(exit number inconsistencies, routes facing the opposite direction of the signed, numbers out-of-grid...)
Please, no mention of I-99, I-238, or US-412.
Split routes are bad and must be eliminated...unless you're Texas or Minnesota.
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 04, 2017, 04:35:41 AM
Split routes are bad and must be eliminated...unless you're Texas or Minnesota.
Or Tennessee or North Carolina
Duplicate route numbers due to a lack of using stuff like; US 0, I-50, and I-60.
Quote from: mrpablue on November 04, 2017, 03:59:30 AM
(exit number inconsistencies, routes facing the opposite direction of the signed, numbers out-of-grid…)
Please, no mention of I-99, I-238, or US-412.
What about US-400? :spin:
In all seriousness, here are my gripes, in no particular order:
- The I-97 designation being wasted on a freeway that should be I-995 or an extension of I-83
- "The southern I-87"
- Wyoming "Interstate" 180
- All the new Texas Interstates, especially I-14 and I-69C
- Tennessee's letter suffixing policy (first 1, then 1A, 1B, etc.)
- Nevada's letter suffixing policy (Exit _A comes before _B no matter which direction you come from, for the most part)
- Wyoming's letter suffixing policy (whoever decided these (https://goo.gl/maps/iQcKbZ7hrBQ2) setups (https://goo.gl/maps/yBbi6sLis3r) should be fired... from a cannon)
- Nebraska's letter suffixing and intersecting exit number policy, such as the Jct. of I-80 and I-180 in Lincoln (https://goo.gl/maps/SHod8MpUMj22)
- I-75 not ending at I-95 in Miami
- I-15 still being CA-15 in San Diego
- CA-210 not being I-210 in Greater Los Angeles
- The states that refuse to switch to mileage-based exits -- get with the 21st century
I-84 in OR when it should be I-82 and I-82 given either I-7 or I-9 or even I-11 (even if NV and AZ have to had to use a new number for their I-11). I-84 was in PA, NY, and CT long before I-80N got eliminated.
I-88 in IL is a copycat of I-88 in NY.
I-86 in NY is copycat of ID, but ID should have been a 3 digit anyway and NYSDOT given I-86 to fit the grid.
US Routes like US 46 especially as if NJ turned it into NJ 46 no one would care.
I-676 having a signal at the foot of the Ben Franklin Bridge copying Breezewood on the opposite end of the state.
I-2 and all the I-69's in Texas.
I-74 in NC especially being WV and OH will never build their parts.
I-78 not ending with the NJ Turnpike as it really should as NJDOT or PANYNJ will never build a freeway between Boyle Plaza and 12th Street to connect the tunnel with the existing two freeways.
US 52 now in SC signed E-W even though its N-S and originally was signed that. Now SCDOT wants to please the FHWA.
US 98 in FL between Okeechobee and Sebring should be signed E-W like east of Okeechobee, but that is cause FDOT D-4 takes the even number E-W rule literally and FDOT D-1, D-7, and D-3 could give a rats ass over rules as they do sign it as it runs south of Perry.
What bothers me the most is anal people who'd like to replace a shitload of signs just to make the grid perfect (and then probably waste billions on interchange reconstruction to avoid TOTSOs). It's not like the grid was ever perfect: 6 was south of 20 in the 1925 plans (and 410 never touched 10).
Here are my pet peeves:
-When an overlap ends, one of the splitting routes get an exit number.
-One of the ramps at a terminating Interchange being assigned an exit number.
-Business Interstate Routes: I think they are a waste of signage.
I-180 in Wyoming is just stupid
The I-3 proposal in Georgia :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
When I-280 in San Francisco cannot touch I-80 even though less than 1 mile from each other or I-980 and I-380 does not touch I-80 in San Francisco area.
When I-105 in Los Angeles area does not touch i-5.
US 121.
Why US 3 suddenly downgrades to MA 3.
US 5 ending at I-91 and not at US 1
US 9 being signed East-West in DE and US 1 the same in CT on a couple of signs
US 202 existing 400 miles from its parent and being duplexed for more than half of its length north of PA, not to mention directional signage changing then changing back then changing yet again.
US 206 and US 209 not connecting to their parents.
US 44 and US 46 both existing between US 20 and US 30.
The many inconsistent directions of US 62
I-355/I-290/IL 53 not being a single North-South Numbered Route/Designation in Chicago's Western/Northwestern Suburbs
I-290 in general -- send I-88 into Downtown Chicago, instead of having the east end at 2 3dis (290, 294). Make the leg between I-294/I-88 and I-355 an x88
The Southern New Jersey Turnpike not having an Interstate designation, when its part of the thru traffic route between DC and NYC
The St Louis Beltway not having a single designation -- pick either I-270 or I-255 for the whole thing
US 66 having been decommissioned -- Why? Put it back!
The signed directions for I-90 and I-94 in IL and (parts of) WI. When the route is clearly North/South, sign it North/South. It is counter-intuitive to have a sign tell me I'm going "West" when driving between Chicago and Milwaukee, or between Rockford, Madison, and Portage
Quote from: 21stCenturyRoad on November 04, 2017, 04:05:06 PM
Here are my pet peeves:
-When an overlap ends, one of the splitting routes get an exit number.
My pet peeve is when a route that exits itself gets a number, best explained by this interchange (https://goo.gl/maps/hBz5gP6gf2T2). IA-5 east somehow inherits the exit numbers of US-65 before US-65 actually joins the freeway, and US-65 south exits itself on Exit 70A. Logically, the two ramps eastbound should actually be Exits 93B and 93A for IA-5, and the two ramps westbound should be Exit 70B and
Left Exit 70A for US-65.
Quote from: 21stCenturyRoad on November 04, 2017, 04:05:06 PM
-One of the ramps at a terminating Interchange being assigned an exit number.
IMO all ramps should have exit numbers, even if it's 0A and 0B.
On a related note, I have no clue why the I-91 exit off of I-89 doesn't have a number. It should be Exit 1, and all other exits should be increased by 1. Or better yet, just freaking switch to mileage-based numbers and give it a number then.
Quote from: JasonOfORoads on November 04, 2017, 08:56:32 PM
Quote from: 21stCenturyRoad on November 04, 2017, 04:05:06 PM
Here are my pet peeves:
-When an overlap ends, one of the splitting routes get an exit number.
My pet peeve is when a route that exits itself gets a number, best explained by this interchange (https://goo.gl/maps/hBz5gP6gf2T2). IA-5 east somehow inherits the exit numbers of US-65 before US-65 actually joins the freeway, and US-65 south exits itself on Exit 70A. Logically, the two ramps eastbound should actually be Exits 93B and 93A for IA-5, and the two ramps westbound should be Exit 70B and Left Exit 70A for US-65.
This happens at the north I-15/84 split at Tremonton, UT (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7024809,-112.1837475,14.82z). The combined route uses I-15 mileage-based numbers, and in advance of the junction the I-84 ramp is posted as left exit 379 (https://goo.gl/maps/3EenmF472u62). But when you actually get up to the split, I-15 takes its own exit 379 to the right (https://goo.gl/maps/Rek2jaz2ZvT2).
This problem occurs because I-15 is the more important route (since the combined route uses I-15's mileage) but I-84 is set up as the mainline route at this interchange (which is also one of the widest trumpet interchanges I've ever seen, as there are actually crop fields between the 15 S and 84 E ramps).
At this junction, either there shouldn't be any exit number posted, or the arrow at the gore should point left. The current situation is ambiguous and confusing.
Long concurrencies between US and Interstate routes when the old alignment is still usable. Looking at Iowa and Michigan in particular here, although other states are guilty of this as well.
Quote from: roadman65 on November 04, 2017, 03:29:54 PM
US 52 now in SC signed E-W even though its N-S and originally was signed that. Now SCDOT wants to please the FHWA.
I would love to see them try to force Minnesota to sign its section of US-52 E/W... it would make zero sense.
Quote from: JasonOfORoads on November 04, 2017, 08:56:32 PM
My pet peeve is when a route that exits itself gets a number, best explained by this interchange (https://goo.gl/maps/hBz5gP6gf2T2). IA-5 east somehow inherits the exit numbers of US-65 before US-65 actually joins the freeway, and US-65 south exits itself on Exit 70A. Logically, the two ramps eastbound should actually be Exits 93B and 93A for IA-5, and the two ramps westbound should be Exit 70B and Left Exit 70A for US-65.
Wow, I've gone through that interchange countless times and never noticed that. Now it's going to bother me every time. :crazy:
Quote from: pianocello on November 04, 2017, 10:27:23 PM
Long concurrencies between US and Interstate routes when the old alignment is still usable. Looking at Iowa and Michigan in particular here, although other states are guilty of this as well.
Why was us 1 rerouted onto 93 :banghead: :banghead:?
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 05, 2017, 12:14:16 AM
Quote from: pianocello on November 04, 2017, 10:27:23 PM
Long concurrencies between US and Interstate routes when the old alignment is still usable. Looking at Iowa and Michigan in particular here, although other states are guilty of this as well.
Why was us 1 rerouted onto 93 :banghead: :banghead:?
I'm pretty sure that US 78 and I-22 are concurrent for all of I-22, though that may be due to how I-22 was pretty much laid over US 78 for the most part.
US 66 being decommissioned. It's the country's most historic, symbolic, and well-known route, only for it to be nuked from orbit in 1985. Why couldn't they just revitalize it?
AASHTO's mass decommissioning of intrastate three digit US routes. AASHTO decommissioning things in general. They like doing that. At that, decommissioning in general. Keep the routes!
Decommissionment of suffixed/split routes. I-80N. I-59B. US 30N. All that. I really, really like suffixed routes. It's a gripe of mine to see them go. I'm glad to see that Texas has added some to the system in recent years, those Interstates being I-69W, I-69E, and I-69C. :clap:
Quote from: index on November 05, 2017, 02:20:49 AM
AASHTO's mass decommissioning of intrastate three digit US routes. AASHTO decommissioning things in general. They like doing that.
Ooh, I'm all for this. Bring back US-210 and the original US-371! The current US-371 can become US-471, or whatever.
Quote from: index on November 05, 2017, 02:20:49 AM
US 66 being decommissioned. It's the country's most historic, symbolic, and well-known route, only for it to be nuked from orbit in 1985. Why couldn't they just revitalize it?
As I understand it, the country's modern love affair with 66 turning it into a national icon didn't really start until after the route was axed. California and Illinois had both done away with their sections long before 1985 and the remaining six states had their section unceremoniously wiped in June of 1985.
1 through 12: The southern I-87 (the designation, not the corridor itself). SCOURN should be ashamed of itself for allowing that travesty to happen; it should have been I-46,54, or 56. Period.
13. I-210/CA 210 in CA. They built the fucking freeway to I-standards; a good number of the BGS's on approach streets show the CA 210 spade on a greenout plaque over a I-210 shield, so it was planned as such. If the problem is the remaining chargeable section now signed as CA 57, just designate it I-510 or something and don't sign it, just like what's done with I-305 in Sacramento.
14. I-905: Same thing, but without the chargeability issue. Just break down and sign it, please -- no excuses about incomplete interchanges (with non-Interstate connecting routes, which shouldn't affect signage or legal status).
15. The "Swamp Thing" planned I-74 jaunt down NC 211. In the immortal words of Michael Palin: "what a stupid concept!" Apparently some parties in NC agree and are trying to do the right thing and take I-74, ill-conceived as that entire corridor might be, to Wilmington (a partial saving grace!).
16. US 400. Pointless. OK, so the portion east of Wichita delineates HPC #3; BFD! Make that a re-commissioned US 154; and do something else with former US 154 between Dodge City and Mullinville. KDOT, surprise us (hopefully pleasantly).
17. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission. If any organization in the country could benefit from a real coup d'etat, this would be the one. Clear out the parochial politicos and expedite spot projects for direct connectors to US 219, I-99, I-70 @ Breezewood (of course), and I-81.
It's getting late, SNL is over, and I'm tired. Probably think of more later.
Quote from: NE2 on November 04, 2017, 03:56:32 PM
What bothers me the most is anal people who'd like to replace a shitload of signs just to make the grid perfect (and then probably waste billions on interchange reconstruction to avoid TOTSOs).
What planning document is that little detail found in, the Yellow Book?
Quote from: pianocello on November 04, 2017, 10:27:23 PM
Long concurrencies between US and Interstate routes when the old alignment is still usable. Looking at Iowa and Michigan in particular here, although other states are guilty of this as well.
How is Michigan particularly guilty here? Michigan, sometimes with the cooperation of Ohio, has a history of decommissioning US routes where the Interstates took over. See US-2, US-16, US-25, more recently US-27, and US-12 being rerouted on old US-112. And some state highways as well.
The longer concurrencies that still exist, US-23 and US-31, are there because the northern ends of those routes are not part of the interstate system. And even the northern few miles of them were truncated when they meet I-75. The old roads, while they still exist, were decommissioned and turned back to local control. There's no need for long-distance travellers to go through a series of cities and small towns on surface streets when there's a parallel freeway only a couple miles away.
Now if it was a state where roads that serve local areas are maintained by the state (e.g. KY, VA) I could see argument that the old routes could maintain their numbers, simply to have a number. But even then, I question why a US highway number should be used (like US-25 in northern Kentucky). US highway numbers should be used for routes that would be used by through traffic. Give the replaced US routes secondary state highway numbers if they must be numbered.
I guess my peeve is the opposite of yours. Why should US highway numbers be on roads that don't really go anywhere anymore?
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 04, 2017, 08:05:47 PM
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on November 04, 2017, 07:03:41 PM
US 121.
What about it?
I call it the "Alanland expressway" because it exists (on paper) and doesn't exist (in the field) :sombrero:.
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 05, 2017, 04:42:26 AM
Quote from: NE2 on November 04, 2017, 03:56:32 PM
What bothers me the most is anal people who'd like to replace a shitload of signs just to make the grid perfect (and then probably waste billions on interchange reconstruction to avoid TOTSOs).
What planning document is that little detail found in, the Yellow Book?
Wouldn't be the Yellow Book. Then-AASHO and then-BPR didn't get around to adopting an interstate numbering scheme until August 14, 1957 (with a few revisions approved June 27, 1958).
Quote from: froggie on November 05, 2017, 07:58:58 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 05, 2017, 04:42:26 AM
Quote from: NE2 on November 04, 2017, 03:56:32 PM
What bothers me the most is anal people who'd like to replace a shitload of signs just to make the grid perfect (and then probably waste billions on interchange reconstruction to avoid TOTSOs).
What planning document is that little detail found in, the Yellow Book?
Wouldn't be the Yellow Book. Then-AASHO and then-BPR didn't get around to adopting an interstate numbering scheme until August 14, 1957 (with a few revisions approved June 27, 1958).
You won't find people trying to make the grid perfect for no other reason than being anal in
any official document.
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 05, 2017, 04:42:26 AM
Quote from: NE2 on November 04, 2017, 03:56:32 PM
What bothers me the most is anal people who'd like to replace a shitload of signs just to make the grid perfect (and then probably waste billions on interchange reconstruction to avoid TOTSOs).
What planning document is that little detail found in, the Yellow Book?
The AARoads charter. Or so it seems.
I-83's exits through Maryland are a little off, but I think that's because of its cancellation through Fells Point in Baltimore and out to I-95.
Quote from: pianocello on November 04, 2017, 10:27:23 PM
Long concurrencies between US and Interstate routes when the old alignment is still usable. Looking at Iowa and Michigan in particular here, although other states are guilty of this as well.
US 40 in Kansas is that way and so is US 81 north of Wichita to Salina that way. Thankfully south of Wichita I-35 is a toll road or else US 81 from the Oklahoma State Line to I-135 would be a county road. Ditto for both US 24 and US 40 east of Topeka as they got to stay cause of the Kansas Turnpike as well.
My peeve is not with US 44 and US 46 as much as US 6 as it never fit the grid quite well either going originally from Long Beach, CA which was between US 70 and US 80 and of course it never gets north of both US 10 and US 20.
Quote from: roadman65 on November 05, 2017, 09:11:19 PM
Quote from: pianocello on November 04, 2017, 10:27:23 PM
Long concurrencies between US and Interstate routes when the old alignment is still usable. Looking at Iowa and Michigan in particular here, although other states are guilty of this as well.
US 40 in Kansas is that way and so is US 81 north of Wichita to Salina that way. Thankfully south of Wichita I-35 is a toll road or else US 81 from the Oklahoma State Line to I-135 would be a county road. Ditto for both US 24 and US 40 east of Topeka as they got to stay cause of the Kansas Turnpike as well.
My peeve is not with US 44 and US 46 as much as US 6 as it never fit the grid quite well either going originally from Long Beach, CA which was between US 70 and US 80 and of course it never gets north of both US 10 and US 20.
Growing up in Utah, I understood the us highway grid pretty well (30 up in Idaho, 40 near SLC, 50 in central UT, 60 in AZ, etc.). But there was US 6, right between 40 and 50. I reasoned that US 6 was special because it was a single digit route.
Interstate/US Routes whose general direction is contrary to how they actually run (I-85 is signed north/south, but runs more east/west; the opposite goes for I-26)
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on November 04, 2017, 08:46:06 PM
US 206 and US 209 not connecting to their parents.
US 209 connects to US 9W, which is good enough as far as I'm concerned. US 206 multiplexes with US 209 to reach US 6 according to some sources, but I believe not officially. I can't imagine why it shouldn't, though. Was there ever a plan to connect them some other way that got canceled?
On the other hand all the x78 Interstates in the NYC area that don't connect to I-78 are a bigger issue. Given that none of these roads are known by number (except I guess the part of I-278 that's in NJ) they could have renumbered them to something that makes sense without a major uproar. Giving them odd x95 numbers is probably the logical choice, if not downgrading them to state routes (but still renumbering them because the association does not go away)
Useless concurrencies, such as US 319 running concurrent with US 98 to a certain point and then stopping while 98 continues, or the US 40/US 322 concurrency in New Jersey where both join and then run to a point where they both end together.
Also, US routes not being placed on interstates or freeways that run parallel to them, or not being decommissioned. For the most part, why does US 11 even exist in its present form anymore? No through traffic is going to take US 11 from New Orleans to any point along US 11's route (Birmingham, Chattanooga, Knoxville, Roanoke, Harrisburg, Binghamton, etc.). It's going to take the interstate.
Quote from: hbelkins on November 06, 2017, 12:06:34 PM
Also, US routes not being placed on interstates or freeways that run parallel to them, or not being decommissioned. For the most part, why does US 11 even exist in its present form anymore? No through traffic is going to take US 11 from New Orleans to any point along US 11's route (Birmingham, Chattanooga, Knoxville, Roanoke, Harrisburg, Binghamton, etc.). It's going to take the interstate.
So what would US 5 become?
Quote from: 1 on November 06, 2017, 12:11:16 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 06, 2017, 12:06:34 PM
Also, US routes not being placed on interstates or freeways that run parallel to them, or not being decommissioned. For the most part, why does US 11 even exist in its present form anymore? No through traffic is going to take US 11 from New Orleans to any point along US 11's route (Birmingham, Chattanooga, Knoxville, Roanoke, Harrisburg, Binghamton, etc.). It's going to take the interstate.
So what would US 5 become?
Whatever the individual states it passes through wanted to renumber it to. That highway is a good candidate for complete decertification. Possibly CT/MA/VT 5.
Quote from: bing101 on November 04, 2017, 06:58:34 PM
I-980 and I-380 does not touch I-80 in San Francisco area.
There is zero logical routing in which 380 would make sense to connect with 80. And there is plenty of precedent for 3 digit Interstate routes to not always reach their parents, as long as there is another related 3di to connect to (i.e. I-990 in Buffalo).
When they have a 55mph or less speed limit (I-264 in VA is 35 mph in a section :pan:) and also when there is only 2 lanes in areas that are still heavily traveled such as I64 from I295 to Newport News, I66 inside the beltway, I70 between Fredrick and Hagerstown MD, I could go on all day. Also if there aren't many reassurance shields that bothers me as well.:ded:
Quote from: MarylandMichael(I-264 in VA is 35 mph in a section :pan:)
Given the situation there, I give this one a slide.
Quote from: pianocello on November 04, 2017, 10:27:23 PM
Long concurrencies between US and Interstate routes when the old alignment is still usable. Looking at Iowa and Michigan in particular here, although other states are guilty of this as well.
My peeve is just the opposite. I favor moving the US highway onto the freeway where viable and handing the parallel route down to the county.
Unnecessary roundabouts that replace perfectly fine stop signs or traffic signals
Quote from: froggie on November 06, 2017, 04:47:53 PM
Quote from: MarylandMichael(I-264 in VA is 35 mph in a section :pan:)
Given the situation there, I give this one a slide.
Also 35 MPH is the Al-Jo curve on I-295 in NJ, also understandable and going away.
Quote from: hbelkins on November 06, 2017, 12:06:34 PM
Useless concurrencies, such as US 319 running concurrent with US 98 to a certain point and then stopping while 98 continues, or the US 40/US 322 concurrency in New Jersey where both join and then run to a point where they both end together.
Also, US routes not being placed on interstates or freeways that run parallel to them, or not being decommissioned. For the most part, why does US 11 even exist in its present form anymore? No through traffic is going to take US 11 from New Orleans to any point along US 11's route (Birmingham, Chattanooga, Knoxville, Roanoke, Harrisburg, Binghamton, etc.). It's going to take the interstate.
US 23 in Florida ( or even in GA as one user on here said US 23 is referred to by whatever other route its concurrent with its whole tenor in that state) as it is useless now being I-75 and I-10 carry traffic from Atlanta to Jacksonville.
US 206 is useless as its pretty much one state as PennDOT removed if from US 209 in Milford, though some signs that the DRTJC maintains still imply it is such. It should be NJ 206 just like US 46 should be NJ 46. US 130, should be US 301 crossing the Delaware Memorial Bridge where it should have never been truncated to Glasgow and kept its signing to Farnhurst.
US 202 should be truncated to Danbury, CT and in NY, NJ, PA, and DE should be another route number. US 122 from Wilmington to Somerville, NJ. Then NJ 53 from Bedminster (NJ 206 would be solo) and then the county parts north of Morris Plains, NJ to Suffern, NY should be given 600 series NJ secondary numbers by the counties and a single digit in Bergen ()as they do not use 600 series numbering for their routes. NY could come up with a number of their own both east and west of the Hudson River.
I think US 92 in Florida could be FL 600 and its long concurrency with US 17 could be done away with. US 192 can revert to SR 500 from Kissimmee to Indialantic and SR 530 from Kissimmee to US 27 as per FL Route logs for that US route. US 92 died when I-4 came to life.
US 98 east of Perry is useless, but it can be given to US 27 to High Springs and US 27 should take over its 96 mile alternate from Perry to Williston and its concurrency with US 41 dropped all together. The rest of US 98 from US 19 to Palm Beach would be FL 700 and FL 80 where it currently runs with from Belle Glade to Palm Beach.
Concurrencies of two interstate routes.
Quote from: gp248 on November 06, 2017, 05:28:19 PM
Concurrencies of two interstate routes.
I-95 and I-495 in MD. That was first I-495 on the east half, but when DC cancelled the freeway within itself, MD and VA both dropped the designation in favor of just I-95. Then somehow, it got redesignated creating this useless overlap.
Quote from: gp248 on November 06, 2017, 05:28:19 PM
Concurrencies of two interstate routes.
You mean they should have built 2 ways for I-77 and I-81 to go through the mountains, instead of putting them on the same roadway?
Quote from: GaryV on November 06, 2017, 05:36:40 PM
Quote from: gp248 on November 06, 2017, 05:28:19 PM
Concurrencies of two interstate routes.
You mean they should have built 2 ways for I-77 and I-81 to go through the mountains, instead of putting them on the same roadway?
Three now if you want to count I-74, as that is supposed to be with them both. However I do not think that VDOT really cares being WV and OH will never build their parts. So it will always dangle at the NC/ VA Border where I-74 and I-77 are both concurrent from Mt. Airy to that point.
What about Georgia not allowing US routes to go solo?
That always seemed odd, but GDOT always uses the state number for reference on mileposts and documents. Enter Charlton County on SB US 301 and the mileposts will make you think you have far longer to go in GA as the mileage is to GA 23's southern end and not US 301's end. Remember GA 23 continues into that piece of the state that is within Florida and it continues way south of the US 1, 23, and US 301 border crossing and is even south of the northernmost part of Jacksonville, FL.
The fact that AASHTO banned intrastate US highways. There are still some left, but highways like the former US 154 in Kansas are worthy of being US highways because they connect two US highways. It's kind of funny that what used to be US 154 is now US 400.
Quote from: freebrickproductions on November 05, 2017, 12:49:30 AM
I'm pretty sure that US 78 and I-22 are concurrent for all of I-22, though that may be due to how I-22 was pretty much laid over US 78 for the most part.
US 78 should be rerouted to follow the old route. If US 17 in Wilmington, NC can be taken off I-140 and put back on surface streets (despite being an AASHTO violation) Alabama should be able to do the same thing. If NCDOT proposed that a river become an interstate AASHTO would rubber stamp it.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on November 05, 2017, 04:11:41 AM
Quote from: index on November 05, 2017, 02:20:49 AM
US 66 being decommissioned. It's the country's most historic, symbolic, and well-known route, only for it to be nuked from orbit in 1985. Why couldn't they just revitalize it?
US 66 should be a US route from El Reno, OK to Springfield, MO. The rest of it is mostly county roads and there's no reason that it should be recommissioned.
As I understand it, the country's modern love affair with 66 turning it into a national icon didn't really start until after the route was axed. California and Illinois had both done away with their sections long before 1985 and the remaining six states had their section unceremoniously wiped in June of 1985.
The I-74/US 74 concurrency and split. I don't mind I-41/US 41 in Wisconsin so much because they are concurrent for I-41's entire length but having an interstate and a US route with the same number split from each other...no. Just no.
Quote from: bugo on November 06, 2017, 05:55:24 PM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on November 05, 2017, 12:49:30 AM
I'm pretty sure that US 78 and I-22 are concurrent for all of I-22, though that may be due to how I-22 was pretty much laid over US 78 for the most part.
US 78 should be rerouted to follow the old route. If US 17 in Wilmington, NC can be taken off I-140 and put back on surface streets (despite being an AASHTO violation) Alabama should be able to do the same thing. If NCDOT proposed that a river become an interstate AASHTO would rubber stamp it.
Why is that an AASHTO violation? In any case, Google shows US 17 routed on I-140 and US 17 Business through downtown Wilmington.
IMO, if an Interstate is concurrent/follows the same route as a US Highway, I would favor keeping the US highway on the old alignment whenever possible.
Quote from: pianocello on November 04, 2017, 10:27:23 PM
Long concurrencies between US and Interstate routes when the old alignment is still usable. Looking at Iowa and Michigan in particular here, although other states are guilty of this as well.
The one that bothers me with this is US 40 & how most of it runs with I-70 & I-68 in Maryland. Then they have an Alt. 40, Scenic 40, etc. and then the original route running through Hagerstown and Cumberland.
Quote from: gp248 on November 06, 2017, 05:28:19 PM
Concurrencies of two interstate routes.
You'd love Arizona, where concurrencies in any form are kept to an absolute minimum - I-40 & US 93 east of Kingman, and US 60 dual-signed with I-10 and then I-17 when that freeway begins. The former will eventually be dual-signed as I-11 and I-40.
The latter should not be there at all. End US 60 where the Superstition Freeway meets I-10. Extend US 93 from Wickenburg down Grand Ave. to I-17 in Phoenix, changing it to AZ 93 once I-11 is finished. Then renumber US 60 from Wickenburg to Ehrenberg as AZ 74 (its original 1927 number, BTW). That would require dual-signing US 93 and AZ 74 between Wickenburg and Morristown, where the current 74 begins, but that's only 10 miles.
And you'd hate Wisconsin, especially between Beloit and Madison, with I-39 and I-90 dual-signed, with I-94 added between Madison and Portage, and 90/94 continuing to Tomah.
Quote from: epzik8 on November 05, 2017, 11:07:38 AM
I-83's exits through Maryland are a little off, but I think that's because of its cancellation through Fells Point in Baltimore and out to I-95.
The abrupt ending of I83 in Baltimore and what is left of what was supposed to be I 170. I know they didn't want to destroy Fells Point, but I feel they could have found a way to connect I83 to I95.
Quote from: plain on November 06, 2017, 04:59:10 PM
Unnecessary roundabouts that replace perfectly fine stop signs or traffic signals
May I ask why? I can't think of any stop or signal arrangement that is more convenient than a roundabout.
US routes that exist only to "promote tourism", like US's 44 and 202. Completely unnecessary now that through traffic is diverted onto Interstates.
Quote from: csw on November 06, 2017, 06:53:57 PM
Quote from: plain on November 06, 2017, 04:59:10 PM
Unnecessary roundabouts that replace perfectly fine stop signs or traffic signals
May I ask why? I can't think of any stop or signal arrangement that is more convenient than a roundabout.
AZ 179 in Sedona got the heavy roundabout treatment this past decade. I'm convinced it was done to bottleneck the traffic into single file since, I want to say the speed limits were lowered if I remember correct. Might not have fit the motif that the city wanted by the signals always were way more functional in my opinion.
Quote from: roadguy2 on November 06, 2017, 06:16:25 PM
Quote from: bugo on November 06, 2017, 05:55:24 PM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on November 05, 2017, 12:49:30 AM
I'm pretty sure that US 78 and I-22 are concurrent for all of I-22, though that may be due to how I-22 was pretty much laid over US 78 for the most part.
US 78 should be rerouted to follow the old route. If US 17 in Wilmington, NC can be taken off I-140 and put back on surface streets (despite being an AASHTO violation) Alabama should be able to do the same thing. If NCDOT proposed that a river become an interstate AASHTO would rubber stamp it.
Why is that an AASHTO violation? In any case, Google shows US 17 routed on I-140 and US 17 Business through downtown Wilmington.
IMO, if an Interstate is concurrent/follows the same route as a US Highway, I would favor keeping the US highway on the old alignment whenever possible.
I can't find the document, but one of the AASHTO guidelines is that when a US highway is moved to a new superior alignment it cannot be moved to an inferior route. But then again, AASHTO guidelines aren't always followed to the letter of the law.
IIRC, the new alignment of US 17 in Wilmington follows the Dawson/Wooster one way pair east to Oleander Drive east to Military Cutoff Road north to Market Street northeast.
Quote from: MarylandMichael on November 06, 2017, 06:28:22 PM
Quote from: pianocello on November 04, 2017, 10:27:23 PM
Long concurrencies between US and Interstate routes when the old alignment is still usable. Looking at Iowa and Michigan in particular here, although other states are guilty of this as well.
The one that bothers me with this is US 40 & how most of it runs with I-70 & I-68 in Maryland. Then they have an Alt. 40, Scenic 40, etc. and then the original route running through Hagerstown and Cumberland.
Don't forget about MD 144.
Quote from: csw on November 06, 2017, 06:53:57 PM
Quote from: plain on November 06, 2017, 04:59:10 PM
Unnecessary roundabouts that replace perfectly fine stop signs or traffic signals
May I ask why? I can't think of any stop or signal arrangement that is more convenient than a roundabout.
The roundabout at the northern split of US 59 and US 169 in Garnett, KS is a good example of a shit roundabout. The roundabout is tiny and traffic must slow to 10 MPH or so. It sucks no matter which way you are going. A stop sign or traffic light would be inconvenient for traffic going in one or more directions but the roundabout makes it a pain in the ass for traffic going in every direction.
Quote from: bugo on November 06, 2017, 05:49:11 PM
The fact that AASHTO banned intrastate US highways. There are still some left, but highways like the former US 154 in Kansas are worthy of being US highways because they connect two US highways. It's kind of funny that what used to be US 154 is now US 400.
Intrastate US highways were banned by AASHTO? I thought AASHTO just discouraged them, and some states but not others decided to convert them to state routes.
Quote from: index on November 05, 2017, 02:20:49 AM
US 66 being decommissioned. It's the country's most historic, symbolic, and well-known route, only for it to be nuked from orbit in 1985. Why couldn't they just revitalize it?
AASHTO's mass decommissioning of intrastate three digit US routes. AASHTO decommissioning things in general. They like doing that. At that, decommissioning in general. Keep the routes! :pan:
Decommissionment of suffixed/split routes. I-80N. I-59B. US 30N. All that. I really, really like suffixed routes. It's a gripe of mine to see them go. I'm glad to see that Texas has added some to the system in recent years, those Interstates being I-69W, I-69E, and I-69C. :clap:
Regarding US 66,
At least recommission the stretch from Joplin, MO to El Reno, OK.
I think somebody had an axe to grind with US 66 back in the 1980's, hence it being cut abruptly from the highway system in 1985.
Here is another oddball US route: US 425. US 465 would make more sense.
But the most famous part of US 66 is the Oklahoma-California part that the migrants escaping the dust bowl used...
Quote from: kkt on November 07, 2017, 12:42:10 PM
Quote from: bugo on November 06, 2017, 05:49:11 PM
The fact that AASHTO banned intrastate US highways. There are still some left, but highways like the former US 154 in Kansas are worthy of being US highways because they connect two US highways. It's kind of funny that what used to be US 154 is now US 400.
Intrastate US highways were banned by AASHTO? I thought AASHTO just discouraged them, and some states but not others decided to convert them to state routes.
AASHTO doesn't have the power to ban anything.
Quote from: hbelkins on November 07, 2017, 02:52:00 PM
Quote from: kkt on November 07, 2017, 12:42:10 PM
Quote from: bugo on November 06, 2017, 05:49:11 PM
The fact that AASHTO banned intrastate US highways. There are still some left, but highways like the former US 154 in Kansas are worthy of being US highways because they connect two US highways. It's kind of funny that what used to be US 154 is now US 400.
Intrastate US highways were banned by AASHTO? I thought AASHTO just discouraged them, and some states but not others decided to convert them to state routes.
AASHTO doesn't have the power to ban anything.
Yeah, that's what I thought. They can refuse permission for changes, but that's it.
US-69 in Johnson County, Kansas.
It bothers me that it follows SM Pkwy to Metcalf. Seriously, just route it along I-35 the whole way.
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on November 06, 2017, 06:29:25 PM
Quote from: gp248 on November 06, 2017, 05:28:19 PM
Concurrencies of two interstate routes.
You'd love Arizona, where concurrences in any form are kept to an absolute minimum - I-40 & US 93 east of Kingman, and US 60 dual-signed with I-10 and then I-17 when that freeway begins. The former will eventually be dual-signed as I-11 and I-40.
The latter should not be there at all. End US 60 where the Superstition Freeway meets I-10. Extend US 93 from Wickenburg down Grand Ave. to I-17 in Phoenix, changing it to AZ 93 once I-11 is finished. Then renumber US 60 from Wickenburg to Ehrenberg as AZ 74 (its original 1927 number, BTW). That would require dual-signing US 93 and AZ 74 between Wickenburg and Morristown, where the current 74 begins, but that's only 10 miles.
And you'd hate Wisconsin, especially between Beloit and Madison, with I-39 and I-90 dual-signed, with I-94 added between Madison and Portage, and 90/94 continuing to Tomah.
AZ also has
I-40/US 180 Flagstaff To Holbrook
I-40/US 180/AZ 99 W of Winslow
AZ 87/AZ 99 Winslow
AZ 64/US 180 Vail to Grand Canyon South Rim
US 60/AZ 77 Globe to North of Show Low
US 60/AZ 77/AZ 260 In Show Low
AZ 87/AZ 287 Thru Coolidge
AZ 87/AZ 260 Payson to North Pine-Strawberry
I-40/Unsigned AZ 95 From Exit 9 (AZ 95 South Lake Havasu City) to Needles, CA
US 11 or US 11 Alternate in Roanoke, VA not using (or used prior to I-81) VA 117.
Heck VA with all its independent cities not signing some state highways within its borders or signing Business routes as mainlines (South Hill comes to mind for Route 58) and there is US 301 along the frontage of I-95 from Petersburg to Jarrat. Why not put US 301 on 95 and leave the current two lane US 301 as a county or secondary 600 series road?
Being those two are so close to each other its redundant to have VDOT maintain the both.
US 40 in Fayette County, IL is similar to where US 40 is the immediate frontage road for I-70 considering at Pochahontas the US route does become concurrent with the interstate. Many overpasses over I-70 cross over US 40 as well just like with I-95 and US 301 where one continuous overpass spans both side by side routes.
Even SC in Jasper County moved US 17 onto I-95 where the I-95 SB lanes took the original US 17 NB lanes for the original US 17 to become frontage to the freeway. Most likely so SCDOT is not having to maintain two different routes in the same location with one of them with very little ATD counts. How much is both US 40 in IL and US 301 in VA per day?
Quote from: mapman1071 on November 07, 2017, 06:59:47 PM
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on November 06, 2017, 06:29:25 PM
Quote from: gp248 on November 06, 2017, 05:28:19 PM
Concurrencies of two interstate routes.
You'd love Arizona, where concurrences in any form are kept to an absolute minimum - I-40 & US 93 east of Kingman, and US 60 dual-signed with I-10 and then I-17 when that freeway begins. The former will eventually be dual-signed as I-11 and I-40.
The latter should not be there at all. End US 60 where the Superstition Freeway meets I-10. Extend US 93 from Wickenburg down Grand Ave. to I-17 in Phoenix, changing it to AZ 93 once I-11 is finished. Then renumber US 60 from Wickenburg to Ehrenberg as AZ 74 (its original 1927 number, BTW). That would require dual-signing US 93 and AZ 74 between Wickenburg and Morristown, where the current 74 begins, but that's only 10 miles.
And you'd hate Wisconsin, especially between Beloit and Madison, with I-39 and I-90 dual-signed, with I-94 added between Madison and Portage, and 90/94 continuing to Tomah.
AZ also has
I-40/US 180 Flagstaff To Holbrook
I-40/US 180/AZ 99 W of Winslow
AZ 87/AZ 99 Winslow
AZ 64/US 180 Vail to Grand Canyon South Rim
US 60/AZ 77 Globe to North of Show Low
US 60/AZ 77/AZ 260 In Show Low
AZ 87/AZ 287 Thru Coolidge
AZ 87/AZ 260 Payson to North Pine-Strawberry
I-40/Unsigned AZ 95 From Exit 9 (AZ 95 South Lake Havasu City) to Needles, CA
I stand corrected. I should have remembered the 87-287 segment, although it's only 14 miles. I've never driven on the others. But as I said, they only dual-sign when necessary. It's still not as common in Arizona as it used to be, the worst being US 60-70-80-89/AZ 93, either 4 of them or all of them, from Wickenburg to now-extinct Florence Jct. decades ago.
Quote from: kkt on November 07, 2017, 03:33:52 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 07, 2017, 02:52:00 PM
Quote from: kkt on November 07, 2017, 12:42:10 PM
Quote from: bugo on November 06, 2017, 05:49:11 PM
The fact that AASHTO banned intrastate US highways. There are still some left, but highways like the former US 154 in Kansas are worthy of being US highways because they connect two US highways. It's kind of funny that what used to be US 154 is now US 400.
Intrastate US highways were banned by AASHTO? I thought AASHTO just discouraged them, and some states but not others decided to convert them to state routes.
AASHTO doesn't have the power to ban anything.
Yeah, that's what I thought. They can refuse permission for changes, but that's it.
My understanding was that AASHTO won’t approve any new intrastate US highways, and they encourage the elimination of single-state US routes.
Quote from: gp248 on November 06, 2017, 05:28:19 PM
Concurrencies of two interstate routes.
I don't see how this is bothersome if the routes go in different directions after they are multiplexed. If one of the routes ends while multiplexed then yes that bothers me too.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=10190
US 57 was a violation when it was created in 1970. Too bad.
Quote from: NE2 on November 08, 2017, 01:18:59 AM
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=10190
US 57 was a violation when it was created in 1970. Too bad.
Not only by that standard but the entire route goes east and west.
And there is no reason that US 57 can't be downgraded to a state highway. It'd be fine if it was Texas 57.
I can see why it was given the number 57 though, it was to continue the numbering from the Mexico highway on the other side of the border and that highway is a pretty important highway in Mexico as it goes all the way to Mexico City.
I discovered US 57 was originally SH 57 (which itself was a renumber) but was inexplicably upgraded to a US route only a few years after the 57 number was applied.
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 08, 2017, 02:13:54 AM
And there is no reason that US 57 can't be downgraded to a state highway. It'd be fine if it was Texas 57.
I can see why it was given the number 57 though, it was to continue the numbering from the Mexico highway on the other side of the border and that highway is a pretty important highway in Mexico as it goes all the way to Mexico City.
That is the reason the number was used. In the "whereas"es Mexico Highway 57 and the lack of a US 57 are mentioned, and it's stated that "it would be beneficial to the traveling public and would serve to promote good will with Mexico" to form a single-number international highway from Mexico City to I-35. Scroll down to Minute Order 64166 on page 31.
https://publicdocs.txdot.gov/minord/MinuteOrderDocLib/003674232.pdf
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on November 08, 2017, 02:26:55 AM
I discovered US 57 was originally SH 57 (which itself was a renumber) but was inexplicably upgraded to a US route only a few years after the 57 number was applied.
I saw that too. It was originally State Highway 76.
SAMSUNG-SM-J727A
Quote from: roadman65 on November 07, 2017, 07:33:43 PM
Being those two are so close to each other its redundant to have VDOT maintain the both.
Virginia would be maintaining it anyway, no matter what type of route marker was placed on the road.
Quote from: roadman65 on November 07, 2017, 07:33:43 PM
Heck VA with all its independent cities not signing some state highways within its borders or signing Business routes as mainlines (South Hill comes to mind for Route 58) and there is US 301 along the frontage of I-95 from Petersburg to Jarrat. Why not put US 301 on 95 and leave the current two lane US 301 as a county or secondary 600 series road?
Being those two are so close to each other its redundant to have VDOT maintain the both.
I could see that between Jarrat and Stony Creek (and maybe even Templeton), but beyond that US 301 moves a little too far away from I-95.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on November 08, 2017, 09:31:50 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 07, 2017, 07:33:43 PM
Heck VA with all its independent cities not signing some state highways within its borders or signing Business routes as mainlines (South Hill comes to mind for Route 58) and there is US 301 along the frontage of I-95 from Petersburg to Jarrat. Why not put US 301 on 95 and leave the current two lane US 301 as a county or secondary 600 series road?
Being those two are so close to each other its redundant to have VDOT maintain the both.
I could see that between Jarrat and Stony Creek (and maybe even Templeton), but beyond that US 301 moves a little too far away from I-95.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Templeton,_Virginia
When was that named Templeton?
"Templeton is a census-designated place in Prince George County, Virginia. The population as of the 2010 Census was 431. Templeton is located along Interstate 95 at Exit 41 where US 301, and Virginia State Routes 35 and 156 converge."
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 05, 2017, 12:14:16 AM
Why was us 1 rerouted onto 93 :banghead: :banghead:?
Because the MDC - now DCR - demanded that MassDPW do it in the naïve belief that moving the US 1 designation away from Storrow Drive would magically cause all the overheight vehicles that were hitting their bridges to go away. And no, it didn't work
I really wish the signage included which side of the freeway an upcoming exit is on. It doesn't help to warn me two miles in advance of my exit if I'm not sure which side I should be getting over to. Standards are better recently, but the old signs are mostly still there.
^ I've been bitten by that a few times, although left exits are rare enough and yellow LEFT panels becoming increasingly common to the point that it's not enough to rate major frustration for me personally.
On the other hand, what does really bug me is being on a busy surface street and not knowing what side a freeway entrance is on. You can see the underpass up ahead–perhaps some traffic signals and a JCT assembly–but you won't see the tiny little ↰ or ↱panels until it's too late to squeeze into the appropriate lane. I've seen some cases where a small LEFT AHEAD or LEFT LANE panel is installed farther ahead of the ramp, and of course the use of larger overhead signs solves the problem. But all too often, I'm leaning forward in my seat trying to see: OK is this a full cloverleaf?...Partial?...Ramp on the right?....On the left?....
Quote from: Beltway on November 08, 2017, 11:24:29 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on November 08, 2017, 09:31:50 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 07, 2017, 07:33:43 PM
Heck VA with all its independent cities not signing some state highways within its borders or signing Business routes as mainlines (South Hill comes to mind for Route 58) and there is US 301 along the frontage of I-95 from Petersburg to Jarrat. Why not put US 301 on 95 and leave the current two lane US 301 as a county or secondary 600 series road?
Being those two are so close to each other its redundant to have VDOT maintain the both.
I could see that between Jarrat and Stony Creek (and maybe even Templeton), but beyond that US 301 moves a little too far away from I-95.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Templeton,_Virginia
When was that named Templeton?
Not a clue, but it wasn't named by anybody on Wikipedia:
https://virginia.hometownlocator.com/nearby/places-of-interest,n,templeton,lat,37.0823707581,lon,-77.3549804688.cfm
It was named Templeton by 1894 (USGS topo). Back then the settlement was just to the east on Templeton Road.
"Ban" might be too strong of a word but short intrastate US highways are against current AASHTO policy.
Quote from: NE2 on November 09, 2017, 08:18:01 PM
It was named Templeton by 1894 (USGS topo). Back then the settlement was just to the east on Templeton Road.
That odd, I lived 1/2 mile from the I-95/VA-35 interchange for a year in the late 1970s, and I never heard any kind of town name for that area, from anyone who lived there. Even though 12 miles from downtown Petersburg and 8 miles from the city limits, my home had a Petersburg postal address, and per Google Maps directions it still has the same address/city/state/ZIP today.
According to this, Templeton is an Unincorporated Place, and my home is within those boundaries --
https://statisticalatlas.com/place/Virginia/Templeton/Overview There is no business district there to speak of, just a couple gas stations and a couple small stores.
As Carson is actually on the state highway map, that was the town name that I mentioned to people as where I lived near to. Actually Carson is an Unincorporated Place as well.
Quote from: NE2 on November 09, 2017, 08:18:01 PM
It was named Templeton by 1894 (USGS topo). Back then the settlement was just to the east on Templeton Road.
I wasn't able to find any info about the place on my searches, so thanks for that.
Quote from: Flint1979 on November 08, 2017, 01:50:51 AM
Quote from: NE2 on November 08, 2017, 01:18:59 AM
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=10190
US 57 was a violation when it was created in 1970. Too bad.
Not only by that standard but the entire route goes east and west.
And US 96 goes north-south, also located in TX, of all places!
Thought of another one: Pointless multiplexes. For example, I-894 in Milwaukee is now completely cosigned with other mainline Interstate highways for its entirety. Since 2DIs > 3DIs, the 894 number now needs to go away. There's no valid reason, even when cost is factored in, for keeping it.
- The locals can still call it 894 or just start adapting to new numbers, like anywhere else that has done away with superfluous numberings such as Nashville with I-265.
- The exits should be renumbered to match I-41's mileage, with "Old Exit" panels easing the transition, like anywhere else that has done similar renumberings such as Pennsylvania and Florida. 99.9% of business advertising will be switched out during the transitionary time, especially if all they have to do is change a few characters on a website.
- If the route needs to be marked as a bypass, call it the "I-41 Milwaukee Bypass" on numerous BGS's.
- What Illinois does or does not do with I-41 is irrelevant to whether or not I-894 should be retained.
Since I-894 predated both 41 and 43 and is well known to locals as a bypass route, it's not going anywhere no matter how much people here want it to be eliminated.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on November 10, 2017, 09:11:33 PM
Since I-894 predated both 41 and 43 and is well known to locals as a bypass route, it's not going anywhere no matter how much people here want it to be eliminated.
So it is the MA 128 of Wisconsin?
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 10, 2017, 11:06:17 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on November 10, 2017, 09:11:33 PM
Since I-894 predated both 41 and 43 and is well known to locals as a bypass route, it's not going anywhere no matter how much people here want it to be eliminated.
So it is the MA 128 of Wisconsin?
Eh, kind of; for the part along I-95 anyway. I-894 is redundant for that, in its
entirety, it follows the route of I-41/43/94. The part of MA-128 NE of I-95, in this scenario, isn't really comparable.
States which still number their exits sequentially, or a combination of mileage-based & sequential.
I was in Texas last week and looked on a map considering if I should sneak up from Dallas to Durant, OK for a little casino play. When I saw that US-75, Exit 73 was near the Oklahoma border and Durant a little further north, I figured it was a 1 1/4-hour drive to the casino.
Turned out US-75's were SEQUENTIAL in an area where practically everything else was Mileage-based, and what I thought was a 75 minute trip took a bit over 2 hours each way.
I-84's sequential exits in Portland makes sense, however, as it accounts for the missing two miles of the unbuilt Mt Hood Freeway and syncs into the Columbia River Highway/Old Oregon Trail mileage.
Quote from: thenetwork on November 11, 2017, 10:26:11 AM
States which still number their exits sequentially, or a combination of mileage-based & sequential.
I was in Texas last week and looked on a map considering if I should sneak up from Dallas to Durant, OK for a little casino play. When I saw that US-75, Exit 73 was near the Oklahoma border and Durant a little further north, I figured it was a 1 1/4-hour drive to the casino.
Turned out US-75's were SEQUENTIAL in an area where practically everything else was Mileage-based, and what I thought was a 75 minute trip took a bit over 2 hours each way.
Is this a roadgeek thing to use exit numbers to figure out distances? Almost everyone uses google maps.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 11, 2017, 10:04:47 PM
Quote from: thenetwork on November 11, 2017, 10:26:11 AM
States which still number their exits sequentially, or a combination of mileage-based & sequential.
I was in Texas last week and looked on a map considering if I should sneak up from Dallas to Durant, OK for a little casino play. When I saw that US-75, Exit 73 was near the Oklahoma border and Durant a little further north, I figured it was a 1 1/4-hour drive to the casino.
Turned out US-75's were SEQUENTIAL in an area where practically everything else was Mileage-based, and what I thought was a 75 minute trip took a bit over 2 hours each way.
Is this a roadgeek thing to use exit numbers to figure out distances? Almost everyone uses google maps.
THE POINT
>>>>
YOU
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on November 11, 2017, 11:11:42 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 11, 2017, 10:04:47 PM
Quote from: thenetwork on November 11, 2017, 10:26:11 AM
States which still number their exits sequentially, or a combination of mileage-based & sequential.
I was in Texas last week and looked on a map considering if I should sneak up from Dallas to Durant, OK for a little casino play. When I saw that US-75, Exit 73 was near the Oklahoma border and Durant a little further north, I figured it was a 1 1/4-hour drive to the casino.
Turned out US-75's were SEQUENTIAL in an area where practically everything else was Mileage-based, and what I thought was a 75 minute trip took a bit over 2 hours each way.
Is this a roadgeek thing to use exit numbers to figure out distances? Almost everyone uses google maps.
THE POINT
>>>>
YOU
I get the point. Mileage based is better.
States not moving US designations onto better alignments or at least requesting an ALT US designation for the better routing is a bit of a personal peeve: examples include US 41 north of Terre Haute (effectively replaced by IN 63) and US 80 east of Columbus (really should be on GA 96 & GA 49 now).
A peeve noted by someone else that I share: GDOT's insistence on posting lengthy state highway multiplexes that would be hidden in every other state is also annoying and a waste of money; there are thousands of superfluous signs out there. God only knows how many thousands of dollars and man-hours have been wasted making and posting them over the years.
^ A similar argument could be made for why Georgia, Florida, Alabama, and Tennessee all have state routes underlying US (and Interstate) routes to begin with. Especially in Alabama and Tennessee where there is no duplication anyway (Georgia being an entirely different animal in that regard).
Quote from: kkt on November 09, 2017, 05:43:43 PM
I really wish the signage included which side of the freeway an upcoming exit is on. It doesn't help to warn me two miles in advance of my exit if I'm not sure which side I should be getting over to. Standards are better recently, but the old signs are mostly still there.
It's been part of the MUTCD for years that left exits have the tab on the left and right exits have the tab on the right.
Some states use full-width and/or centered exit tabs, though, which are useless for anything but telling the exit number.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 11, 2017, 10:04:47 PM
Quote from: thenetwork on November 11, 2017, 10:26:11 AM
States which still number their exits sequentially, or a combination of mileage-based & sequential.
I was in Texas last week and looked on a map considering if I should sneak up from Dallas to Durant, OK for a little casino play. When I saw that US-75, Exit 73 was near the Oklahoma border and Durant a little further north, I figured it was a 1 1/4-hour drive to the casino.
Turned out US-75's were SEQUENTIAL in an area where practically everything else was Mileage-based, and what I thought was a 75 minute trip took a bit over 2 hours each way.
Is this a roadgeek thing to use exit numbers to figure out distances? Almost everyone uses google maps.
Must be nice when your entire life involved the internet.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 11, 2017, 11:26:55 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on November 11, 2017, 11:11:42 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 11, 2017, 10:04:47 PM
Quote from: thenetwork on November 11, 2017, 10:26:11 AM
States which still number their exits sequentially, or a combination of mileage-based & sequential.
I was in Texas last week and looked on a map considering if I should sneak up from Dallas to Durant, OK for a little casino play. When I saw that US-75, Exit 73 was near the Oklahoma border and Durant a little further north, I figured it was a 1 1/4-hour drive to the casino.
Turned out US-75's were SEQUENTIAL in an area where practically everything else was Mileage-based, and what I thought was a 75 minute trip took a bit over 2 hours each way.
Is this a roadgeek thing to use exit numbers to figure out distances? Almost everyone uses google maps.
THE POINT
>>>>
YOU
I get the point. Mileage based is better.
No, you didn't get the point. Otherwise, MNHighwayMan wouldn't have called out on it. Just admit that you didn't get the point instead of getting all defensive.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 11, 2017, 10:04:47 PM
Quote from: thenetwork on November 11, 2017, 10:26:11 AM
States which still number their exits sequentially, or a combination of mileage-based & sequential.
I was in Texas last week and looked on a map considering if I should sneak up from Dallas to Durant, OK for a little casino play. When I saw that US-75, Exit 73 was near the Oklahoma border and Durant a little further north, I figured it was a 1 1/4-hour drive to the casino.
Turned out US-75's were SEQUENTIAL in an area where practically everything else was Mileage-based, and what I thought was a 75 minute trip took a bit over 2 hours each way.
Is this a roadgeek thing to use exit numbers to figure out distances? Almost everyone uses google maps.
It's extremely useful for several reasons. You can know exactly how far you have to go to get to your exit just by looking at mile markers, you can know exactly how far away a state line is if you're traveling south or west, and you can get a rough idea of the distance between exits. With sequential numbering, exits 4 and 5 could be 1 mile apart, or they could be 15 miles apart. In short, there's less uncertainty with mileage-based exits.
Quote from: froggie on November 12, 2017, 07:02:52 AM
^ A similar argument could be made for why Georgia, Florida, Alabama, and Tennessee all have state routes underlying US (and Interstate) routes to begin with. Especially in Alabama and Tennessee where there is no duplication anyway (Georgia being an entirely different animal in that regard).
Florida really doesn't post the underlying SR number.. the SR numbers fit the grid they are not just random like in Georgia
Z981
Plenty that I-19 is in metric that I-49 does not go all the way to downtown KC. But what really bothers me the most more than anything else by far is that obsurd an unnecessary I-41 duplex from the zoo interchange down to the Illinois state line. What were they thinking I will never understand. And we all know Illinois will never extend I-41 so it;s not like it's there for the future. I think the I-29 duplex with I-35 is stupid too but just less so. I am sure their are others but this is what came to mind.
Quote from: csw on November 06, 2017, 06:53:57 PM
Quote from: plain on November 06, 2017, 04:59:10 PM
Unnecessary roundabouts that replace perfectly fine stop signs or traffic signals
May I ask why? I can't think of any stop or signal arrangement that is more convenient than a roundabout.
Uh New Berlin WI the ones on Moorland by I-43 are a nightmare. Accidents went up more traffic then what they can handle back ups onto the freeway. Also roundabouts cost way more than stop signs. I don;t know what this has to do with the topic but I agree.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 11, 2017, 10:04:47 PM
Quote from: thenetwork on November 11, 2017, 10:26:11 AM
States which still number their exits sequentially, or a combination of mileage-based & sequential.
I was in Texas last week and looked on a map considering if I should sneak up from Dallas to Durant, OK for a little casino play. When I saw that US-75, Exit 73 was near the Oklahoma border and Durant a little further north, I figured it was a 1 1/4-hour drive to the casino.
Turned out US-75's were SEQUENTIAL in an area where practically everything else was Mileage-based, and what I thought was a 75 minute trip took a bit over 2 hours each way.
Is this a roadgeek thing to use exit numbers to figure out distances? Almost everyone uses google maps.
When the exits are numbered by mileage, you can tell how far away the exit you want is as you drive, without pulling over and getting your device out. "Ooh, I want exit 177 and I now passing exit 174; I guess I won't bother passing that slow vehicle." "Hm, 57 miles to go, I guess we can get to our destination before having lunch."
(You DO pull over before dinking with your device, don't you?)
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 12, 2017, 07:35:47 AM
Quote from: kkt on November 09, 2017, 05:43:43 PM
I really wish the signage included which side of the freeway an upcoming exit is on. It doesn't help to warn me two miles in advance of my exit if I'm not sure which side I should be getting over to. Standards are better recently, but the old signs are mostly still there.
It's been part of the MUTCD for years that left exits have the tab on the left and right exits have the tab on the right.
Some states use full-width and/or centered exit tabs, though, which are useless for anything but telling the exit number.
There are still an awful lot of exits with no indication of which side they're going to be on, and certainly not at every upcoming exit sign, just selected ones.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 11, 2017, 10:04:47 PM
Is this a roadgeek thing to use exit numbers to figure out distances? Almost everyone uses google maps.
[/quote]
Some of us were roadgeeks before Google Maps was in existence.
As others have said, it's easy to figure out how much farther you have to go on the fly with mileage-based exits. If you know you're exiting at Exit 99, and you're at mile marker 199, you know you have 100 miles to go before you exit.
The fact that there's two I-76s has always bothered me. The western one really should be I-180 as it is a textbook odd number 3DI (even though it's I-80 that exits itself).
I'm sure I'll be called anal for this one but the northern end of US 113 getting cut back to Milford, DE servering its northern connection to US 13 in Dover. Never saw a point in that. The concurrency it would have had with DE1 was pretty short.
Quote from: ekt8750 on November 12, 2017, 11:55:15 PM
The fact that there's two I-76s has always bothered me. The western one really should be I-180 as it is a textbook odd number 3DI (even though it's I-80 that exits itself).
I'm sure I'll be called anal for this one but the northern end of US 113 getting cut back to Milford, DE servering its northern connection to US 13 in Dover. Never saw a point in that. The concurrency it would have had with DE1 was pretty short.
The western I-76 would be a very long 3di.
I think if any western "repeat" interstate should be a 3di, it's I-86.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 13, 2017, 07:56:21 AM
Quote from: ekt8750 on November 12, 2017, 11:55:15 PM
The fact that there's two I-76s has always bothered me. The western one really should be I-180 as it is a textbook odd number 3DI (even though it's I-80 that exits itself).
I'm sure I'll be called anal for this one but the northern end of US 113 getting cut back to Milford, DE servering its northern connection to US 13 in Dover. Never saw a point in that. The concurrency it would have had with DE1 was pretty short.
The western I-76 would be a very long 3di.
I live 10 mins from the the southern end of I-476. Western 76 has nothing on that. Lol
Quote from: kkt on November 12, 2017, 12:19:05 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 12, 2017, 07:35:47 AM
Quote from: kkt on November 09, 2017, 05:43:43 PM
I really wish the signage included which side of the freeway an upcoming exit is on. It doesn't help to warn me two miles in advance of my exit if I'm not sure which side I should be getting over to. Standards are better recently, but the old signs are mostly still there.
It's been part of the MUTCD for years that left exits have the tab on the left and right exits have the tab on the right.
Some states use full-width and/or centered exit tabs, though, which are useless for anything but telling the exit number.
There are still an awful lot of exits with no indication of which side they're going to be on, and certainly not at every upcoming exit sign, just selected ones.
This may be a state-specific problem. Most states are pretty good about the tab left/right justification. And even without the tab, the sign should definitely say 'Left Exit 1 Mile' if the exit is on the left.
In Iowa (and other states I'm sure) overpasses without interchanges aren't marked as to which road is going over them.
Quote from: thenetwork on November 11, 2017, 10:26:11 AM
States which still number their exits sequentially, or a combination of mileage-based & sequential.
The Federal Register notice for the 2009 MUTCD included a compliance date for the remaining sequential states to convert over to mileage-based numbering. It was removed from the final version of the 2009 MUTCD. IMO, this was a serious mistake on FHWA's part.
Quote from: ekt8750 on November 13, 2017, 09:38:38 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 13, 2017, 07:56:21 AM
Quote from: ekt8750 on November 12, 2017, 11:55:15 PM
The fact that there's two I-76s has always bothered me. The western one really should be I-180 as it is a textbook odd number 3DI (even though it's I-80 that exits itself).
I'm sure I'll be called anal for this one but the northern end of US 113 getting cut back to Milford, DE servering its northern connection to US 13 in Dover. Never saw a point in that. The concurrency it would have had with DE1 was pretty short.
The western I-76 would be a very long 3di.
I live 10 mins from the the southern end of I-476. Western 76 has nothing on that. Lol
I-476 is 131 miles long. The western I-76 is 182 miles long.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 11, 2017, 11:26:55 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on November 11, 2017, 11:11:42 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 11, 2017, 10:04:47 PM
Quote from: thenetwork on November 11, 2017, 10:26:11 AM
States which still number their exits sequentially, or a combination of mileage-based & sequential.
I was in Texas last week and looked on a map considering if I should sneak up from Dallas to Durant, OK for a little casino play. When I saw that US-75, Exit 73 was near the Oklahoma border and Durant a little further north, I figured it was a 1 1/4-hour drive to the casino.
Turned out US-75's were SEQUENTIAL in an area where practically everything else was Mileage-based, and what I thought was a 75 minute trip took a bit over 2 hours each way.
Is this a roadgeek thing to use exit numbers to figure out distances? Almost everyone uses google maps.
THE POINT
>>>>
YOU
I get the point. Mileage based is better.
Wait, wait. Let's back this up a little bit.
By my calculations, it is approximately 71 miles from US-75 Exit 3 to Exit 72. So that's a variance of about two miles.
How on earth did that cause your schedule to be thrown off by almost an hour?
Quote from: vdeane on November 13, 2017, 12:50:08 PM
Quote from: ekt8750 on November 13, 2017, 09:38:38 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 13, 2017, 07:56:21 AM
Quote from: ekt8750 on November 12, 2017, 11:55:15 PM
The fact that there's two I-76s has always bothered me. The western one really should be I-180 as it is a textbook odd number 3DI (even though it's I-80 that exits itself).
I'm sure I'll be called anal for this one but the northern end of US 113 getting cut back to Milford, DE servering its northern connection to US 13 in Dover. Never saw a point in that. The concurrency it would have had with DE1 was pretty short.
The western I-76 would be a very long 3di.
I live 10 mins from the the southern end of I-476. Western 76 has nothing on that. Lol
I-476 is 131 miles long. The western I-76 is 182 miles long.
Part of the push for the designation of the western I-76 was the desire of the state of Colorado -- once their DOT got the word from AASHTO (circa 1974) about renumbering suffixed Interstate route designations -- was to get I-80S re-designated and re-signed as "I-76" as part of their 1976 statehood centennial celebration, as (a) the number 76 was specifically important to that event, and (b) a large portion of in-state settlers came in via the South Platte River, along which much of I-80N/present I-76 travels. I-76 became the first of the discontinuous even 2di's to displace a former suffixed designation, followed about 4 years later with the western I-84 and I-86, replacing I-80N and I-15W respectively.
The fact that I-17's mileage and exit numbers start at a very high number (194) instead of 0 or 1, like the rest. Sure, it may have been a holdover from the old AZ 69/AZ 79 route, but this makes absolutely no sense. (BTW, it is 146 miles long, with 340 being the last exit number.)
Quote from: Henry on November 14, 2017, 09:56:50 AM
The fact that I-17's mileage and exit numbers start at a very high number (194) instead of 0 or 1, like the rest. Sure, it may have been a holdover from the old AZ 69/AZ 79 route, but this makes absolutely no sense. (BTW, it is 146 miles long, with 340 being the last exit number.)
I always thought it had something to do with distance from the state line. All the loop freeways down in the Valley have sequential exits. I want to say AZ 87 on the Beeline was mileage based off the limited ramp exits it has also.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 14, 2017, 11:13:19 AM
Quote from: Henry on November 14, 2017, 09:56:50 AM
The fact that I-17's mileage and exit numbers start at a very high number (194) instead of 0 or 1, like the rest. Sure, it may have been a holdover from the old AZ 69/AZ 79 route, but this makes absolutely no sense. (BTW, it is 146 miles long, with 340 being the last exit number.)
I always thought it had something to do with distance from the state line. All the loop freeways down in the Valley have sequential exits. I want to say AZ 87 on the Beeline was mileage based off the limited ramp exits it has also.
Here's the AZDOT milepost map for many highways in the state. It's interesting: https://azdot.gov/docs/business/state-milepost-map.pdf?sfvrsn=0
Quote from: kurumi on November 14, 2017, 12:31:11 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 14, 2017, 11:13:19 AM
Quote from: Henry on November 14, 2017, 09:56:50 AM
The fact that I-17's mileage and exit numbers start at a very high number (194) instead of 0 or 1, like the rest. Sure, it may have been a holdover from the old AZ 69/AZ 79 route, but this makes absolutely no sense. (BTW, it is 146 miles long, with 340 being the last exit number.)
I always thought it had something to do with distance from the state line. All the loop freeways down in the Valley have sequential exits. I want to say AZ 87 on the Beeline was mileage based off the limited ramp exits it has also.
Here's the AZDOT milepost map for many highways in the state. It's interesting: https://azdot.gov/docs/business/state-milepost-map.pdf?sfvrsn=0
Looks like a large part of Apache in Eastern Maricopa County is still state maintained. I'm still
Trying to figure out the formula with the north/south mileage points in the middle of the state, they don't make much sense looking at the entire state.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on November 10, 2017, 09:11:33 PM
Since I-894 predated both 41 and 43 and is well known to locals as a bypass route, it's not going anywhere no matter how much people here want it to be eliminated.
I don't get why everyone thinks 894 not I-41 is the redundant one. The fact is I-41 is duplexed with I-94 down to the state line then it just dissapears and it will never be extended further. Now other unnecessary duplexes like Us-26 with US-101 in Oregon were eliminated years ago yet this one probably the dumbest of all was created. There is no need for I-41 south of the zoo. You still have US 41 with I-94 to give drivers a north south route so there isn't confusion. When I first heard about I-41 and it's south end at the state line I thought for sure it had to be a misprint. The I-29 duplex with I-35 in KC is another redundant one but at least that one is much much shorter. End I-41 at the zoo problem solved.
I'd truncate I-41 to end at I-43 and decommission I-894.
Quote from: vdeane on November 14, 2017, 09:12:20 PM
I'd truncate I-41 to end at I-43 and decommission I-894.
Yeah, especially since I-41 isn't going anywhere near Chicago anytime soon.
Quote from: Henry on November 15, 2017, 10:07:40 AM
Quote from: vdeane on November 14, 2017, 09:12:20 PM
I'd truncate I-41 to end at I-43 and decommission I-894.
Yeah, especially since I-41 isn't going anywhere near Chicago anytime soon.
Have they ever considered making the tri state all I-41 because I could see this working well.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 15, 2017, 11:30:15 AM
Quote from: Henry on November 15, 2017, 10:07:40 AM
Quote from: vdeane on November 14, 2017, 09:12:20 PM
I'd truncate I-41 to end at I-43 and decommission I-894.
Yeah, especially since I-41 isn't going anywhere near Chicago anytime soon.
Have they ever considered making the tri state all I-41 because I could see this working well.
Well, if you believe certain people, Illinois is the cause of the entire interstate grid system between the midwest and the east coast being screwed up.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 15, 2017, 11:30:15 AM
Quote from: Henry on November 15, 2017, 10:07:40 AM
Quote from: vdeane on November 14, 2017, 09:12:20 PM
I'd truncate I-41 to end at I-43 and decommission I-894.
Yeah, especially since I-41 isn't going anywhere near Chicago anytime soon.
Have they ever considered making the tri state all I-41 because I could see this working well.
Not really. You still would have US 41 along the shore, close enough to the Tri-State (especially near the Wisconsin line) to create the same risk of motorist confusion as with I-74/US 74 in North Carolina. I-41 works in Wisconsin because it is concurrent with US 41, just with a different and more colorful route marker. Not so much in Illinois.
As for truncating I-41 within Wisconsin, a little pointless, but no big harm either.
Quote from: oscar on November 15, 2017, 11:57:20 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 15, 2017, 11:30:15 AM
Quote from: Henry on November 15, 2017, 10:07:40 AM
Quote from: vdeane on November 14, 2017, 09:12:20 PM
I'd truncate I-41 to end at I-43 and decommission I-894.
Yeah, especially since I-41 isn't going anywhere near Chicago anytime soon.
Have they ever considered making the tri state all I-41 because I could see this working well.
Not really. You still would have US 41 along the shore, close enough to the Tri-State (especially near the Wisconsin line) to create the same risk of motorist confusion as with I-74/US 74 in North Carolina. I-41 works in Wisconsin because it is concurrent with US 41, just with a different and more colorful route marker. Not so much in Illinois.
As for truncating I-41 within Wisconsin, a little pointless, but no big harm either.
My dream is to make the Lake Shore Drive I-41 but that is never going to happen.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 15, 2017, 01:45:48 PM
Quote from: oscar on November 15, 2017, 11:57:20 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 15, 2017, 11:30:15 AM
Quote from: Henry on November 15, 2017, 10:07:40 AM
Quote from: vdeane on November 14, 2017, 09:12:20 PM
I'd truncate I-41 to end at I-43 and decommission I-894.
Yeah, especially since I-41 isn't going anywhere near Chicago anytime soon.
Have they ever considered making the tri state all I-41 because I could see this working well.
Not really. You still would have US 41 along the shore, close enough to the Tri-State (especially near the Wisconsin line) to create the same risk of motorist confusion as with I-74/US 74 in North Carolina. I-41 works in Wisconsin because it is concurrent with US 41, just with a different and more colorful route marker. Not so much in Illinois.
As for truncating I-41 within Wisconsin, a little pointless, but no big harm either.
My dream is to make the Lake Shore Drive I-41 but that is never going to happen.
It can't for the same reason the NYC parkways will never be interstates. However, unlike the NYC parkways, LSD allows buses.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 15, 2017, 11:30:15 AM
Quote from: Henry on November 15, 2017, 10:07:40 AM
Quote from: vdeane on November 14, 2017, 09:12:20 PM
I'd truncate I-41 to end at I-43 and decommission I-894.
Yeah, especially since I-41 isn't going anywhere near Chicago anytime soon.
Have they ever considered making the tri state all I-41 because I could see this working well.
I actually kinda like that -- throw back to the old days of the Tri-State when it was "Toll US 41" -- get rid of I-294 now and sign it I-41
I would call that, coming full circle
Of course, the Devil is in the Details...would that Fictional I-41 designation end @ I-80, where the Tri-State turns East along I-80 to its terminus @ I-94/IL 394? Does it end at the end of the Tri-State @ I-94/IL 394? Or do you continue the designation a couple of miles to Indianapolis Blvd/US 41 South just across the border in Indiana, and end up with a (very short) Interstate Triplex of 41/80/94?
Quote from: ilpt4u on November 15, 2017, 06:46:48 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 15, 2017, 11:30:15 AM
Quote from: Henry on November 15, 2017, 10:07:40 AM
Quote from: vdeane on November 14, 2017, 09:12:20 PM
I'd truncate I-41 to end at I-43 and decommission I-894.
Yeah, especially since I-41 isn't going anywhere near Chicago anytime soon.
Have they ever considered making the tri state all I-41 because I could see this working well.
I actually kinda like that -- throw back to the old days of the Tri-State when it was "Toll US 41" -- get rid of I-294 now and sign it I-41
I would call that, coming full circle
I would also extend it to Evansville.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 15, 2017, 06:50:40 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on November 15, 2017, 06:46:48 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 15, 2017, 11:30:15 AM
Quote from: Henry on November 15, 2017, 10:07:40 AM
Quote from: vdeane on November 14, 2017, 09:12:20 PM
I'd truncate I-41 to end at I-43 and decommission I-894.
Yeah, especially since I-41 isn't going anywhere near Chicago anytime soon.
Have they ever considered making the tri state all I-41 because I could see this working well.
I actually kinda like that -- throw back to the old days of the Tri-State when it was "Toll US 41" -- get rid of I-294 now and sign it I-41
I would call that, coming full circle
I would also extend it to Evansville.
Good ideas, but to explore them further, we have departed into Fictional territory at this point
Quote from: roadman on November 13, 2017, 10:47:38 AM
Quote from: thenetwork on November 11, 2017, 10:26:11 AM
States which still number their exits sequentially, or a combination of mileage-based & sequential.
The Federal Register notice for the 2009 MUTCD included a compliance date for the remaining sequential states to convert over to mileage-based numbering. It was removed from the final version of the 2009 MUTCD. IMO, this was a serious mistake on FHWA's part.
Agreed. Time to add it back in and stick to it, no matter how loudly the Northeast complains.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on November 05, 2017, 04:11:41 AM
Quote from: index on November 05, 2017, 02:20:49 AM
US 66 being decommissioned. It's the country's most historic, symbolic, and well-known route, only for it to be nuked from orbit in 1985. Why couldn't they just revitalize it?
As I understand it, the country's modern love affair with 66 turning it into a national icon didn't really start until after the route was axed. California and Illinois had both done away with their sections long before 1985 and the remaining six states had their section unceremoniously wiped in June of 1985.
Ahem...
1927: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillips_66
1946: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Route_66_(song)
1960: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Route_66_(TV_series)
Quote from: oscar on November 15, 2017, 11:57:20 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 15, 2017, 11:30:15 AM
Quote from: Henry on November 15, 2017, 10:07:40 AM
Quote from: vdeane on November 14, 2017, 09:12:20 PM
I'd truncate I-41 to end at I-43 and decommission I-894.
Yeah, especially since I-41 isn't going anywhere near Chicago anytime soon.
Have they ever considered making the tri state all I-41 because I could see this working well.
Not really. You still would have US 41 along the shore, close enough to the Tri-State (especially near the Wisconsin line) to create the same risk of motorist confusion as with I-74/US 74 in North Carolina. I-41 works in Wisconsin because it is concurrent with US 41, just with a different and more colorful route marker. Not so much in Illinois.
As for truncating I-41 within Wisconsin, a little pointless, but no big harm either.
Right now I-74 does that along I-77. It is cosigned up to the VA State Line and once in Virginia it is dropped. Of course that is supposed to be temporary as if and when both WV and OH decide they want to build I-74 between Cincy and Bluefield, WB it would be an active route in VA along with I-77.
However, as harmless as that is to me it wastes tax dollars signing a road that does not need to be. If I-41 ended at another place and was independent of I-94 when it did it would be fine. Even in FL where US 319 is dangled east of Apalachicola it at least serves a purpose as it allows those from GA to reach the Gulf Coast (as it ends at the Gulf of Mexico) as it would be more of a dangle (so to speak) if it ended where it first meets US 98 as its not really a major place as Apalachicola is. I-41 ends right south of the WI-IL border at basically nowhere and the US 41 and I-94 split has no significance to any tourist or motorist whatsoever.
Ending at the Zoo is more practical, as it would be just another interstate, though redundant of I-43, going between two of Wisconsin's major cities.
Quote from: roadman65 on November 18, 2017, 03:38:41 PM
Right now I-74 does that along I-77. It is cosigned up to the VA State Line and once in Virginia it is dropped. Of course that is supposed to be temporary as if and when both WV and OH decide they want to build I-74 between Cincy and Bluefield, WB it would be an active route in VA along with I-77.
That language implies that Virginia decided to "drop" the I-74 designation from I-77.
My language would infer the reverse, that N.C. added it without logical thinking, which is in fact what happened.
There are no plans in the foreseeable future to build an Interstate-standard route for I-74 in WV and OH.
Looking at all these posts, I agree about I-97. The fact that I-476 is much longer makes no sense.
I also agree about US 202. Residing in the Delaware Valley, I find it unusual that US 202 is one of the major routes in that region, yet US 2 comes nowhere near that region.
And someone also mentioned how there's no interstate along the southern part of the NJ Turnpike because it's part of the thru route from New York to Washington DC. About that, the 95 ramps are opening in less than a year, and the thru route might change as a result.
Quote from: jcn on November 23, 2017, 11:34:39 AM
Looking at all these posts, I agree about I-97. The fact that I-476 is much longer makes no sense.
I also agree about US 202. Residing in the Delaware Valley, I find it unusual that US 202 is one of the major routes in that region, yet US 2 comes nowhere near that region.
And someone also mentioned how there's no interstate along the southern part of the NJ Turnpike because it's part of the thru route from New York to Washington DC. About that, the 95 ramps are opening in less than a year, and the thru route might change as a result.
New Jersey doesn't seem at all interested in any new interstate routings of existing roads.. Atlantic City Expressway should be 76 and southern NJTP would be a good 895 or 695
Z981
Quote from: jcn on November 23, 2017, 11:34:39 AM
I also agree about US 202. Residing in the Delaware Valley, I find it unusual that US 202 is one of the major routes in that region, yet US 2 comes nowhere near that region.
US 202 is indeed an anomaly; it more or less functions as a bucolic alternative to US 1 that seems to skirt the urban areas US 1 squarely addresses. And as it curiously has its southern terminus not too far from the northern terminus of US 301, it wouldn't be too hard to imagine 202 being supplanted by 301. But at this point, there's probably a lot of localized rationales why 202 should -- and likely will -- remain where it is (a truckload of address changes in New England alone!).
I've always wondered if anyone's ever clinched US 202 in one trip? Apart from its general NE>SW direction, it always seems like a series of "SIU's" rather than a cohesive arterial.
Why US 311 still exists. It acts like a long alternate to US 220, and the routing makes no sense at all. the southern freeway portion is now part of I-74, and the northern part doesn't serve any long-distance purpose.
Quote from: fillup420 on November 25, 2017, 08:24:50 PM
Why US 311 still exists. It acts like a long alternate to US 220, and the routing makes no sense at all. the southern freeway portion is now part of I-74, and the northern part doesn't serve any long-distance purpose.
US highways do not have to be a long distance corridor.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on November 25, 2017, 10:16:05 PM
Quote from: fillup420 on November 25, 2017, 08:24:50 PM
Why US 311 still exists. It acts like a long alternate to US 220, and the routing makes no sense at all. the southern freeway portion is now part of I-74, and the northern part doesn't serve any long-distance purpose.
US highways do not have to be a long distance corridor.
US routes do have to be direct, though. (There are a few violations, like US 311 obviously, and US 1 following the coast in Connecticut and Rhode Island instead of a near-straight line from New York City to Portland, ME.)
Well, if we remove the section redundant to I-74 US 311 would be a direct route. Some might be reluctant to the fact it is far away from its implied parent US 11, but at first it did connect to it, before most of its route was eaten by US 220.
Quote from: jcn on November 23, 2017, 11:34:39 AM
Looking at all these posts, I agree about I-97. The fact that I-476 is much longer makes no sense.
I also agree about US 202. Residing in the Delaware Valley, I find it unusual that US 202 is one of the major routes in that region, yet US 2 comes nowhere near that region.
And someone also mentioned how there's no interstate along the southern part of the NJ Turnpike because it's part of the thru route from New York to Washington DC. About that, the 95 ramps are opening in less than a year, and the thru route might change as a result.
US 202 connects with US 2 at it's northern terminus though.
Quote from: Henry on November 15, 2017, 10:07:40 AM
Quote from: vdeane on November 14, 2017, 09:12:20 PM
I'd truncate I-41 to end at I-43 and decommission I-894.
Yeah, especially since I-41 isn't going anywhere near Chicago anytime soon.
I-41 will never enter Illinois other than the mile to connect it to US 41 but I'm pretty sure Illinois has no use for I-41 it would have been better to run I-55 or I-57 up to Milwaukee then have that run in I-43's spot. Also with US 41 and I-41 being the same highway there is no confusion there.
Here are mine:
-Like many of you, I dislike the duplicated interstate numbers when there are numbers available.
-New US or other route additions/extensions that don't make sense and are not direct. US 371 is an awful alternative to US 71, especially in Arkansas. I miss having LA 7. Also the extension of US 63 south of W Memphis makes a horrible zig-zaggy route
-I can't stand highways without enough mileage signs! Louisiana has major highways that rarely have mileage to upcoming cities. Honestly I think a lot of this came from the 4-laning of many US highways and signs never got replaced or updated. But going south from Alexandria, there are few mileage signs between towns. In fact, I don't even think Lake Charles is mentioned on any sign again once you leave the traffic circle interchange in Alexandria until you merge onto I-10.
-I hate when Highway overlaps are not signed. Especially when, say a lesser route, has a significant corridor on the other ends. A good example for me is the missing US 77 signs along I-35 through Dallas. US 77 has its own path in Oklahoma and is a major highway south of Waxahachie and Waco. US 62 in NW Arkansas is another.
-Can't stand the Bay St Louis/Pascagoula signs along the gulf coast for I-10. Leave the destinations as New Orleans and Mobile or add Gulfport.
iPhone
I can't see why now Easton is used on I-78 out of NJ. Yes originally it used US 22 between the two states before NJ and PA completed I-78 between Exit 3 in NJ and Khunsville, PA in 1990. Easton is a major city where US 22 goes through at the NJ-PA State Line and is a great point of reference, but now I-78 bypasses Easton to the south and of course Allentown is the third largest city in PA and should be mentioned even from NYC.
In fact the NJ Turnpike now uses Allentown on a mileage sign along I-78 in Jersey City and ignores Easton altogether.