This thread is intended to be a complete list of highways with the same number that intersect. Interstates that "turn into" state highways like I-440 and AR 440 do not count. I-41 and US 41 do not count either. Here's a start.
US 27/GA 27
US 70/TX 70
I-74/US 74
US 360/VA 360
US 287/MT 287
US 95/AZ 95
I-64/IN 64
"Almost"
US 59/AR 59
US 30/UT 30
US 89/WY 89
Which ones am I forgetting? Do CO 24, CO 36 and CO 40 still exist, and do they meet their respective US highways?
Am I right to assume that suffixes do not count? Example Interstate 35W and 35 E.
In Oregon there is a near miss between I 82 and OR 82. Although they are 50 miles apart, in the Origional interstate plan, I 84 was to be signed as I 82 and OR 82 already existed at the time. I'm already surprised to see this many intersections.
NY 90 crosses over I-90, but there is no interchange.
There's a few states where this isn't possible. Washington and Utah come to mind. I thought Oregon was the same way, but ^^ evidently not.
I-20/GA 20
Pretty sure we've had this thread before.
Quote from: froggie on December 06, 2017, 09:08:34 AM
Pretty sure we've had this thread before.
Possibly more than once...
Here is a more recent iteration: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=20643.0
Now we have two threads with the same subject intersecting in a forum...
Quote from: bugo on December 06, 2017, 02:16:20 AM
I-74/US 74
I'm not sure where these intersect. I-74 is a mess in NC. The segment of it I was on last year was mostly concurrent with I-73 and US 220, making the number completely unnecessary. A few days later, I was on US 1 heading to US 74 and there was NO I-74 signage there. From the maps I've seen, I haven't seen anywhere where I-74 and US 74 cross or split. I-74 just randomly shows up in various places. NC is doing us no favors by signing it in broken segments.
That said, it's also I-73, and it intersects NC 73 west of the Sandhills area, so that one can be added.
Quote from: Super Mateo on December 07, 2017, 03:42:29 PM
Quote from: bugo on December 06, 2017, 02:16:20 AM
I-74/US 74
I'm not sure where these intersect. I-74 is a mess in NC. The segment of it I was on last year was mostly concurrent with I-73 and US 220, making the number completely unnecessary. A few days later, I was on US 1 heading to US 74 and there was NO I-74 signage there. From the maps I've seen, I haven't seen anywhere where I-74 and US 74 cross or split. I-74 just randomly shows up in various places. NC is doing us no favors by signing it in broken segments.
That said, it's also I-73, and it intersects NC 73 west of the Sandhills area, so that one can be added.
I-74/US 74 intersects US 74 Bus and US 74 ALT all at the same interchange. There is no one angle to see all 4 shields but here it is:
https://goo.gl/maps/pN5qNkTnaJn
Quote from: jakeroot on December 06, 2017, 02:59:19 AM
There's a few states where this isn't possible. Washington and Utah come to mind. I thought Oregon was the same way, but ^^ evidently not.
In the days before the Interstate system, it was supposed to be a single number for a single type. Older versions of the highway commission document "Descriptions of OR and US routes" stated that Oregon Routes 228, 230 and 297 were not to be issued so as to reserve the numbers for potential US route expansions. Only those numbers were reserved because Oregon's secondary route system only used 2xx numbers at the time. Of course, both OR-228 and OR-230 were assigned in that same document. IIRC after US-26 was extended into Oregon and US-28 was deprecated, the number changed to OR-226/US-226 that was reserved. I'll have to dig out the documents when I have more time and extract the exact text to post here.
Oregon also has about as far of a miss as you can get within the state with I-205 and OR-205.
I-695 and MD 695 is a strange case. Google Maps and Apple Maps show a MD 695 on Broening Highway that leads to Dundalk Marine Terminal, but it officially known as MD 695A. Meanwhile, MD 695 is the official designation of I-695 between the northern junction of I-95 and I-97.
US-360 and VA-360 famously (amongst roadgeeks) meet at an intersection where the signage has auxiliary "US" and "STATE" signage.
US 95 and AZ 95 meet at I-10 in Quartzsite AZ.
A future instance is I-69 and US 69 around Lufkin, TX.
Quote from: Henry on December 08, 2017, 08:55:00 AM
A future instance is I-69 and US 69 around Lufkin, TX.
Which is against interstate rules. I remember reading that Interstates and US highways with the same number can't be in the same state. I 69 was amusing enough before but this gives it a little extra value.
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned US 1 and A1A.
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on December 08, 2017, 11:42:57 AM
Quote from: Henry on December 08, 2017, 08:55:00 AM
A future instance is I-69 and US 69 around Lufkin, TX.
Which is against interstate rules. I remember reading that Interstates and US highways with the same number can't be in the same state. I 69 was amusing enough before but this gives it a little extra value.
I-24 and US-24 in Illinois say hello, even though they're in different parts of the state.
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on December 08, 2017, 11:42:57 AM
Quote from: Henry on December 08, 2017, 08:55:00 AM
A future instance is I-69 and US 69 around Lufkin, TX.
Which is against interstate rules. I remember reading that Interstates and US highways with the same number can't be in the same state. I 69 was amusing enough before but this gives it a little extra value.
Tell that to Wisconsin.
I-64 and IN 64 intersect
I-265 and IN 265 are connecting segments of the same highway
Quote from: kphoger on December 08, 2017, 01:44:51 PM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on December 08, 2017, 11:42:57 AM
Quote from: Henry on December 08, 2017, 08:55:00 AM
A future instance is I-69 and US 69 around Lufkin, TX.
Which is against interstate rules. I remember reading that Interstates and US highways with the same number can't be in the same state. I 69 was amusing enough before but this gives it a little extra value.
Tell that to Wisconsin.
who took the cue from North Carolina.
Quote from: Big John on December 08, 2017, 05:35:18 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 08, 2017, 01:44:51 PM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on December 08, 2017, 11:42:57 AM
Quote from: Henry on December 08, 2017, 08:55:00 AM
A future instance is I-69 and US 69 around Lufkin, TX.
Which is against interstate rules. I remember reading that Interstates and US highways with the same number can't be in the same state. I 69 was amusing enough before but this gives it a little extra value.
Tell that to Wisconsin.
who took the cue from North Carolina.
IL could have expanded it first beyond US 24 and I-24. US 51 would have been just fine, grid-wise (or at least close enough), as I-51 north of Bloomington-Normal into Wisconsin, in lieu of I-39. 20/20 hindsight
Quote from: jakeroot on December 06, 2017, 02:59:19 AM
There's a few states where this isn't possible. Washington and Utah come to mind. I thought Oregon was the same way, but ^^ evidently not.
Also California and Massachusetts.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on December 08, 2017, 10:52:20 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 06, 2017, 02:59:19 AM
There's a few states where this isn't possible. Washington and Utah come to mind. I thought Oregon was the same way, but ^^ evidently not.
Also California and Massachusetts.
Yes and no for Massachusetts. The only exception to the no duplication rule in MA is I-295 and MA 295. Of course, they're at opposite ends of the state and both are continuations of routes from another state. CT, RI, VT, ME, and NJ have no duplication at all. NH only has 1: US/NH 4 as the result of a continuation of ME 4, and they come within 5 miles of each other. PA only has 3 duplicates (86, 99, and 380); the first 2 were the result of interstates that came much later, and the last one are routes that are over 300 miles apart. DE only has 1 exception that qualifies (US/DE 202 doesn't): US 9 and DE 9.
A few states like MN and WI had non-duplication policies until specific instances came up; here it was MN 62 (the two are about 100 miles apart) and in WI it was I-39 coexisting with WIS 39 separated by about 40 miles.
Quote from: cabiness42 on December 08, 2017, 03:42:52 PM
I-64 and IN 64 intersect
I-265 and IN 265 are connecting segments of the same highway
There are a few of these signs posted on US 41 to avoid confusion between the two 64s. https://goo.gl/maps/vj9FTDE1qiR2
And heading the other way..... https://goo.gl/maps/NNeNTaSAGPU2
I-42 & NC-42 will cross once I-shields start popping up on US-70 near Clayton.
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on December 08, 2017, 11:42:57 AM
Quote from: Henry on December 08, 2017, 08:55:00 AM
A future instance is I-69 and US 69 around Lufkin, TX.
Which is against interstate rules. I remember reading that Interstates and US highways with the same number can't be in the same state. I 69 was amusing enough before but this gives it a little extra value.
It is sort of like a foursome
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on December 08, 2017, 11:42:57 AM
Quote from: Henry on December 08, 2017, 08:55:00 AM
A future instance is I-69 and US 69 around Lufkin, TX.
Which is against interstate rules. I remember reading that Interstates and US highways with the same number can't be in the same state. I 69 was amusing enough before but this gives it a little extra value.
It's more what you'd call guidelines than an actual rule.
Quote from: GaryV on December 12, 2017, 04:24:39 PM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on December 08, 2017, 11:42:57 AM
Quote from: Henry on December 08, 2017, 08:55:00 AM
A future instance is I-69 and US 69 around Lufkin, TX.
Which is against interstate rules. I remember reading that Interstates and US highways with the same number can't be in the same state. I 69 was amusing enough before but this gives it a little extra value.
It's more what you'd call guidelines than an actual rule.
Is it even a guideline?
Hurricane Rex: Where did you read that?
I-59 and Tuscaloosa County (AL) Road have an interchange at Exit 86 between Birmingham and Tuscaloosa, but there are no CR 59 shields on I-20/59.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on December 09, 2017, 01:02:18 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on December 08, 2017, 10:52:20 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 06, 2017, 02:59:19 AM
There's a few states where this isn't possible. Washington and Utah come to mind. I thought Oregon was the same way, but ^^ evidently not.
Also California and Massachusetts.
Yes and no for Massachusetts. The only exception to the no duplication rule in MA is I-295 and MA 295. Of course, they're at opposite ends of the state and both are continuations of routes from another state. CT, RI, VT, ME, and NJ have no duplication at all. NH only has 1: US/NH 4 as the result of a continuation of ME 4, and they come within 5 miles of each other. PA only has 3 duplicates (86, 99, and 380); the first 2 were the result of interstates that came much later, and the last one are routes that are over 300 miles apart. DE only has 1 exception that qualifies (US/DE 202 doesn't): US 9 and DE 9.
Also "yes and no" for California. They have a tendency to label future/potential interstate extensions with state route designations. SR-710, SR-215, SR-110, and SR-15 come to mind, all now (or previously) being duplicates of existing interstate designations. That said, California (like Washington) uses state route designations for all routes, so technically these aren't duplicates, as each is legally one continuous (or discontinuous route) with some different shields. So, the 15, 110, or 710 would never intersect themselves. And there would never be a State Route 5 paralleling I-5.
Quote from: jakeroot on December 13, 2017, 02:18:47 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on December 09, 2017, 01:02:18 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on December 08, 2017, 10:52:20 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 06, 2017, 02:59:19 AM
There's a few states where this isn't possible. Washington and Utah come to mind. I thought Oregon was the same way, but ^^ evidently not.
Also California and Massachusetts.
Yes and no for Massachusetts. The only exception to the no duplication rule in MA is I-295 and MA 295. Of course, they're at opposite ends of the state and both are continuations of routes from another state. CT, RI, VT, ME, and NJ have no duplication at all. NH only has 1: US/NH 4 as the result of a continuation of ME 4, and they come within 5 miles of each other. PA only has 3 duplicates (86, 99, and 380); the first 2 were the result of interstates that came much later, and the last one are routes that are over 300 miles apart. DE only has 1 exception that qualifies (US/DE 202 doesn't): US 9 and DE 9.
Also "yes and no" for California. They have a tendency to label future/potential interstate extensions with state route designations. SR-710, SR-215, SR-110, and SR-15 come to mind, all now (or previously) being duplicates of existing interstate designations. That said, California (like Washington) uses state route designations for all routes, so technically these aren't duplicates, as each is legally one continuous (or discontinuous route) with some different shields. So, the 15, 110, or 710 would never intersect themselves. And there would never be a State Route 5 paralleling I-5.
Or 238....
I-255/IL 255 if that counts.
Quote from: ColossalBlocks on December 13, 2017, 01:05:38 PM
I-255/IL 255 if that counts.
Did you even read the OP?
Quote from: bugo on December 06, 2017, 02:16:20 AM
Interstates that "turn into" state highways like I-440 and AR 440 do not count.
Quote from: dmr37 on December 12, 2017, 12:31:10 PM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on December 08, 2017, 11:42:57 AM
Quote from: Henry on December 08, 2017, 08:55:00 AM
A future instance is I-69 and US 69 around Lufkin, TX.
Which is against interstate rules. I remember reading that Interstates and US highways with the same number can't be in the same state. I 69 was amusing enough before but this gives it a little extra value.
It is sort of like a foursome
[emoji6]
Z981
Quote from: Charles2 on December 12, 2017, 08:01:52 PM
I-59 and Tuscaloosa County (AL) Road have an interchange at Exit 86 between Birmingham and Tuscaloosa, but there are no CR 59 shields on I-20/59.
Since you mention that one, the I-20/59 interchange at Exit 23 (near Epes) is signed as Sumter CR 20.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 13, 2017, 07:29:22 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 13, 2017, 02:18:47 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on December 09, 2017, 01:02:18 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on December 08, 2017, 10:52:20 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 06, 2017, 02:59:19 AM
There's a few states where this isn't possible. Washington and Utah come to mind. I thought Oregon was the same way, but ^^ evidently not.
Also California and Massachusetts.
Yes and no for Massachusetts. The only exception to the no duplication rule in MA is I-295 and MA 295. Of course, they're at opposite ends of the state and both are continuations of routes from another state. CT, RI, VT, ME, and NJ have no duplication at all. NH only has 1: US/NH 4 as the result of a continuation of ME 4, and they come within 5 miles of each other. PA only has 3 duplicates (86, 99, and 380); the first 2 were the result of interstates that came much later, and the last one are routes that are over 300 miles apart. DE only has 1 exception that qualifies (US/DE 202 doesn't): US 9 and DE 9.
Also "yes and no" for California. They have a tendency to label future/potential interstate extensions with state route designations. SR-710, SR-215, SR-110, and SR-15 come to mind, all now (or previously) being duplicates of existing interstate designations. That said, California (like Washington) uses state route designations for all routes, so technically these aren't duplicates, as each is legally one continuous (or discontinuous route) with some different shields. So, the 15, 110, or 710 would never intersect themselves. And there would never be a State Route 5 paralleling I-5.
Or 238....
Sure. I'm just more readily familiar with Southern California than other parts of California.
In Baja California, state highway 2 intersects federal highway 2 at two points–once near Mexicali and once near San Luis RÃo Colorado.
GSV of a sign gantry at the eastern junctionhere (https://goo.gl/maps/9BpXnUeVywo)
GSV of a sign gantry at the western junction here (https://goo.gl/maps/6SBDycKaXwF2)
Route number confirmed on SCT website (http://www.sct.gob.mx/fileadmin/DireccionesGrales/DGST/Datos-Viales-2017/02_BAJA_CALIFORNIA.pdf) (.pdf warning)
In Baja California Sur, state highway 1 intersects federal highway 1 in the town of Ciudad Insurgentes. This is a T-intersections; and federal highway 1 (the Trans-peninsular Highway) makes the bend. Unfortunately, all sign assemblies I could find on GSV have errors–either using all federal blanks or lacking the number inside the state blank. I note also that Google Maps incorrectly identifies state highway 1 as another iteration of federal highway 1, apparently relying on street view of error signs.
Routing confirmed on SCT website (http://www.sct.gob.mx/fileadmin/DireccionesGrales/DGST/Datos-Viales-2017/03_BAJA_CALIFORNIA_SUR.pdf) (.pdf warning)
Quote from: jakeroot on December 13, 2017, 01:21:21 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 13, 2017, 07:29:22 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 13, 2017, 02:18:47 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on December 09, 2017, 01:02:18 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on December 08, 2017, 10:52:20 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 06, 2017, 02:59:19 AM
There's a few states where this isn't possible. Washington and Utah come to mind. I thought Oregon was the same way, but ^^ evidently not.
Also California and Massachusetts.
Yes and no for Massachusetts. The only exception to the no duplication rule in MA is I-295 and MA 295. Of course, they're at opposite ends of the state and both are continuations of routes from another state. CT, RI, VT, ME, and NJ have no duplication at all. NH only has 1: US/NH 4 as the result of a continuation of ME 4, and they come within 5 miles of each other. PA only has 3 duplicates (86, 99, and 380); the first 2 were the result of interstates that came much later, and the last one are routes that are over 300 miles apart. DE only has 1 exception that qualifies (US/DE 202 doesn't): US 9 and DE 9.
Also "yes and no" for California. They have a tendency to label future/potential interstate extensions with state route designations. SR-710, SR-215, SR-110, and SR-15 come to mind, all now (or previously) being duplicates of existing interstate designations. That said, California (like Washington) uses state route designations for all routes, so technically these aren't duplicates, as each is legally one continuous (or discontinuous route) with some different shields. So, the 15, 110, or 710 would never intersect themselves. And there would never be a State Route 5 paralleling I-5.
Or 238....
Sure. I'm just more readily familiar with Southern California than other parts of California.
Interesting to consider the point you made often doesn't come up often. As far as the legislature is concerned stuff like 238, 210, 15, etc are presently continuous routes, what kind isn't relavent. That's how things like I-238 happen out here.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 13, 2017, 03:26:29 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 13, 2017, 01:21:21 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 13, 2017, 07:29:22 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 13, 2017, 02:18:47 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on December 09, 2017, 01:02:18 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on December 08, 2017, 10:52:20 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 06, 2017, 02:59:19 AM
There's a few states where this isn't possible. Washington and Utah come to mind. I thought Oregon was the same way, but ^^ evidently not.
Also California and Massachusetts.
Yes and no for Massachusetts. The only exception to the no duplication rule in MA is I-295 and MA 295. Of course, they're at opposite ends of the state and both are continuations of routes from another state. CT, RI, VT, ME, and NJ have no duplication at all. NH only has 1: US/NH 4 as the result of a continuation of ME 4, and they come within 5 miles of each other. PA only has 3 duplicates (86, 99, and 380); the first 2 were the result of interstates that came much later, and the last one are routes that are over 300 miles apart. DE only has 1 exception that qualifies (US/DE 202 doesn't): US 9 and DE 9.
Also "yes and no" for California. They have a tendency to label future/potential interstate extensions with state route designations. SR-710, SR-215, SR-110, and SR-15 come to mind, all now (or previously) being duplicates of existing interstate designations. That said, California (like Washington) uses state route designations for all routes, so technically these aren't duplicates, as each is legally one continuous (or discontinuous route) with some different shields. So, the 15, 110, or 710 would never intersect themselves. And there would never be a State Route 5 paralleling I-5.
Or 238....
Sure. I'm just more readily familiar with Southern California than other parts of California.
Interesting to consider the point you made often doesn't come up often. As far as the legislature is concerned stuff like 238, 210, 15, etc are presently continuous routes, what kind isn't relavent. That's how things like I-238 happen out here.
Utah used to do this with route 163, it followed US 163 but it continued through a US 191 concurrency and became UT 163, which went southeast to CO. It may have been in case they ever wanted apply to AASHTO to extend US 163 east. Eventually, UDOT decided the confusion was more trouble than that future possibility was worth, and so they changed UT 163 to 162.
According to the SCT website (http://www.sct.gob.mx/fileadmin/DireccionesGrales/DGST/Datos-Viales-2017/08_CHIHUAHUA.pdf) (.pdf warning), the free road between Jiménez and Camargo, Chihuahua (https://goo.gl/maps/KLoDgqmtANQ2), is state highway 49–which means it qualifies for this thread because its southern terminus is at federal highway 49. However, every sign gantry I can find on GSV has it as state highway 69, which is also how Google and OSM and Bing Maps number it. Not sure what to make of that.
FWIW, Mapquest thinks it's number 329 for some reason.............
Edit to add: The official SCT state map of Chihuahua (2014 edition) confirms that the number is indeed 49.
(https://i.imgur.com/elw5V6a.png)
FL 17 and US 17 in Haines City.
https://www.google.com/maps/@28.1066015,-81.6241152,3a,72.4y,82.09h,94.24t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sI593WWNr6Bf1MXWCm_lCEw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Loop 762 ends at FM 762 in Richmond, Texas.
I just found a historic example. WY 287 was a shortcut for US 287 traffic. It's now a part of US 287.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4693/38241097095_ee85e142ce_c.jpg)
Quote from: bugo on December 17, 2017, 04:38:15 PM
Loop 762 ends at FM 762 in Richmond, Texas.
Reference? I don't see any mention of Loop-762 on the
TxDOT website (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/default.aspx).
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4687/38265182285_df4c930232_o.png)
This is interesting. I can find signs for Loop-762 in several locations on GSV. But, in searching the TxDOT website by route number, FM-762 is the only one that contains a file. The only references to Loop-762 I can find on TxDOT pages are related to improvement studies for US-90-Alt. Where the heck did this route come from? Is it even an official highway?
Does QC 132 count? It intersects itself. (MA 127 used to.)
Quote from: kphoger on December 19, 2017, 01:58:37 PM
This is interesting. I can find signs for Loop-762 in several locations on GSV. But, in searching the TxDOT website by route number, FM-762 is the only one that contains a file. The only references to Loop-762 I can find on TxDOT pages are related to improvement studies for US-90-Alt. Where the heck did this route come from? Is it even an official highway?
I found this on the Texas Highway Designation File website:
QuoteMinute Order 053437, dated 08/27/1963, Adm. Cir. 146-1963, dated 10/01/1963
From US 59 in Richmond, southeastward to Crabb, then southward to FM 1462, with a spur connection of approximately 0.7 mile in Richmond eastward along Austin Street and northward on 2nd Street to US 59, a total distance of approximately 22.0 miles. (Ft. Bend County) Spur connection in Richmond added.
Apparently it is a spur from FM 762. What is listed as "US 59" is now Alt US 90.
Quote from: bugo on December 19, 2017, 03:06:30 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 19, 2017, 01:58:37 PM
This is interesting. I can find signs for Loop-762 in several locations on GSV. But, in searching the TxDOT website by route number, FM-762 is the only one that contains a file. The only references to Loop-762 I can find on TxDOT pages are related to improvement studies for US-90-Alt. Where the heck did this route come from? Is it even an official highway?
I found this on the Texas Highway Designation File website:
QuoteMinute Order 053437, dated 08/27/1963, Adm. Cir. 146-1963, dated 10/01/1963
From US 59 in Richmond, southeastward to Crabb, then southward to FM 1462, with a spur connection of approximately 0.7 mile in Richmond eastward along Austin Street and northward on 2nd Street to US 59, a total distance of approximately 22.0 miles. (Ft. Bend County) Spur connection in Richmond added.
Apparently it is a spur from FM 762. What is listed as "US 59" is now Alt US 90.
So then, are those Loop-762 signs errors?
Should this road instead be the 4th in Texas to have banner FM shields (Business-762)?
Since the OP didn't specifically exclude them, any mainline route and its bannered auxiliaries :bigass:.
In this side of the Atlantic, N-629 and CL-629 are concurrent for a few km. Both inherited different sections of C-629.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3887/14196582390_2ab4e33e1d_z_d.jpg)
Linden, TX
No photo, but US 62 intersects Washington County 62 near Prairie Grove, AR
Surprised this one has yet to be mentioned...
I-530 and AR 530 in Pine Bluff, Arkansas
Quote from: ilpt4u on December 20, 2017, 08:06:33 PM
Surprised this one has yet to be mentioned...
I-530 and AR 530 in Pine Bluff, Arkansas
Good catch!
I-283 and PA 283.
According to Google Maps, MD 695 has an exit off I-695 in Baltimore at the Francis Scott Key Bridge...
However, when I checked GSV, the BGS for Exit 44/Broening Hwy does not reference MD 695 nor did I find reassurance Shields, so I'm not sure if the MD 695 designation is legit. If anyone familiar with Baltimore roads wants to "yeay" or "nay" feel free
Quote from: ilpt4u on December 21, 2017, 07:29:07 PM
According to Google Maps, MD 695 has an exit off I-695 in Baltimore at the Francis Scott Key Bridge...
However, when I checked GSV, the BGS for Exit 44/Broening Hwy does not reference MD 695 nor did I find reassurance Shields, so I'm not sure if the MD 695 designation is legit. If anyone familiar with Baltimore roads wants to "yeay" or "nay" feel free
MD-695 was formerly signed as such (a Google search should find some images of MD-695 shields and signs) when the Francis Scott Key Bridge (FSK) opened in about 1977. The Maryland Transportation Authority (MDTA) and the Maryland Department of Transportation/State Highway Administration (MDOT/SHA) now sign all of the Baltimore Beltway as I-695, but that is really not correct.
One reason may be that the approaches to the FSK Bridge were originally Super-2 roads (the bridge itself has always been four lanes divided) but all of MD-695 is now at least 4 lanes with a median strip or median barrier.
The MDOT/SHA Highway Location Reference (HLR) is canon in such things, except in Baltimore City, where MDOT/SHA does not maintain anything (but MDTA does). MDOT/SHA maintains digital files for numbered routes even in the city, but does not usually publish them.
In Anne Arundel County (south or west of the bridge), MD-695 is shown as running from the Baltimore City/Anne Arundel County border at Curtis Creek to the I-97 (Glen Burnie Bypass) interchange for about 2.5 miles.
In Baltimore City, where I do not have an HLR (one has been published by MDOT/SHA, but not recently), MD-695 covers about 3 miles from Curtis Bay to the FSK (there's a short section of the FSK that is over waters in Anne Arundel County which I am not including here).
In Baltimore County, MD-695 runs from (roughly) the top of the FSK to the interchange at I-95 for about 13.7 miles.
So MD-695
is part of the state's highway network, and is a little over 19 miles long. Mike Pruett's excellent MDRoads site (http://www.mdroads.com/routes/680-699.html) has it at about 19.37 miles, which seems reasonable to me (and I believe he has a copy of a Baltimore City HLR).
Note also that there are (unsigned) spurs of MD-695 (MD-695A, MD-695B and MD-695C) which I am not including in the discussion (but Mike does mention on his site).
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on December 08, 2017, 08:53:56 AM
US 95 and AZ 95 meet at I-10 in Quartzsite AZ.
[/quoteQuote from: KeithE4Phx on December 08, 2017, 08:53:56 AM
US 95 and AZ 95 meet at I-10 in Quartzsite AZ.
Also In Arizona
AZ 68 Meets Mohave County Route 68 North of Bullhead City
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 08, 2017, 12:06:40 PM
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned US 1 and A1A.
QuoteThe road was assigned the number 1 in the 1945 renumbering, mostly replacing the former State Road 140 designation. The number reflected its location in the new grid as the easternmost major north—south road. About a year and a half later, in November 1946, the State Road Board resolved to renumber the route due to confusion with the parallel U.S. Highway 1. The new designation, A1A, was chosen to keep the number 1 in its place in the grid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_State_Road_A1A (researched by me)
Quote from: kphoger on December 19, 2017, 03:28:18 PM
Quote from: bugo on December 19, 2017, 03:06:30 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 19, 2017, 01:58:37 PM
This is interesting. I can find signs for Loop-762 in several locations on GSV. But, in searching the TxDOT website by route number, FM-762 is the only one that contains a file. The only references to Loop-762 I can find on TxDOT pages are related to improvement studies for US-90-Alt. Where the heck did this route come from? Is it even an official highway?
I found this on the Texas Highway Designation File website:
QuoteMinute Order 053437, dated 08/27/1963, Adm. Cir. 146-1963, dated 10/01/1963
From US 59 in Richmond, southeastward to Crabb, then southward to FM 1462, with a spur connection of approximately 0.7 mile in Richmond eastward along Austin Street and northward on 2nd Street to US 59, a total distance of approximately 22.0 miles. (Ft. Bend County) Spur connection in Richmond added.
Apparently it is a spur from FM 762. What is listed as "US 59" is now Alt US 90.
So then, are those Loop-762 signs errors?
Should this road instead be the 4th in Texas to have banner FM shields (Business-762)?
FM loops and spurs are all deliberately signed using normal loop/spur shields.
This may be stretching it, but US 62 intersects Washington County 62 near Prairie Grove, AR
Quote from: US71 on January 08, 2018, 09:17:26 PM
This may be stretching it, but US 62 intersects Washington County 62 near Prairie Grove, AR
Why would it be stretching it?
Quote from: US71 on January 08, 2018, 09:17:26 PM
This may be stretching it, but US 62 intersects Washington County 62 near Prairie Grove, AR
I didn't think about including county roads. US 33 intersects CR 33 just south of Goshen, IN, although in Indiana, county roads aren't considered highways so probably does not qualify.
This is a little bit more blurry, because Tennessee Highway 27 isn't signed all that well, and the route doesn't even have its own Wikipedia page (at least not yet), but it is marked on Google Maps (and other sites such as Bing Maps). However, I know that from the old, local paper maps I engulfed myself in as a young kid, it showed TN SR 27 as a road that was concurrent with US 27 from the GA Line all the way to north of the Tennessee River, and then it split off with US 127, and then it split off of that as well and headed west and then south, traversing some of the Cumberland Plateau. If this was in fact accurate, then this might count for the purposes of this thread.
Quote from: kphoger on December 12, 2017, 04:26:48 PM
Quote from: GaryV on December 12, 2017, 04:24:39 PM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on December 08, 2017, 11:42:57 AM
Quote from: Henry on December 08, 2017, 08:55:00 AM
A future instance is I-69 and US 69 around Lufkin, TX.
Which is against interstate rules. I remember reading that Interstates and US highways with the same number can't be in the same state. I 69 was amusing enough before but this gives it a little extra value.
It's more what you'd call guidelines than an actual rule.
Is it even a guideline?
Hurricane Rex: Where did you read that?
I could've sworn that I myself had heard that that was the case multiple times on this forum before. :hmmm:
Quote from: NE2 on January 08, 2018, 05:47:32 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 19, 2017, 03:28:18 PM
Quote from: bugo on December 19, 2017, 03:06:30 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 19, 2017, 01:58:37 PM
This is interesting. I can find signs for Loop-762 in several locations on GSV. But, in searching the TxDOT website by route number, FM-762 is the only one that contains a file. The only references to Loop-762 I can find on TxDOT pages are related to improvement studies for US-90-Alt. Where the heck did this route come from? Is it even an official highway?
I found this on the Texas Highway Designation File website:
QuoteMinute Order 053437, dated 08/27/1963, Adm. Cir. 146-1963, dated 10/01/1963
From US 59 in Richmond, southeastward to Crabb, then southward to FM 1462, with a spur connection of approximately 0.7 mile in Richmond eastward along Austin Street and northward on 2nd Street to US 59, a total distance of approximately 22.0 miles. (Ft. Bend County) Spur connection in Richmond added.
Apparently it is a spur from FM 762. What is listed as "US 59" is now Alt US 90.
So then, are those Loop-762 signs errors?
Should this road instead be the 4th in Texas to have banner FM shields (Business-762)?
FM loops and spurs are all deliberately signed using normal loop/spur shields.
Except for the ones that aren't, I guess ? ? ?
Business FM-1187
DOT designation (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/hwy/BF/BF1187C.htm)
GSV of a banner FM shield (https://goo.gl/maps/ruJh63szYmS2)
Business FM-1431
DOT designation (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/hwy/BF/BF1431J.htm)
GSV of it not being signed at all, in favor of the county road it leads to (https://goo.gl/maps/A5h3S1f4RnB2)
Business FM-1960
DOT designation (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/hwy/BF/BF1960A.htm)
GSV of an FM shield with "BUSINESS" in the corner (https://goo.gl/maps/EqXLZZyHNEE2)
GSV of a white square with "BUSINESS" at the top (https://goo.gl/maps/kFM3ggsmLLs)
If you're counting county roads, Polk CR 88 ends at AR 88 in Ink, Arkansas.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on December 21, 2017, 12:32:54 PM
I-283 and PA 283.
Though SB 283 crosses itself, that's not an intersection. PA 283 is an extension of I-283.
Quote from: bugo on January 10, 2018, 07:19:18 PM
If you're counting county roads, Polk CR 88 ends at AR 88 in Ink, Arkansas.
I was under the impression that at least one of the two had to be a US or interstate route.
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on January 10, 2018, 11:18:36 AM
Quote from: kphoger on December 12, 2017, 04:26:48 PM
Quote from: GaryV on December 12, 2017, 04:24:39 PM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on December 08, 2017, 11:42:57 AM
Quote from: Henry on December 08, 2017, 08:55:00 AM
A future instance is I-69 and US 69 around Lufkin, TX.
Which is against interstate rules. I remember reading that Interstates and US highways with the same number can't be in the same state. I 69 was amusing enough before but this gives it a little extra value.
It's more what you'd call guidelines than an actual rule.
Is it even a guideline?
Hurricane Rex: Where did you read that?
I could've sworn that I myself had heard that that was the case multiple times on this forum before. :hmmm:
I thought that was the reason there is no I-50 or I-60.
Quote from: webny99 on January 10, 2018, 10:03:39 PM
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on January 10, 2018, 11:18:36 AM
Quote from: kphoger on December 12, 2017, 04:26:48 PM
Quote from: GaryV on December 12, 2017, 04:24:39 PM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on December 08, 2017, 11:42:57 AM
Quote from: Henry on December 08, 2017, 08:55:00 AM
A future instance is I-69 and US 69 around Lufkin, TX.
Which is against interstate rules. I remember reading that Interstates and US highways with the same number can't be in the same state. I 69 was amusing enough before but this gives it a little extra value.
It's more what you'd call guidelines than an actual rule.
Is it even a guideline?
Hurricane Rex: Where did you read that?
I could've sworn that I myself had heard that that was the case multiple times on this forum before. :hmmm:
I thought that was the reason there is no I-50 or I-60.
I thought it was a rule at first, with the
only exception being I-24 and US 24 in Illinois. Then came I-74 and I-41, and now I-69.
Quote from: 1 on January 10, 2018, 10:06:42 PM
I thought it was a rule at first, with the only exception being I-24 and US 24 in Illinois. Then came I-74 and I-41, and now I-69.
And now I-49.
Quote from: webny99 on January 10, 2018, 10:03:39 PM
I was under the impression that at least one of the two had to be a US or interstate route.
It was initially, but somebody mentioned a county road.
Quote from: bugo on January 11, 2018, 12:13:19 AM
Quote from: webny99 on January 10, 2018, 10:03:39 PM
I was under the impression that at least one of the two had to be a US or interstate route.
It was initially, but somebody mentioned a county road.
Oh. Didn't realize you were actually the OP anyways :-D Never mind then.
We don't sign county routes around here, so allowing them doesn't really help me come up with any more examples. I-90 and NY 90 has already been mentioned, and there are plenty of Interstates that turn into freeways of the same number, but I think that may be it.
US 20 likely intersects a County Road 20 at some point on its trek across the state, but I'm not one to confirm that.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on December 09, 2017, 01:02:18 AMPA only has 3 duplicates (86, 99, and 380); the first 2 were the result of interstates that came much later, and the last one are routes that are over 300 miles apart.
For the thread subject matter and one that existed prior to those three interstates: Would count I-283 (N-S) & PA 283 (E-W)?
Quote from: 1 on January 10, 2018, 10:06:42 PM
Quote from: webny99 on January 10, 2018, 10:03:39 PM
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on January 10, 2018, 11:18:36 AM
Quote from: kphoger on December 12, 2017, 04:26:48 PM
Quote from: GaryV on December 12, 2017, 04:24:39 PM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on December 08, 2017, 11:42:57 AM
Quote from: Henry on December 08, 2017, 08:55:00 AM
A future instance is I-69 and US 69 around Lufkin, TX.
Which is against interstate rules. I remember reading that Interstates and US highways with the same number can't be in the same state. I 69 was amusing enough before but this gives it a little extra value.
It's more what you'd call guidelines than an actual rule.
Is it even a guideline?
Hurricane Rex: Where did you read that?
I could've sworn that I myself had heard that that was the case multiple times on this forum before. :hmmm:
I thought that was the reason there is no I-50 or I-60.
I thought it was a rule at first, with the only exception being I-24 and US 24 in Illinois. Then came I-74 and I-41, and now I-69.
A reference was given to the rule just a few weeks ago, but now I don't what thread that was in to look it up and link to it. :angry:
Quote from: bugo on January 11, 2018, 12:13:19 AM
Quote from: 1 on January 10, 2018, 10:06:42 PM
I thought it was a rule at first, with the only exception being I-24 and US 24 in Illinois. Then came I-74 and I-41, and now I-69.
And now I-49.
Quote from: webny99 on January 10, 2018, 10:03:39 PM
I was under the impression that at least one of the two had to be a US or interstate route.
It was initially, but somebody mentioned a county road.
"This may be stretching it, but US 62 intersects Washington County 62 near Prairie Grove, AR"