jackman to name a few.
ME 6 is actually another crazy one; only about 61 of its 207-mile-long length (the eastmost segment, Lincoln to Vanceboro/Canadian border) isn't concurrent with another numbered route. The state wanted a continuous numbered road connecting Quebec and New Brunswick, and thus ME 6 was born. While it only spends a smaller percentage by itself, it at least makes more sense than some of the other very long "concurrency" routes around the state. ME 9, I'm looking at you...
WI 47 and 182 constitute another example, and yeah, these entirely-concurrent routes are stupid.
AL 62 northeast of Guntersville. It is a short (four lane!) road connecting AL 227 to what was a Monsanto plant.
As others have said, eliminate the secret state routes. Then renumber some of the more major state routes with these freed-up numbers.
I would like to say Vermont Route 119 at first. It's no more than 1/3 mile long. I think it only exists so that the much-longer New Hampshire Route 119 can make its connection with US Route 5 in Brattleboro, VT.
The road with the traffic lights is US Route 5. The old green bridge in the background carries VT/NH Route 119 into Hinsdale, NH.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FriXQMxQ.jpg&hash=4b3c2a6d40713a0dd536a93b99e6ad18ccc28565)
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on August 08, 2017, 07:49:03 AM
I would like to say Vermont Route 119 at first. It's no more than 1/3 mile long. I think it only exists so that the much-longer New Hampshire Route 119 can make its connection with US Route 5 in Brattleboro, VT.
The road with the traffic lights is US Route 5. The old green bridge in the background carries VT/NH Route 119 into Hinsdale, NH.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FriXQMxQ.jpg&hash=4b3c2a6d40713a0dd536a93b99e6ad18ccc28565)
I would keep VT 119. It's better for a route to continue at a state border with the same number than just ending at the border for no other reason than the border being there.
Quote from: 1 on August 08, 2017, 07:51:47 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on August 08, 2017, 07:49:03 AM
I would like to say Vermont Route 119 at first. It's no more than 1/3 mile long. I think it only exists so that the much-longer New Hampshire Route 119 can make its connection with US Route 5 in Brattleboro, VT.
The road with the traffic lights is US Route 5. The old green bridge in the background carries VT/NH Route 119 into Hinsdale, NH.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FriXQMxQ.jpg&hash=4b3c2a6d40713a0dd536a93b99e6ad18ccc28565)
I would keep VT 119. It's better for a route to continue at a state border with the same number than just ending at the border for no other reason than the border being there.
Besides, New England has a long history of MSR's; this one is simply much shorter in one state than another. I wouldn't think that VT has a pressing need to use #119 elsewhere!
Every FM and RM road in Texas, if it warrants being a state highway, name it such. Having multi numbered systems is really dumb.
Quote from: sparker on August 08, 2017, 03:36:02 PM
Quote from: 1 on August 08, 2017, 07:51:47 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on August 08, 2017, 07:49:03 AM
I would like to say Vermont Route 119 at first. It's no more than 1/3 mile long. I think it only exists so that the much-longer New Hampshire Route 119 can make its connection with US Route 5 in Brattleboro, VT.
The road with the traffic lights is US Route 5. The old green bridge in the background carries VT/NH Route 119 into Hinsdale, NH.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FriXQMxQ.jpg&hash=4b3c2a6d40713a0dd536a93b99e6ad18ccc28565)
See also: VT 26
I would keep VT 119. It's better for a route to continue at a state border with the same number than just ending at the border for no other reason than the border being there.
Besides, New England has a long history of MSR's; this one is simply much shorter in one state than another. I wouldn't think that VT has a pressing need to use #119 elsewhere!
Quote from: Perfxion on August 08, 2017, 05:47:36 PM
Every FM and RM road in Texas, if it warrants being a state highway, name it such. Having multi numbered systems is really dumb.
Wouldn't that bring up the possibility of having four- and five-digit state highways in a state as big as Texas? The FMs and RMs and Loops and such are a good supplement to the system.
CA-123 San Pablo Ave its completely a street in the Bay Area.
Quote from: apeman33 on August 08, 2017, 07:29:47 PM
Quote from: Perfxion on August 08, 2017, 05:47:36 PM
Every FM and RM road in Texas, if it warrants being a state highway, name it such. Having multi numbered systems is really dumb.
Wouldn't that bring up the possibility of having four- and five-digit state highways in a state as big as Texas? The FMs and RMs and Loops and such are a good supplement to the system.
It also makes paulthemapguys game eisier.
When CA-37 was rerouted in 1964, I never quite understood why the east-west portion wasn't just an extension of the then CA-48, and what is today CA-121 remained CA-37. CA-48 would have worked perfectly: east-west in nature, and would have been a single number for what today has become a pretty congested (and dangerous) route. It would have streamlined things a bit, too. Instead of adding a completely new number to the system and completely removing another, it also would have kept CA-37 more or less in place instead of rerouting it and turning it into an east-west highway.
Quote from: bing101 on August 08, 2017, 08:57:53 PM
CA-123 San Pablo Ave its completely a street in the Bay Area.
It's the old pre-Eastshore route of US 40; neither Emeryville, Berkeley, or Albany is in any hurry to take over maintenance of this route, so it remains on the state highway system. The usual dynamic -- the city is itching to assume responsibility for a street so it can install traffic calming, islands, and generally convert it into a more pedestrian-friendly environment doesn't apply here; San Pablo Ave's far from the main Berkeley shopping area hard by the UC campus, and it tends to handle overflow from I-80 to the west.
Quote from: Quillz on August 09, 2017, 12:14:35 AM
When CA-37 was rerouted in 1964, I never quite understood why the east-west portion wasn't just an extension of the then CA-48, and what is today CA-121 remained CA-37. CA-48 would have worked perfectly: east-west in nature, and would have been a single number for what today has become a pretty congested (and dangerous) route. It would have streamlined things a bit, too. Instead of adding a completely new number to the system and completely removing another, it also would have kept CA-37 more or less in place instead of rerouting it and turning it into an east-west highway.
I often wondered the same thing -- a large part of the '64 renumbering seems to be the result of a primitive number generator -- or some Division of Highways planning committee, half in the bag after a multi-martini lunch, simply pulling numbers out of their collective asses! There was no need to delete 48 and bring in another number; 37 would have been just fine where 121 is today. IMO, they could have used the renumbering effort to tighten up their somewhat loose but still evident extant numbering scheme, but no -- they squandered an opportunity to (re)create a cohesive signed network! :eyebrow:
Quote from: Perfxion on August 08, 2017, 05:47:36 PM
Every FM and RM road in Texas, if it warrants being a state highway, name it such. Having multi numbered systems is really dumb.
There is no overlap between FM and RM numbers (although there are separate Farm-to-Market 1 and
Ranch Road 1 routes).
If anything, the Loops and Spurs are the semi-confusing duplicates, but they're typically some distance away from the similarly-numbered State Highways, unless it's rather obvious it's a former routing of the same number. Since there's very few SH's over number 365, I'm not sure why they didn't start the Highway Loops at 500 or Highway Spurs at 1000, but then many the FM/RMs would need renumbering.
It seems to me by my unofficial estimation, that the Spur system is less widely-described by their numbers compared to the RM/FM model, with Loops being a little more so, unless it's part of a city's larger bypass system.
i-180 in illinois and wyoming
I-305 Sacramento,CA its all under Caltrans control and its signed as the western terminus of US-50. I-305 or CA-305 should move to Southern California for the eastern half of CA-118 or the CA-134.
Quote from: bing101 on August 09, 2017, 11:26:31 AM
I-305 Sacramento,CA its all under Caltrans control and its signed as the western terminus of US-50. I-305 or CA-305 should move to Southern California for the eastern half of CA-118 or the CA-134.
I-305 is an odd beast; not even recognized by Caltrans in their logs, but still necessary as a Federal numerical reference in order to receive any residual maintenance funding as a portion of the original chargeable network. And, since much of its length is on high-maintenance bridges or viaducts, Caltrans is more than willing to let the present situation continue as long as some federal funds are at stake; so it's unlikely that I-305 will get moved as long as this remains the stasis. The sole chance, as I see it, that the I-305 designation will be freed up is if CA 99 does gain full Interstate status in the future and extends all the way to Sacramento rather than being truncated in Stockton. Whatever the number ends up being (I-7 or I-9) would simply turn west onto the I-305 alignment and subsume it all the way to I-80 in West Sacramento; it's already a federally recognized Interstate and would only require paperwork to obtain approval. The I-305 "stub" north on unsigned CA 51 (aka Biz 80) north to the UP underpass near C Street could then be, at least on the federal books, renumbered -- either with a new but still unsigned designation (I-307/309, anyone?), or even as a "spur" of the new trunk. But all that's purely speculative -- for the time being, I-305 -- at least to FHWA, will stay put. :-/
MA 127A.
MA 129A, as mentioned in another thread.
MA 203 should either be extended, turned back into MA 3 (or even US 3), or removed. In its current state, it's not that useful.
MA 240. It's just a connector from I-195 to US 6. Other similar connectors are either unnumbered or part of a longer route.
I considered MA 22 and MA 35, but they're useful enough.
Many of the NH xxA, xxB, etc. routes can go, like 11C, 16A, 25B, 110A, 110B, and more.
Wasn't I-595 a part of eastern US-50 in Maryland for some reason and its completely in the route of US-50 though.
Quote from: bing101 on August 09, 2017, 06:05:29 PM
Wasn't I-595 a part of eastern US-50 in Maryland for some reason and its completely in the route of US-50 though.
Fort Lauderdale is the one true owner of I-595, and Annapolis is just faking it. :)
Quote from: formulanone on August 09, 2017, 06:10:09 PM
Quote from: bing101 on August 09, 2017, 06:05:29 PM
Wasn't I-595 a part of eastern US-50 in Maryland for some reason and its completely in the route of US-50 though.
Fort Lauderdale is the one true owner of I-595, and Annapolis is just faking it. :)
Maybe they're just waiting for the hidden I-595 to morph back into the "return leg" of I-97 that was originally planned way back when!
Quote from: 1 on August 08, 2017, 07:51:47 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on August 08, 2017, 07:49:03 AM
I would like to say Vermont Route 119 at first. It's no more than 1/3 mile long. I think it only exists so that the much-longer New Hampshire Route 119 can make its connection with US Route 5 in Brattleboro, VT.
The road with the traffic lights is US Route 5. The old green bridge in the background carries VT/NH Route 119 into Hinsdale, NH.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FriXQMxQ.jpg&hash=4b3c2a6d40713a0dd536a93b99e6ad18ccc28565)
I would keep VT 119. It's better for a route to continue at a state border with the same number than just ending at the border for no other reason than the border being there.
Yes, somebody has to be responsible for the bridge.
Quote from: sparker on August 09, 2017, 03:44:00 PM
Quote from: bing101 on August 09, 2017, 11:26:31 AM
I-305 Sacramento,CA its all under Caltrans control and its signed as the western terminus of US-50. I-305 or CA-305 should move to Southern California for the eastern half of CA-118 or the CA-134.
I-305 is an odd beast; not even recognized by Caltrans in their logs, but still necessary as a Federal numerical reference in order to receive any residual maintenance funding as a portion of the original chargeable network. And, since much of its length is on high-maintenance bridges or viaducts, Caltrans is more than willing to let the present situation continue as long as some federal funds are at stake; so it's unlikely that I-305 will get moved as long as this remains the stasis. The sole chance, as I see it, that the I-305 designation will be freed up is if CA 99 does gain full Interstate status in the future and extends all the way to Sacramento rather than being truncated in Stockton. Whatever the number ends up being (I-7 or I-9) would simply turn west onto the I-305 alignment and subsume it all the way to I-80 in West Sacramento; it's already a federally recognized Interstate and would only require paperwork to obtain approval. The I-305 "stub" north on unsigned CA 51 (aka Biz 80) north to the UP underpass near C Street could then be, at least on the federal books, renumbered -- either with a new but still unsigned designation (I-307/309, anyone?), or even as a "spur" of the new trunk. But all that's purely speculative -- for the time being, I-305 -- at least to FHWA, will stay put. :-/
Here's my roadgeek pipe dream for CA-99:
If by some miracle CA-99 gets fully upgraded from the I-5 Wheeler Ridge Interchange to the current US-50/Biz 80/CA-51/I-305 interchange, and if Biz 80 from that interchange northward back to I-80 gets grandfathered back into the Interstate system as a northward extension of I-7/9*, then technically we would need to make the CA-51 section an
even number since it's Interstate-to-Interstate. This presents us with an opportunity to not only free up I-305 but to give us another I-x80-esque number:
Interstate 807. That gives us a numerically-correct loop designation connecting to its parent route that is treated like an x80. :spin:
*Though I use 807 as the number, I prefer that CA-99 be numbered I-9 to maintain that connection to US-99 numerically. Plus, I reserve I-7 for the US-97 corridor through to Spokane. 807 just sounds better to me, though.
Some of northern PA's signed roads could easily be PennDOT quadrant routes...PA 184 and PA 284 are the first two that come to mind. PA 284 didn't even have pavement lines.
Nexus 6P
Quote from: JasonOfORoads on September 07, 2017, 08:31:15 PM
Quote from: sparker on August 09, 2017, 03:44:00 PM
Quote from: bing101 on August 09, 2017, 11:26:31 AM
I-305 Sacramento,CA its all under Caltrans control and its signed as the western terminus of US-50. I-305 or CA-305 should move to Southern California for the eastern half of CA-118 or the CA-134.
I-305 is an odd beast; not even recognized by Caltrans in their logs, but still necessary as a Federal numerical reference in order to receive any residual maintenance funding as a portion of the original chargeable network. And, since much of its length is on high-maintenance bridges or viaducts, Caltrans is more than willing to let the present situation continue as long as some federal funds are at stake; so it's unlikely that I-305 will get moved as long as this remains the stasis. The sole chance, as I see it, that the I-305 designation will be freed up is if CA 99 does gain full Interstate status in the future and extends all the way to Sacramento rather than being truncated in Stockton. Whatever the number ends up being (I-7 or I-9) would simply turn west onto the I-305 alignment and subsume it all the way to I-80 in West Sacramento; it's already a federally recognized Interstate and would only require paperwork to obtain approval. The I-305 "stub" north on unsigned CA 51 (aka Biz 80) north to the UP underpass near C Street could then be, at least on the federal books, renumbered -- either with a new but still unsigned designation (I-307/309, anyone?), or even as a "spur" of the new trunk. But all that's purely speculative -- for the time being, I-305 -- at least to FHWA, will stay put. :-/
Here's my roadgeek pipe dream for CA-99:
If by some miracle CA-99 gets fully upgraded from the I-5 Wheeler Ridge Interchange to the current US-50/Biz 80/CA-51/I-305 interchange, and if Biz 80 from that interchange northward back to I-80 gets grandfathered back into the Interstate system as a northward extension of I-7/9*, then technically we would need to make the CA-51 section an even number since it's Interstate-to-Interstate. This presents us with an opportunity to not only free up I-305 but to give us another I-x80-esque number: Interstate 807. That gives us a numerically-correct loop designation connecting to its parent route that is treated like an x80. :spin:
*Though I use 807 as the number, I prefer that CA-99 be numbered I-9 to maintain that connection to US-99 numerically. Plus, I reserve I-7 for the US-97 corridor through to Spokane. 807 just sounds better to me, though.
If CA 99 and CA 51 from Wheeler Ridge to I-80 were fixed up enough to be interstates, I'd make them just one number, preferably I-9 as you suggest. There's no need to loop it west along US 50 that I can see.
California gave up on attaching meanings to the odd and even first digits of 3dis a long time ago.
US 15 north of Williamsport as being NYSDOT eliminated it north of Corning, its time for truncation and let Buddy's interstate take over. :sombrero:
US 220 north of Bedford could be dropped and a PA 220 would exist north of I-80.
most state roads in ohio's large cities.
Quote from: silverback1065 on September 12, 2017, 12:23:37 PM
most state roads in ohio's large cities.
I'd like to see the state routes stay in the cities, but I'd get rid of the useless multiplexes. There's no reason all of the state routes need to end at Public Square in downtown Cleveland, for example. Cut SR 3 back to Parma and so on.
MO 74. It could've been designated as a Supp-route or even a 3di route.
MA 15 (all 0.23 mi. of it). MA wastes a 2 digit state route that isn't even signed. No references to it on MA 152 at its eastern terminus, the only shield eastbound is a TO MA 152 sign, and the first reassurance shield westbound is an RI 15 shield. MA 15 used to be significant when it was co-signed with what is now I-84, and would be better assigned to the Old Route 15 along Mashapaug Rd in Sturbridge..
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on September 22, 2017, 02:40:14 PM
MA 15 (all 0.23 mi. of it). MA wastes a 2 digit state route that isn't even signed. No references to it on MA 152 at its eastern terminus, the only shield eastbound is a TO MA 152 sign, and the first reassurance shield westbound is an RI 15 shield. MA 15 used to be significant when it was co-signed with what is now I-84, and would be better assigned to the Old Route 15 along Mashapaug Rd in Sturbridge..
It's better to continue a route across a state line, especially if the number is unused, than for it to end at the state line for no reason.
Quote from: 1 on September 22, 2017, 03:26:54 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on September 22, 2017, 02:40:14 PM
MA 15 (all 0.23 mi. of it). MA wastes a 2 digit state route that isn't even signed. No references to it on MA 152 at its eastern terminus, the only shield eastbound is a TO MA 152 sign, and the first reassurance shield westbound is an RI 15 shield. MA 15 used to be significant when it was co-signed with what is now I-84, and would be better assigned to the Old Route 15 along Mashapaug Rd in Sturbridge..
It's better to continue a route across a state line, especially if the number is unused, than for it to end at the state line for no reason.
CT 272 says "Hi". MA 272 should be created to connect to MA 57/183 in New Marlborough.
Quote from: 1 on September 22, 2017, 03:26:54 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on September 22, 2017, 02:40:14 PM
MA 15 (all 0.23 mi. of it). MA wastes a 2 digit state route that isn't even signed. No references to it on MA 152 at its eastern terminus, the only shield eastbound is a TO MA 152 sign, and the first reassurance shield westbound is an RI 15 shield. MA 15 used to be significant when it was co-signed with what is now I-84, and would be better assigned to the Old Route 15 along Mashapaug Rd in Sturbridge..
It's better to continue a route across a state line, especially if the number is unused, than for it to end at the state line for no reason.
MO 273 says hi... although about 80% of that route is in pointless concurrencies anyway.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on August 01, 2017, 03:35:05 PM
MN 308, which is just a glorified leg of a Y-intersection between MN 11 and MN 89 in Roseau County. Keep it on the state highway system but take the number away and just sign it as "TO MN 89" and "TO MN 11".
Reminds me of the old MN-322, the two-block-long connector between then-MN-371 and MN-18 before the Brainerd bypass was completed. I understand that it was supposedly signed with both 322 markers and TO signage but I've not seen pictures of this.
I think one could also add all of the upper 200s/300s routes that serve state facilities to the list of roads that don't need numbers. My favorite one (besides my avatar) is MN-330, the four-mile-long route that forms a rectangle with US-14 as the southern edge.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on August 02, 2017, 03:25:31 PM
The hidden roads in fl and ga.
These are quite necessary. Since US highways occasionally shift routes, the 'underlying' routes are designated for maintenance purposes, and so that if a US route is shifted the previous route already has a number to revert to.
Quote from: Aerobird on September 23, 2017, 04:40:08 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on August 02, 2017, 03:25:31 PM
The hidden roads in fl and ga.
These are quite necessary. Since US highways occasionally shift routes, the 'underlying' routes are designated for maintenance purposes, and so that if a US route is shifted the previous route already has a number to revert to.
Not only that, there is actually a numbering convention in Florida that actually makes sense and will alert travelers to roughly where they are in the state if they are paying attention. Granted there are only a couple instances where the State Road is co-signed alongside the a US Route. Martin County comes to mind with US 441/FL 15 and US 98/FL 700.
Most KY state highways with numbers > 2000
How about Washington State Route 117? It could be numbered US-101 Truck or Business...why waste a state number?
Also, California State Route 222. :confused:
Quote from: cabiness42 on September 23, 2017, 09:08:34 AM
Most KY state highways with numbers > 2000
But we need them for our game!
Quote from: cabiness42 on September 23, 2017, 09:08:34 AM
Most KY state highways with numbers > 2000
Since Kentucky uses only one signage system (although different internal classifications), unlike Virginia or West Virginia or North Carolina or Pennsylvania or South Carolina, how are you going to distinguish these state-maintained routes from others?
I'd nominate WV 55. It only has two sections that are not concurrent with other routes -- the portion between US 19 and WV 20 near Craigsville, and the very short segment that serves as a ramp from US 220/WV 28 to US 48 in Moorefield. Change the number of the westernmost portion to 141 or 411 (since it intersects WV 41) and leave the access road at Moorefield as an unnumbered ramp.
M-93! It's two different spurs in Grayling that share a number and are connected via concurrencies with M-72 and BL I-75.
M-152 and M-188 also come to mind as they're both spurs that serve very little.
M-43 has a useless concurrency with M-52 in Webberville just so M-43 could end at I-96 (This dates back to when M-52 ended at M-36 and M-47 used what is now M-52 to Webberville from Saginaw)
m 97
Seems a little silly to have the CA 99 Business Loop signed on CA 204 or vice versa.
Quote from: ftballfan on December 02, 2017, 03:34:52 PM
M-93! It's two different spurs in Grayling that share a number and are connected via concurrencies with M-72 and BL I-75.
M-152 and M-188 also come to mind as they're both spurs that serve very little.
M-43 has a useless concurrency with M-52 in Webberville just so M-43 could end at I-96 (This dates back to when M-52 ended at M-36 and M-47 used what is now M-52 to Webberville from Saginaw)
Some of those serve locations more than junctions with other roads like M-93 and M-188. I can't figure out what M-152's purpose really is though.
NC 400 seems unnecessary. It's an east-west route that's less than a mile long on Roanoke Island in Manteo. To my knowledge, it has no pavement markings, (although I could be wrong) and it's not even a minor arterial. Just a side street.
NC 136 is another. Again, just another side street, extremely short, and this one doesn't really service much, other than a few homes.
Quote from: Mapmikey on July 06, 2017, 12:21:30 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on July 05, 2017, 08:35:58 PM
Quote from: roadguy2 on July 05, 2017, 06:50:44 PM
Quote from: CYoder on July 05, 2017, 05:12:21 PM
US 19W. Here is the only portion (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/36.0870804,-82.4911189/35.9132417,-82.397377/@35.997006,-82.4607626,12z/data=!4m9!4m8!1m5!3m4!1m2!1d-82.3722551!2d35.9963371!3s0x885a0d6a1be00d73:0x31d6514305d8ed46!1m0!3e0) not multiplexed with any other route number.
I'm surprised that's still around, since it's a suffixed US route. It probably served a purpose before I-26 was built.
US 19W was rendered obsolete when US 23 was moved from it to its pre-I-26 routing through Sams Gap about 1952.
US 19W is a difficult, winding, slow drive and should be downgraded to NC 36 and TN 36.
I usually disagree with this line of thinking but in this case US 19W does not really serve any town and there is little benefit to anyone with the exception of Johnson City TN to Cane River NC commuters. SR 36 up the road should be US 23A.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on August 02, 2017, 03:25:31 PM
The hidden roads in fl and ga.
They are hidden in TN and AL as well.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on December 04, 2017, 01:05:26 PM
I usually disagree with this line of thinking but in this case US 19W does not really serve any town and there is little benefit to anyone with the exception of Johnson City TN to Cane River NC commuters. SR 36 up the road should be US 23A.
(This post probably borders on fictional territory, but...)
Just for the heck of it, I plugged Johnson City to Cane River into Google Maps, and it didn't even recommend US 19W for that, instead sending me down I-26 to exit 3 and using Laurel Valley Rd/Windy Gap Rd to cut over to US 19. I don't know what quality that road is, but if it's decent enough, you could upgrade that to, say, NC 193 (maybe concurrent with US 23A over to I-26) and just eliminate US 19W outright with no replacement number.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 03, 2017, 05:35:51 PM
Seems a little silly to have the CA 99 Business Loop signed on CA 204 or vice versa.
It's one of several examples in California I can think of of a business loop and a state route being signed together. The one I'm most familiar with (besides 204) is Route 135 with Business US 101 in Santa Maria, interesting because the business route does go on a portion of former 101 not covered by 135, while 135 south of Santa Maria is also (generally) former US 101 but not part of the business route.
OTHERS:
Wasn't Route 273 in Redding once part of Business I-5? Cahighways also mentions Route 263 in Yreka as being part of Business I-5
There are some unsigned state routes that are part of business route loops, i.e. Route 283
Quote from: Eth on December 04, 2017, 02:29:33 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on December 04, 2017, 01:05:26 PM
I usually disagree with this line of thinking but in this case US 19W does not really serve any town and there is little benefit to anyone with the exception of Johnson City TN to Cane River NC commuters. SR 36 up the road should be US 23A.
(This post probably borders on fictional territory, but...)
Just for the heck of it, I plugged Johnson City to Cane River into Google Maps, and it didn't even recommend US 19W for that, instead sending me down I-26 to exit 3 and using Laurel Valley Rd/Windy Gap Rd to cut over to US 19. I don't know what quality that road is, but if it's decent enough, you could upgrade that to, say, NC 193 (maybe concurrent with US 23A over to I-26) and just eliminate US 19W outright with no replacement number.
Avoiding Interstates is important, though, for vehicles which aren't allowed on Interstates. Farm equipment, bicycles, etc.
Quote from: kphoger on December 05, 2017, 01:51:28 PM
Quote from: Eth on December 04, 2017, 02:29:33 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on December 04, 2017, 01:05:26 PM
I usually disagree with this line of thinking but in this case US 19W does not really serve any town and there is little benefit to anyone with the exception of Johnson City TN to Cane River NC commuters. SR 36 up the road should be US 23A.
(This post probably borders on fictional territory, but...)
Just for the heck of it, I plugged Johnson City to Cane River into Google Maps, and it didn't even recommend US 19W for that, instead sending me down I-26 to exit 3 and using Laurel Valley Rd/Windy Gap Rd to cut over to US 19. I don't know what quality that road is, but if it's decent enough, you could upgrade that to, say, NC 193 (maybe concurrent with US 23A over to I-26) and just eliminate US 19W outright with no replacement number.
Avoiding Interstates is important, though, for vehicles which aren't allowed on Interstates. Farm equipment, bicycles, etc.
I agree with you, but that logic didn't apply to everywhere in the West where interstates were built on top of US highways, which were then decommissioned.
According to my very own definition...
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on July 07, 2017, 08:53:24 AM
Any designation that is either just a ramp, unsigned or concurrent with another route for its entire length is unnecessary for me.
... I-80 in Indiana is totally useless :bigass:.
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on December 05, 2017, 05:00:20 PM
According to my very own definition...
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on July 07, 2017, 08:53:24 AM
Any designation that is either just a ramp, unsigned or concurrent with another route for its entire length is unnecessary for me.
... I-80 in Indiana is totally useless :bigass:.
you're technically right, and all unsigned highways are useless, especially the ones that are cosigned with ones that are signed!
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on December 05, 2017, 05:00:20 PM
According to my very own definition...
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on July 07, 2017, 08:53:24 AM
Any designation that is either just a ramp, unsigned or concurrent with another route for its entire length is unnecessary for me.
... I-80 in Indiana is totally useless :bigass:.
Yes, just remove it. Awkward gap but under the aaroads rules of multiplexes it is useless.
Quote from: silverback1065 on December 05, 2017, 06:21:49 PM
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on December 05, 2017, 05:00:20 PM
According to my very own definition...
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on July 07, 2017, 08:53:24 AM
Any designation that is either just a ramp, unsigned or concurrent with another route for its entire length is unnecessary for me.
... I-80 in Indiana is totally useless :bigass:.
you're technically right, and all unsigned highways are useless, especially the ones that are cosigned with ones that are signed!
What about the ones that are tangented? :)
Quote from: roadguy2 on December 05, 2017, 08:19:01 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on December 05, 2017, 06:21:49 PM
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on December 05, 2017, 05:00:20 PM
According to my very own definition...
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on July 07, 2017, 08:53:24 AM
Any designation that is either just a ramp, unsigned or concurrent with another route for its entire length is unnecessary for me.
... I-80 in Indiana is totally useless :bigass:.
you're technically right, and all unsigned highways are useless, especially the ones that are cosigned with ones that are signed!
What about the ones that are tangented? :)
Like The Hypotenuse? :-P
Quote from: roadguy2 on December 05, 2017, 08:19:01 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on December 05, 2017, 06:21:49 PM
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on December 05, 2017, 05:00:20 PM
According to my very own definition...
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on July 07, 2017, 08:53:24 AM
Any designation that is either just a ramp, unsigned or concurrent with another route for its entire length is unnecessary for me.
... I-80 in Indiana is totally useless :bigass:.
you're technically right, and all unsigned highways are useless, especially the ones that are cosigned with ones that are signed!
What about the ones that are tangented? :)
:spin:
Most of the new North Carolina interstates...42, 87, 140, 795, former 495.
Quote from: kkt on August 10, 2017, 12:07:31 PM
Quote from: 1 on August 08, 2017, 07:51:47 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on August 08, 2017, 07:49:03 AM
I would like to say Vermont Route 119 at first. It's no more than 1/3 mile long. I think it only exists so that the much-longer New Hampshire Route 119 can make its connection with US Route 5 in Brattleboro, VT.
The road with the traffic lights is US Route 5. The old green bridge in the background carries VT/NH Route 119 into Hinsdale, NH.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FriXQMxQ.jpg&hash=4b3c2a6d40713a0dd536a93b99e6ad18ccc28565)
I would keep VT 119. It's better for a route to continue at a state border with the same number than just ending at the border for no other reason than the border being there.
Yes, somebody has to be responsible for the bridge.
I know this is an old part of the thread but I wanted to respond.
As a general rule, New Hampshire is responsible for the bridges between NH and VT...and the reason for this is because New Hampshire effectively "owns" the river. The state line is officially the mean low water mark on the Vermont side.
It's also worth noting that VT 119 does not officially exist. It's likely signed that way for continuity with NH 119, and it's probably the town of Brattleboro that posted the signs, but it's not an actual state route...officially, the Vermont segment is a Class 2 Town Highway.
Quote from: kphoger on December 05, 2017, 01:51:28 PM
Quote from: Eth on December 04, 2017, 02:29:33 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on December 04, 2017, 01:05:26 PM
I usually disagree with this line of thinking but in this case US 19W does not really serve any town and there is little benefit to anyone with the exception of Johnson City TN to Cane River NC commuters. SR 36 up the road should be US 23A.
(This post probably borders on fictional territory, but...)
Just for the heck of it, I plugged Johnson City to Cane River into Google Maps, and it didn't even recommend US 19W for that, instead sending me down I-26 to exit 3 and using Laurel Valley Rd/Windy Gap Rd to cut over to US 19. I don't know what quality that road is, but if it's decent enough, you could upgrade that to, say, NC 193 (maybe concurrent with US 23A over to I-26) and just eliminate US 19W outright with no replacement number.
Avoiding Interstates is important, though, for vehicles which aren't allowed on Interstates. Farm equipment, bicycles, etc.
That is why the old US 23 should still be posted as such. Tennessee does everywhere but here.
I've never really paid much attention to US 19 to be honest. The US 19W stretch looks pretty pointless to me and US 19E looks like a really long out of the way highway. US 11's E and W stretches look like it makes more sense to have that.
I will likely post again after a research session (3rd priority after school and what I said I'd do over in Northwest):
OR 141: On city streets only and decently frequent turns.
OR 52 is less than 3 miles and heads into Idaho.
OR 8 west of Forest Grove.
OR 10.
OR 210