There are several instances of highways near state lines with highways with the state number near the same state line in another state. Here are a few examples.
US 59/AR 59 in West Siloam Springs, OK and Siloam Springs, AR. These two highways are about 2 miles apart along US 412. Locals call US 59 "Oklahoma 59" and AR 59 "Arkansas 59".
US 89 and WY 89 near Geneva. ID. These two highways are about 1 mile apart. ID 61 splits off of US 89, heads south and quickly becomes WY 89. WY 89 parallels the state line then heads into Utah and becomes UT 30 which connects to US 89.
US 30 and UT 30. US 30 meets WY 89 which heads west and becomes UT 30 in about 12 miles. Unlike the US/WY 89 example, US 30 and UT 30 do not come close to meeting to the west.
KS 7/MO 7. These two highways run through the Kansas City metro and are about 25 miles apart as the crow flies at their closest points. These are two widely separate highways and are unrelated.
MN 11/ON 11. These highways parallel the Rainy River and the international boundary and in places are less than a mile apart. Since they are in different countries, I doubt there is a whole lot of confusion.
In the US/AR 59 and the US/WY 89 examples, were there disputes to which side of the border the US highway would follow, and did the "losing" state number their highway out of spite?
In a similar vein to MN/ON 11, I-2 and Mexico 2 :sombrero:.
I-265 IN and I-265 KY, in the same metro area (Louisville). I thought they had already condensed into a single designation, but it appears this is not the case yet.
Any pair of state routes that keep its number crossing the state line. :bigass:
There's I-35 and WI 35 in Duluth-Superior.
I always thought it was interesting that IA 12 and NE 12 both go towards Sioux City. I personally think if the fictional US 77 extension up IA-MN 60 was created for real that the current US 77 north of US 20 be called NE-IA 12. Iowa would have to come up with another unsigned number for Business US 20, but there is an infinity of them.
In the historical record, IA 105 and MN 105 had less than 10 miles between them. I also believe IA 254 and MN 254 were similar.
CT 20 and US 20 (in Massachusetts).
NH 236 and ME 236 (no, they're not the same route).
EDIT:
MA 101 and NH 101
US 7 and NY 7
Quote from: DandyDan on December 06, 2017, 07:18:09 AM
In the historical record, IA 105 and MN 105 had less than 10 miles between them. I also believe IA 254 and MN 254 were similar.
IA and MN-254 were intended to (if they actually didn't at some point) meet. I had originally posted otherwise, but I'm pretty sure I was wrong, upon further research.
Quote from: 1 on December 06, 2017, 07:25:21 AM
CT 20 and US 20 (in Massachusetts)
One of the more unusual banners I've come across...
(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2056/33021016406_f450940d3c_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/SiXkK5)
Clearly they're just indicating the route one takes to Church 20. :)
Quote from: 1 on December 06, 2017, 07:25:21 AM
CT 20 and US 20 (in Massachusetts).
NH 236 and ME 236 (no, they're not the same route).
EDIT:
MA 101 and NH 101
US 7 and NY 7
Also, US 4 and NH 4.
US 95 on the California side of the Colorado River and AZ 95 on the eastern side in Arizona. They actually meet in Quartzsite on the Arizona side.
WV 7 ends at a bridge which then crosses the Ohio and connects to OH 7 (this is not a situation of a state route keeping the same number in multiple states, OH 7 is a N-S road running in both directions from that point, WV 7 is a E-W road).
VA 193 and MD 193. Both have an interchange with the DC Beltway...
VA 4 and NC 4
US 58 in Virginia and NC 58 are not all that far apart.
GA 4 and SC 4 are not very far from one another either.
Do international borders count? US 1 and NB 1.
Quote from: SP Cook on December 06, 2017, 09:02:20 AM
WV 7 ends at a bridge which then crosses the Ohio and connects to OH 7 (this is not a situation of a state route keeping the same number in multiple states, OH 7 is a N-S road running in both directions from that point, WV 7 is a E-W road).
Even though the bridge is technically WV 7, this is how it's signed from WV 2.
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4544/26512222329_95f3c64cc2_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/GoN52x)2017 Columbus meet trip Day 3 - 237 (https://flic.kr/p/GoN52x) by H.B. Elkins (https://www.flickr.com/photos/hbelkins/), on Flickr
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on December 06, 2017, 06:38:06 AM
Any pair of state routes that keep its number crossing the state line. :bigass:
Plenty. There's a thread somewhere that details many of them.
PA 73 and NJ 73 is one example.
Quote from: hbelkins on December 06, 2017, 11:05:26 AM
Quote from: SP Cook on December 06, 2017, 09:02:20 AM
WV 7 ends at a bridge which then crosses the Ohio and connects to OH 7 (this is not a situation of a state route keeping the same number in multiple states, OH 7 is a N-S road running in both directions from that point, WV 7 is a E-W road).
Even though the bridge is technically WV 7, this is how it's signed from WV 2.
There is a WV 7 posting on the road at the ramps to WV 2: https://goo.gl/maps/YFPCfaZYtcB2
Not sure why WV assigns separate routes to some of these bridges if they don't sign them as such. WV 807 isn't signed, though they did put a US 807 sign up for construction once - https://goo.gl/maps/kxzVf7Sntgq. At least OH has 1 OH 807 shield on its side. Not sure why the WV side isn't WV 16 - there are TO WV 16 shields at the WV 2 jct
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4f/US_95_Interstate_Sign.JPG/220px-US_95_Interstate_Sign.JPG)
On opposite sides of the Colorado River, north of I-10
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 06, 2017, 11:39:48 AM
Not sure why WV assigns separate routes to some of these bridges if they don't sign them as such.
Accounting. All WV DOH work must be charged off to a particular route number. So in the case of Ohio River bridges, all have a route number, either a "real" route the continues on the ground, or the bridge itself will be a 3dsr. These are often unsigned, as knowing that number does not help a motorist.
Quote from: SP Cook on December 06, 2017, 12:55:13 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 06, 2017, 11:39:48 AM
Not sure why WV assigns separate routes to some of these bridges if they don't sign them as such.
Accounting. All WV DOH work must be charged off to a particular route number. So in the case of Ohio River bridges, all have a route number, either a "real" route the continues on the ground, or the bridge itself will be a 3dsr. These are often unsigned, as knowing that number does not help a motorist.
Best example is WV 6, which links US 60 to Montgomery and WV 61. The route is not signed whatsoever; only "TO WV 61" and "TO US 60."
Also WV 106, which is the East End Bridge in Huntington.
I-35 and WIS 35 are separated by two miles in Duluth/Superior.
MN 48 and WIS 48 are a little further apart than most of these but close enough together to make me forget occasionally that they don't tie into each other.
If we're talking different, non-continuous highways:
CT 2 and RI 2 (so much that Bing Maps used to connect the two via a US 1 concurrency in error)
RI 14 and MA 14 (didn't Roadgeekteen even propose connecting the two?)
ME 113 and NH 113 (about 5 mi. apart)
US 4 and NH 4 (about 5 mi. apart)
US 9 and VT 9 (connected by NY 7)
CT 12 and RI 12 (connected by CT/RI 14)
CT 124 and NY 124 (used to be connected)
US 1 and DE 1 (about 13 mi. apart)
PA 100 and DE 100 (used to be connected)
DE 7 and MD 7 (connected by US 40)
VT 103 and NH 103 (about 12 mi apart as the crow flies)
VT 10 and NH 10 (about 18 mi. as the crow flies)
NY 73 and VT 73 (about 23 mi. as the crow flies)
NY 208 and NJ 208 (about 22 mi as the crow flies)
PA 3 and DE 3 (about 10 mi as the crow flies)
DE 299 and MD 299 (about 4 mi. used to be connected, now connected by US 301)
US 9 and DE 9 (52 km (33 mi), connected by DE 1
MD 24 and PA 24 (about 8 mi.; connected by MD 136 and MD 23)
MD 28 and VA 28 (8 mi. across the Potomac; close until VA 28 is replaced by I-366 :bigass:)
Quote from: hbelkins on December 06, 2017, 01:32:25 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on December 06, 2017, 12:55:13 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 06, 2017, 11:39:48 AM
Not sure why WV assigns separate routes to some of these bridges if they don't sign them as such.
Accounting. All WV DOH work must be charged off to a particular route number. So in the case of Ohio River bridges, all have a route number, either a "real" route the continues on the ground, or the bridge itself will be a 3dsr. These are often unsigned, as knowing that number does not help a motorist.
Best example is WV 6, which links US 60 to Montgomery and WV 61. The route is not signed whatsoever; only "TO WV 61" and "TO US 60."
Also WV 106, which is the East End Bridge in Huntington.
My statement was poorly worded. I meant why a distinct separate number. Two of the Ohio Bridges are WV 2 SPUR (one of which is OH 872 on the other side - why isn't this bridge designated WV 872 then?) and another is WV 62 SPUR. OTOH, the Old US 21 bridge is an unsigned extension of WV 31 as well as the bridge with a poorly signed WV 7 extension. They also have an unsigned extension of WV 27 to the Ohio River ferry.
WV 6 baffles me. This designation goes back to at least 1970 and probably to the bridge's construction in 1956. Other Kanawha River bridges are WV 61N and WV 25 SPUR.
I guess there is no rhyme or reason (or possibly each WVDOT district does it their own way)...
MO 51 and US 51 in Illinois.
Quote from: 1 on December 06, 2017, 07:25:21 AM
MA 101 and NH 101
ME 101 in Kittery is also not far north.
IN 114 and IL 114 are within 20 miles of each other at their nearest point.
Quote from: bugo on December 06, 2017, 02:42:49 AM
In the US/AR 59 and the US/WY 89 examples, were there disputes to which side of the border the US highway would follow, and did the "losing" state number their highway out of spite?
The original AR 59 is now AR 159 at Eudora.
AR 59 was once Detour US 59 from Siloam Springs, south as modern US 59 was built in Oklahoma. After it was finished the detour became AR 59
North of Siloam Springs, it was (I believe) AR 107 to Gravette until around 1960 when US 71 was shifted from Gravette to Bentonville/Bella Vista.
Some others that do come to mind that actually touch are; CA/NV 88, CA/NV 28, AZ/NM 75, AZ/NM 80, FL/GA/SC 121, AZ/NM 264,
Florida 23 and Georgia 23... Not to mention US 23 all near Jacksonville.
FL/GA 121 and Nassau County FL CR 121 run parallel on opposite sides of the St Mary's River.
Z981
Quote from: US71 on December 09, 2017, 07:57:11 PM
Quote from: bugo on December 06, 2017, 02:42:49 AM
In the US/AR 59 and the US/WY 89 examples, were there disputes to which side of the border the US highway would follow, and did the "losing" state number their highway out of spite?
The original AR 59 is now AR 159 at Eudora.
AR 59 was once Detour US 59 from Siloam Springs, south as modern US 59 was built in Oklahoma. After it was finished the detour became AR 59
Where did you get this information? You have mentioned it before but I have never seen any evidence of it. Do you have a scan or a picture of a map showing a detour US 59? The map below shows, oddly enough, US 59 following US 64 through Fort Smith but this is the only evidence I have of US 59 in Arkansas north of Polk County. You might be the one who originally sent me this map.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4581/38236753324_059eec8fed_b.jpg)
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 09, 2017, 10:49:18 PM
Some others that do come to mind that actually touch are; CA/NV 88, CA/NV 28, AZ/NM 75, AZ/NM 80, FL/GA/SC 121, AZ/NM 264,
Those do not count because they are highways that keep their number when they cross state lines. I was talking about two roads that actually intersect each other.
Quote from: bugo on December 10, 2017, 02:55:20 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 09, 2017, 10:49:18 PM
Some others that do come to mind that actually touch are; CA/NV 88, CA/NV 28, AZ/NM 75, AZ/NM 80, FL/GA/SC 121, AZ/NM 264,
Those do not count because they are highways that keep their number when they cross state lines. I was talking about two roads that actually intersect each other.
That's the other thread. (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=21692.0)
Yes, that's something I sent to you.
I've sent a couple map scans, but am looking for more sources I thought I had, but are missing.
1933 Arkansas Official : no indication of US 59 at all
1936 MidWest Maps of Arkansas: US 59 follows AR 99 and AR 45
1936 Ark Official shows AR 59, but no US 59 in Oklahoma or Arkansas
1940: US 59 complete in Oklahoma
Quote from: bugo on December 06, 2017, 02:42:49 AM
In the US/AR 59 and the US/WY 89 examples, were there disputes to which side of the border the US highway would follow, and did the "losing" state number their highway out of spite?
The US/WY 89 example was indeed caused by a dispute. Originally in 1926 US 89 only went up as far as Spanish Fork UT and there was no 189. Wyoming had originally numbered today's WY 89 as WY 65, but in 1926 they changed it to 89 to try to get US 89 extended up that way. Then it was announced that US 89 would be extended north, and a dispute began on the routing, between Utah/Idaho and Wyoming. Apparently the plan was initially to extend US 89 along today's US 189, so WY 89 was renumbered to WY 91
to reduce confusion. But then a few years later, AASHTO decided in favor of Utah and Idaho, putting US 89 on its current route, and Wyoming got US 189 instead. Wyoming was so pissed off that they renumbered WY 91 back to WY 89.
Montana and North Dakota 16s are very close to each other, for what appears to be no apparent reason. To my knowledge, there isn't any signage to clarify the situation - though I'm not sure it's a big deal. If you were going westbound on I-94, heading to Sidney or points north in Montana, you would take ND 16. If you are going eastbound on I-94, heading to Sidney or points north in Montana/North Dakota, you would take MT 16.
WI-120 isn't far from IL-120. WI-31, WI-50 and WI-20 are both not far from the Chicago area which is home to IL-50, IL-31 and US20. But the 120's are far more bothersome.
DE 1 and US 1 (in PA) are about 12 miles apart at their closest
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on December 06, 2017, 05:37:09 AM
In a similar vein to MN/ON 11, I-2 and Mexico 2 :sombrero:.
But, unlike with Minnesota and Ontario, this one exists because both México and the USA both have geographical numbering schemes. As with US Highways, Mexican federal highways get even numbers for east-west corridors, with the lowest numbers in the north. Because the numbering scheme for Interstates is flip-flopped to US Highways, that puts the US—Mexican border as the zero point for both schemes in question.
Quote from: kphoger on December 12, 2017, 03:43:28 PM
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on December 06, 2017, 05:37:09 AM
In a similar vein to MN/ON 11, I-2 and Mexico 2 :sombrero:.
But, unlike with Minnesota and Ontario, this one exists because both México and the USA both have geographical numbering schemes. As with US Highways, Mexican federal highways get even numbers for east-west corridors, with the lowest numbers in the north. Because the numbering scheme for Interstates is flip-flopped to US Highways, that puts the US—Mexican border as the zero point for both schemes in question.
If it is too confusing, then switch I-2 and I-4. That
could make it a little less confusing.
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on December 13, 2017, 02:21:04 AM
Quote from: kphoger on December 12, 2017, 03:43:28 PM
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on December 06, 2017, 05:37:09 AM
In a similar vein to MN/ON 11, I-2 and Mexico 2 :sombrero:.
But, unlike with Minnesota and Ontario, this one exists because both México and the USA both have geographical numbering schemes. As with US Highways, Mexican federal highways get even numbers for east-west corridors, with the lowest numbers in the north. Because the numbering scheme for Interstates is flip-flopped to US Highways, that puts the US—Mexican border as the zero point for both schemes in question.
If it is too confusing, then switch I-2 and I-4. That could make it a little less confusing.
To be blunt, I think anyone who confuses two routes in two separate countries is too dumb to drive. There are a lot of stupid drivers but that would be unfathomably stupid.
Quote from: bugo on December 06, 2017, 02:42:49 AM
MN 11/ON 11. These highways parallel the Rainy River and the international boundary and in places are less than a mile apart. Since they are in different countries, I doubt there is a whole lot of confusion.
I can't remember the exact details but if I remember right ON 11 wasn't the original number for that road along the Rainy River.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on December 13, 2017, 02:54:58 AM
Quote from: bugo on December 06, 2017, 02:42:49 AM
MN 11/ON 11. These highways parallel the Rainy River and the international boundary and in places are less than a mile apart. Since they are in different countries, I doubt there is a whole lot of confusion.
I can't remember the exact details but if I remember right ON 11 wasn't the original number for that road along the Rainy River.
1956 Rand McN shows ON 11 as ON 71 (today's ON 71 was ON 70)...
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on December 13, 2017, 02:48:30 AM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on December 13, 2017, 02:21:04 AM
Quote from: kphoger on December 12, 2017, 03:43:28 PM
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on December 06, 2017, 05:37:09 AM
In a similar vein to MN/ON 11, I-2 and Mexico 2 :sombrero:.
But, unlike with Minnesota and Ontario, this one exists because both México and the USA both have geographical numbering schemes. As with US Highways, Mexican federal highways get even numbers for east-west corridors, with the lowest numbers in the north. Because the numbering scheme for Interstates is flip-flopped to US Highways, that puts the US—Mexican border as the zero point for both schemes in question.
If it is too confusing, then switch I-2 and I-4. That could make it a little less confusing.
To be blunt, I think anyone who confuses two routes in two separate countries is too dumb to drive. There are a lot of stupid drivers but that would be unfathomably stupid.
If you have somehow managed to end up on the wrong Hwy 2 in that part of the world, then there was some serious shit going on.
Extending "state" to mean any subdivision type, the only example I could think of in Spain is NA-134 and LR-134 near San Adrian, Navarre. They come within one mile of each other. In fact LR-134 heads on an intersection course with NA-134, but it is stopped short by the Rioja/Navarre border, and the final section is numbered NA-6531.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on December 06, 2017, 11:34:52 PM
If we're talking different, non-continuous highways:
MD 28 and VA 28 (8 mi. across the Potomac; close until VA 28 is replaced by I-366 :bigass:)
VA 28 will be replaced with I-666 :evilgrin:.
Quote from: roadguy2 on December 10, 2017, 04:53:09 PM
The US/WY 89 example was indeed caused by a dispute. Originally in 1926 US 89 only went up as far as Spanish Fork UT and there was no 189. Wyoming had originally numbered today's WY 89 as WY 65, but in 1926 they changed it to 89 to try to get US 89 extended up that way. Then it was announced that US 89 would be extended north, and a dispute began on the routing, between Utah/Idaho and Wyoming. Apparently the plan was initially to extend US 89 along today's US 189, so WY 89 was renumbered to WY 91 to reduce confusion. But then a few years later, AASHTO decided in favor of Utah and Idaho, putting US 89 on its current route, and Wyoming got US 189 instead. Wyoming was so pissed off that they renumbered WY 91 back to WY 89.
Yes! This is exactly the kind of thing I was looking for when I created this topic. Thanks for the information.
You can add OH-618 & WV-618 to the list.
TN 70 and US 70 in North Carolina. When heading south on TN 70, you cross into North Carolina and the road becomes NC 208, which runs for a winding 8 miles or so before intersecting US 70.
Not sure if KY 7 and OH 7 count since they're a little over 25 miles apart, and that includes going through WV for the shortest connection via I-64 and US 52. But they are in the same metro area (if you consider Grayson, KY a part of it, which I do).
US 7 and NY 7.
Quote from: roadguy2 on December 10, 2017, 04:53:09 PM
The US/WY 89 example was indeed caused by a dispute. Originally in 1926 US 89 only went up as far as Spanish Fork UT and there was no 189. Wyoming had originally numbered today's WY 89 as WY 65, but in 1926 they changed it to 89 to try to get US 89 extended up that way. Then it was announced that US 89 would be extended north, and a dispute began on the routing, between Utah/Idaho and Wyoming. Apparently the plan was initially to extend US 89 along today's US 189, so WY 89 was renumbered to WY 91 to reduce confusion. But then a few years later, AASHTO decided in favor of Utah and Idaho, putting US 89 on its current route, and Wyoming got US 189 instead. Wyoming was so pissed off that they renumbered WY 91 back to WY 89.
Here's a 1937 map that shows what both Utah and Wyoming wanted to do: http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~23818~920003:Road-map-Idaho,-Mont-,-Wyo-
Quote from: roadman65 on December 15, 2017, 03:36:24 PM
US 7 and NY 7.
In North Bennington:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.teresco.org%2Fpics%2Fsigns%2F20041016%2Fvt7aus7ny7vt67avt279.jpg&hash=d3eb890f696805b246a56ca2829121ed1f3ce738)
I have the old circle shields in a photo taken in 2001 in Downtown Bennington where US 7 and VT 9 intersect. It has TO NY 7 in text with WB VT 9's arrow.
DK if its still there or not, but it was a classic and unfortunately was before digital photo, so I have it in print and on negative. Maybe someday if I transfer it I will upload to flickr.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on December 11, 2017, 11:27:39 PM
WI-120 isn't far from IL-120. WI-31, WI-50 and WI-20 are both not far from the Chicago area which is home to IL-50, IL-31 and US20. But the 120's are far more bothersome.
Not too far apart are NW Indiana's IN 53 and IL 53 in Joliet, separated by about 40 miles along I-80
PA 88 and WV 88 are 26 miles away (as the crow flies) at their closest points.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on December 06, 2017, 08:14:06 AM
Clearly they're just indicating the route one takes to Church 20. :)
CT still has a thing for using the old style "Mass" on its signage rather than the preferred MA. My mom still writes "Conn" instead of "CT" when she writes an address. Another fine example of it is at I-84 Exit 74: CT 171/Union/Holland Mass However, I have yet to find a Dutch church off that exit.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on December 19, 2017, 10:01:30 AM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on December 06, 2017, 08:14:06 AM
Clearly they're just indicating the route one takes to Church 20. :)
CT still has a thing for using the old style "Mass" on its signage rather than the preferred MA. My mom still writes "Conn" instead of "CT" when she writes an address. Another fine example of it is at I-84 Exit 74: CT 171/Union/Holland Mass However, I have yet to find a Dutch church off that exit.
There are actually a fair number of contexts in which you find the old-fashioned abbreviations. The media use them, mainly because the Associated Press Stylebook calls for them (plus I assume the New York Times dislikes the two-letter abbreviations because of the Times' bizarre fetish for using periods, like "N.H.L."). Legal citation uses them as well. I've seen some traditionalists claiming that the two-letter ones are postal abbreviations that should only be used when addressing mail to be sent via the USPS. I tend to think that's a stupid position, especially as to the media–since, for example, the media's refusal to use the serial comma is due in part to a desire to save space, I don't understand how "Mass." is better than "MA" (and that's not getting into some of the more ambiguous ones, like some people using "O." for Ohio).
I would not be surprised if many people who grew up with the old abbreviations still use those either out of habit or out of not remembering the two-letter ones. I certainly understand why some people might struggle to keep track of AK v. AR v. AL. (AZ seems more obvious to me since none of the other three has a "Z" in its name.)
Edited to add: BTW, to make it more confusing, the "traditional" abbreviations may vary. The AP guidelines use "Calif." for California. The Bluebook (legal citation manual) uses "Cal." The AP doesn't abbreviate "Hawaii" or "Maine"; the Bluebook calls for "Haw." and "Me.," respectively. Then you have the weirdness of the Bluebook citing the Washington Reports, Second Series, as "Wash. 2d" ("Wash." being the traditional abbreviation for the state's name) but the state courts citing it as "Wn.2d" ("Wn." would probably baffle the casual reader unfamiliar with legal citation).
Both AB 48 and SK 48 used to lead to converge on Havre, Montana via MT 232 and MT 233 respectively; however both highways have since been renumbered where AB 48 is now AB 41 and SK 48 is now SK 21.
There's a couple highway changes at the Canadian provincial borders that are relatively close — AB 13 becomes SK 14, while 33 miles to the north, AB 14 becomes SK 40; the other being where SK 5 becomes MB 363, while 12 miles to the south SK 10 becomes MB 5. AB/SK 17 follows the provincial border through Lloydminster, and is cosigned with both highway shields.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.corcohighways.org%2Fhighways%2Fab%2F17%2F14to14%2F2.jpg&hash=018e259c3741c7e5f5fc7ad642f25f4556faa969)
Source: Corco Highways - http://corcohighways.org/?p=1802
Quote from: bugo on December 06, 2017, 02:42:49 AM
US 30 and UT 30. US 30 meets WY 89 which heads west and becomes UT 30 in about 12 miles. Unlike the US/WY 89 example, US 30 and UT 30 do not come close to meeting to the west.
UT 30 actually has a pretty weird history. It was pieced together from nine existing routes when the northern Utah counties requested one route number to run across the state there. However, the state didn’t bother to change the legislative definitions of the old routes, so the old legislative numbers were marked on small plates below the shield.
The choice of “30” for a number was confusing in two ways: first, its east end was close to US 30, then US 30N. (UT actually requested WY to renumber the segment of WY 89 between UT 30 and US 30(N) as WY 30, but that never happened.) Second, UT 30 actually ran concurrent with US 30S for about 50 miles in northwest Utah.
Utah finally changed all the legislative designations to SR-30 in the 1977 renumbering. But the next year, Nevada renumbered its route 30 to 233. :pan:
If you ask me, if the concurrencies aren’t going to be signed, UT 30 should be split into three separate routes. Each of those segments has a totally different character and doesn’t really have anything to do with the others.