What highway would be the biggest pain in the ass to clinch? I nominate US 1. It goes through the middle of multiple cities and long stretches are two lanes. It must take several hours to go through New Jersey and New York alone. Several other east coast US routes would probably also be very annoying to clinch. I'm thinking the east-west US routes wouldn't be as bad because you can usually make good time west of the Mississippi, even on 2 lane routes.
Roads that are basically unclinchable under normal circumstances do not count. Highways that enter military bases, prisons or other restricted areas are not within the scope of this thread.
Highways that end at international borders may count, depending on how strict one is with clinching (I'll count turning around before customs for land crossings but not for bridges as clinched, for example) and if they aren't considered to be "unclinchable under normal circumstances", since one needs to have an excuse ready for crossing the border and for the specific route taken just in case customs decides to ask. US 1 also falls under this category in addition to everything mentioned before, and it's a pretty out of the way area of both Maine and New Brunswick too.
US 1 is also poorly signed in some of the cities it passes through. That's also a problem for some other US routes.
Border crossings can also be a pain, especially for routes ending at the Mexican border, which depending on your standards for clinching may mean not just bringing your passport and subjecting yourself to customs hassles in both directions (usually worse returning to the U.S.), but also purchasing Mexican auto insurance since unlike Canada your U.S. insurance doesn't work there. Even the friendlier Canadian border crossings can be an issue for those Canada won't let in (DUI is among the excludable criminal offenses).
US 1 through New Jersey isn't bad until maybe north of Newark and it didn't happen to be atrocious the day I actually drove this.
US 1 through Connecticut is painful. I don't believe the speed limit tops 35 until you get to the eastern third of the state and it took me over 5 hours.
US 1 from Fort Lauderdale southward can be very difficult.
Other painful ones I am personally familiar with:
US 202 is slow for the majority of its PA, NJ, NY and CT parts.
US 13 is extremely difficult in Pennsylvania as multiple turns in Phila are not signed (SB there are 3 straight turns unsigned)
US 250 is very slow for terrain reasons on very long stretches in WV and VA
I'd put US 11 in the conversation. That's one of the very few border locations where you can't even justify a sight clinch, as the US customs checkpoint is a mile inside the US. North of Harrisburg, the route can be painful to drive on due to truck traffic. Any of the routes that enter New York City are a PITA to clinch (US 1 included here); NY 27 is THE most painful route in NY to clinch, hands down. Might only be 120 miles long, but you're probably looking at 5+ hours one way even with the expressway section in western Suffolk.
If we include stuff requiring ferries, I nominate AK 7. Not particularly long, but you need to use a minimum of 4 ferries to clinch the thing in your own car. The other alternative is taking a series of puddle jump flights.
Believe it or not, US 1 through NJ is actually relatively fast. When the Pulaski Skyway is open, it's 1.5-2 hours for the 70 or so miles from the Delaware to the Hudson. It's almost all expressway grade. In normal traffic, it will take at least 1.5 hours to get through New York's 20 miles, though. I did a lot of the NY stretch at night, in pieces, or via unconventional means to ease the pain.
Quote from: Mapmikey on March 30, 2018, 01:17:57 PM
US 1 through Connecticut is painful. I don't believe the speed limit tops 35 until you get to the eastern third of the state and it took me over 5 hours.
Other painful ones I am personally familiar with:
US 202 is slow for the majority of its PA, NJ, NY and CT parts.
YES. US 202 is a glorified county route in North Jersey and NY. US 1 in CT being painful is why I only have a small part of it: just too damn slow to make it part of a longer trip.
I think US 1 in CT and ME is THE reason why clinching the New England US routes is not on my todo list (also the numerous alternates in Maine).
In Canada, I'll nominate TCH 16. Unfortunately, it does not end in Prince Rupert, but takes the ferry to Skidegate and then goes another 60-70 miles to Massett... requiring a deadhead back to the ferry! While I'd like to clinch the entire TCH, I may instead decide to settle for TCH 1 (plus the remainder of the mainline through ON/QC/NB/NS/NL and the loop to PEI).
I nominate US 2. Have to drive either through Canada or down around the Great Lakes to bridge the 1000+ gap between the two sections.
Also, US 10 during the winter months.
Quote from: vdeane on March 30, 2018, 01:42:32 PM
In Canada, I'll nominate TCH 16. Unfortunately, it does not end in Prince Rupert, but takes the ferry to Skidegate and then goes another 60-70 miles to Massett... requiring a deadhead back to the ferry! While I'd like to clinch the entire TCH, I may instead decide to settle for TCH 1 (plus the remainder of the mainline through ON/QC/NB/NS/NL and the loop to PEI).
Of course, the rest of the TCH system requires ferry crossings at both ends (to Vancouver Island on the west, Newfoundland island on the east), plus the ferry connecting the east end of PEI's TCH segment to TCH 106 in Nova Scotia. At least frequency of service is better than the Prince Rupert-Skidegate route, and there are alternate routes off those islands, including for Vancouver Island ferries taking you directly to the U.S.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on March 30, 2018, 02:00:39 PM
I nominate US 2. Have to drive either through Canada or down around the Great Lakes to bridge the 1000+ gap between the two sections.
Also, US 10 during the winter months.
Are we considering US 2 to be a single route, though? I know AASHTO considers it to be two separate sections, the only US route I know of where this is the case and always was the case.
At a state level, arguments could be made for VT 100 (longest state route and very slow in many locations), VT 58 or VT 108 (seasonal winter closures), or VT 65 (gravel, semi-hidden, and a one-lane floating bridge).
As I'm more of a "border crossing purist" than vdeane, I'd also include all the routes that cross the border (especially Interstate routes), as "turning around before customs" can be seen as suspicious and a reason for Border Patrol to chase you down even if you're not doing anything illegal.
Quote from: froggie on March 30, 2018, 04:08:00 PM
As I'm more of a "border crossing purist" than vdeane, I'd also include all the routes that cross the border (especially Interstate routes), as "turning around before customs" can be seen as suspicious and a reason for Border Patrol to chase you down even if you're not doing anything illegal.
Same here. That said, I appreciate the routes that stop short of the border, such as I-19 in Arizona (but not its business route), I-35 and the three suffixed I-69_ routes in Texas, and CA 7 and 111 in Calexico, all of which I clinched without crossing into Mexico.
Any that aren't continuous routes due to gaps, especially those which require backtracking.
I found MN 1 to be a giant pain if you're not just doing it in a straight shot, and even then both of its termini take some effort to reach. It only goes through one city of any significance in 345 miles, has a lot of lengthy duplexes and sudden changes in directional alignment, and it's not near anything.
Considering the north end (WTF that happens to be at the time!) features toll facilities, some of them regularly congested; the middle end passes through the center of cities (Richmond, Petersburg) before jumping on and off a neighboring Interstate but generally slogging through small/medium-sized towns, and once away from the Interstate, passes through one speed trap after another -- I'd have to say US 301. An old friend of mine who originally hailed from the NYC area and who, with his family, regularly schlepped down 301 to Florida and back at least once a year in the early '60's to visit relocated family around St. Petersburg, has horror stories about either being pulled over or tailed for miles on end (apparently NY, NJ, or CT license plates triggered such activity along 301) during those travels. Of course, the cash cow ceased giving milk (for the most part) when I-95 was completed.
AK 7? Multiple segments with ferries connecting their midpoints.
Quote from: NE2 on March 30, 2018, 05:36:30 PM
AK 7? Multiple segments with ferries connecting their midpoints.
Travel Mapping treats them all as separate highways, each of which could be clinched separately (such as in cars rented at airports) without taking the connecting ferries or even the short access roads to the ferry terminals. Except for the Haines segment, the only ferry terminal is mid-segment, so you can't take a ferry to one end, drive to the other, and catch another ferry to get to the next segment.
Why the segments all have the same route number is a mystery. My wild-assed guess is the original plan post-statehood was to build bridges and roads to link all four segments, but then Alaska DOT&PF came to its senses.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on March 30, 2018, 04:46:54 PM
I found MN 1 to be a giant pain if you're not just doing it in a straight shot, and even then both of its termini take some effort to reach. It only goes through one city of any significance in 345 miles, has a lot of lengthy duplexes and sudden changes in directional alignment, and it's not near anything.
Which one of Thief River Falls or Ely isn't significant? IMO, there's two.
Quote from: oscar on March 30, 2018, 02:02:45 PM
Of course, the rest of the TCH system requires ferry crossings at both ends (to Vancouver Island on the west, Newfoundland island on the east), plus the ferry connecting the east end of PEI's TCH segment to TCH 106 in Nova Scotia. At least frequency of service is better than the Prince Rupert-Skidegate route, and there are alternate routes off those islands, including for Vancouver Island ferries taking you directly to the U.S.
True, though the fact that the Prince Rupert ferry is so remote doesn't help. The other ferries allow
some form of looping rather than being a strict deadhead, too.
Quote from: froggie on March 30, 2018, 04:08:00 PM
As I'm more of a "border crossing purist" than vdeane, I'd also include all the routes that cross the border (especially Interstate routes), as "turning around before customs" can be seen as suspicious and a reason for Border Patrol to chase you down even if you're not doing anything illegal.
I deliberately turned around as far away from the booths as I could and still see to the border when I did them to minimize the changes of this. Of the 8 roads I clinched like this (NY 374, NY 189, NY 22, I-87, US 11, VT 225, I-89, and I-91), one I've since been through the border, and two others have been removed from the touring route system. The only one I really have ambition to fix is US 11 (since it is nearly a mile to the border, and while the road is straight with good visibility, it's a really sketchy clinch), though I'm not sure when I'll have the opportunity to so. The reviews of the crossing on Google Maps suggest that it can have quite the wait time, so "trying to avoid the line on I-87" may not be a great excuse for diverting there, either.
I didn't like my "clinch" of NY 374 either (unfortunately the road curves there, and it was so close to the border that I turned back before the booths were visible). At least that one is moot now.
Quote from: vdeane on March 30, 2018, 08:02:37 PM
The only one I really have ambition to fix is US 11 (since it is nearly a mile to the border, and while the road is straight with good visibility, it's a really sketchy clinch), though I'm not sure when I'll have the opportunity to so. The reviews of the crossing on Google Maps suggest that it can have quite the wait time, so "trying to avoid the line on I-87" may not be a great excuse for diverting there, either.
I did that crossing when traffic was light. That one, a road-geek type explanation (change of pace, also that I was planning on returning home on back roads including big chunks of US 11 in NY and PA, so I wanted to start there) actually worked. YMMV, though if you have US 11 stuff from your college days that you can casually display in your car, that might help.
Quote from: vdeaneI deliberately turned around as far away from the booths as I could and still see to the border when I did them to minimize the changes of this.
By most regards, that's not an actual clinch then. But I suppose there are different definitions of such just as there are different definitions amongst some regarding county visitation.
Quote from: froggie on March 30, 2018, 08:35:14 PM
Quote from: vdeaneI deliberately turned around as far away from the booths as I could and still see to the border when I did them to minimize the changes of this.
By most regards, that's not an actual clinch then. But I suppose there are different definitions of such just as there are different definitions amongst some regarding county visitation.
Eh, the community is pretty evenly split on border clinches. Among the chat regulars, the opinion is that sight clinches count for borders if you can see the border from where you turn around AND you turn around at the last legal location. Of course, I have crossed the border at all locations where an NY route currently ends at the border, so I do have NY clinched without any fudging.
I'd argue that US 5 can be done legitimately without crossing the border (I literally walked the last 50 yards and stuck my hand out to clinch it back in September). But other than those cases, I accept fudging with an asterisk if an international border or military installation (NJ 68, for example) prevents one from getting the last ~1/4 mile or less without entering.
CA 173 would be pretty difficult to clinch considering 6.9 miles in the dirt segment is closed to traffic. The only way that clinch is getting done is by foot or by bike.
I've never crossed an international border, so forgive me if this is a dumb question. But, for example, if you're just trying to clinch a route that crosses into Canada, do the Canadian border patrol actually ask why you're crossing into Canada? I mean, aside from the time hassle, is there any other reason to not cross the border for maximum completeness?
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on March 31, 2018, 01:00:30 AM
I've never crossed an international border, so forgive me if this is a dumb question. But, for example, if you're just trying to clinch a route that crosses into Canada, do the Canadian border patrol actually ask why you're crossing into Canada? I mean, aside from the time hassle, is there any other reason to not cross the border for maximum completeness?
They hope that you plan on doing conventional touristy things, preferably involving your spending lots of money. They also try to find out if you really have some suspicious or strange reason for entering Canada, or plan on doing something they don't like such as smuggling drugs or kiddie porn (sometimes mentioned as a bogus reason to search your laptop), or taking jobs away from Canadians. Route-clinching and other roadgeeky reasons are often to them in the "suspicious or strange" category.
They won't turn you away without better reason, but they can subject you to a vehicle search, which is not a pleasant beginning for your visit to Canada.
After an implausibly short visit to Canada, U.S. border agents might wonder what you were really doing up there, and whether you're bringing back drugs, kiddie porn, etc. (border agents on both sides of the border seem to think that stuff is more abundant on the other side of the border), so you might draw a PITA vehicle search on your return to the U.S.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on March 31, 2018, 01:00:30 AM
I've never crossed an international border, so forgive me if this is a dumb question. But, for example, if you're just trying to clinch a route that crosses into Canada, do the Canadian border patrol actually ask why you're crossing into Canada? I mean, aside from the time hassle, is there any other reason to not cross the border for maximum completeness?
In addition to what oscar said, there's also no way to "withdraw" your intent to enter, so even if you tell them you do not actually want to enter the country they're either not legally allowed or not interested in simply letting you turn around and come back without a valid reason as to why you came to the border crossing in the first place. (Mom and I discovered this the hard way a number of years ago)
So what I'm getting out of this, is if I want to clinch MN-310 and MN-313 entirely, I should probably spend a night in Winnipeg between driving them. ;-)
^ Or spend a night at Angle Inlet in the Northwest Angle. Something I'd actually like to do sometime....
Regarding this:
Quote from: oscarThey won't turn you away without better reason, but they can subject you to a vehicle search, which is not a pleasant beginning for your visit to Canada.
After an implausibly short visit to Canada, U.S. border agents might wonder what you were really doing up there, and whether you're bringing back drugs, kiddie porn, etc. (border agents on both sides of the border seem to think that stuff is more abundant on the other side of the border), so you might draw a PITA vehicle search on your return to the U.S.
Whether such a vehicle search is "not a pleasant beginning" is in the eye of the beholder. The other day, I took a short jaunt up to Quebec to test some theories (and do some route clinching), namely being honest about "taking a roadtrip" and "driving new roads". That did raise enough
red flags (the border patrol officer agreed with me using that term) that they performed a full vehicle search, though they seemed more interested in questioning me as to whether I had court convictions....Oscar mentioned this upthread but Canada has a particular disdain for allowing convicted DUI/DWI drivers into their country. The border officer was still courteous through this all, and was simply doing his job and following due diligence. My total border crossing time was about 20 minutes.
Coming back into the U.S., I was also subject to vehicle search, but this was a much smaller search (I didn't even have to exit my car) and my total crossing time was less than 3 minutes. Though in fairness, I mentioned I was just up in Sherbrooke for the morning (not a lie) and was taking a scenic route back to avoid A-55/I-91. A 3 minute crossing is actually long given my past experience coming back from Quebec day trips. I've had as little as 30 seconds on the return.
I've always wanted to clinch US 6 but I believe it would be very difficult due to all the concurrencies, because of all the concurrencies US 6 isn't even signed in a lot of areas. I would still love to clinch it someday due to the fact that I live at the Western terminus.
Quote from: Inyomono395 on March 31, 2018, 11:49:55 AM
I've always wanted to clinch US 6 but I believe it would be very difficult due to all the concurrencies, because of all the concurrencies US 6 isn't even signed in a lot of areas. I would still love to clinch it someday due to the fact that I live at the Western terminus.
US-6 has been moved onto Interstates in some states (UT, CO, IA (still in-progress I believe)) so as long as you have that Interstate you're good. Travel Mapping is tracking historic routes in some states - IA - in sections - marked old US-6 as a historic route where applicable and fundable.
Quote from: SSOWorld on March 31, 2018, 12:11:19 PM
]US-6 has been moved onto Interstates in some states (UT, CO, IA (still in-progress I believe)) so as long as you have that Interstate you're good. Travel Mapping is tracking historic routes in some states - IA - in sections - marked old US-6 as a historic route where applicable and fundable.
Travel Mapping is a good guide to what parts of current US 6 have, and haven't, moved onto Interstates. This helps in CO, which has lately screwed up relocations of US 6. At least UT is not confusing, with US 6 on a mostly non-Interstate routing from the Nevada state line (where it's concurrent with US 50) to near Green River.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on March 31, 2018, 03:17:51 AM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on March 31, 2018, 01:00:30 AM
I've never crossed an international border, so forgive me if this is a dumb question. But, for example, if you're just trying to clinch a route that crosses into Canada, do the Canadian border patrol actually ask why you're crossing into Canada? I mean, aside from the time hassle, is there any other reason to not cross the border for maximum completeness?
In addition to what oscar said, there's also no way to "withdraw" your intent to enter, so even if you tell them you do not actually want to enter the country they're either not legally allowed or not interested in simply letting you turn around and come back without a valid reason as to why you came to the border crossing in the first place. (Mom and I discovered this the hard way a number of years ago)
I was partially wrong about this, but even if you say "I have no intent to enter" the relevant border agency is under no obligation to grant your immediate return to your country if they have reason to believe you're up to something, and they get the final say in when to let you go.
Quote from: NE2 on March 30, 2018, 05:36:30 PM
AK 7? Multiple segments with ferries connecting their midpoints.
Excellent suggestion. This is the best one so far imo. I was going to suggest US9 or US10 because of the ferry crossings, but AK-7 takes the cake. I'd also suggest any highway going through a mountain pass seeing seasonal closures, like WA-20 or CA-120, for example. CA-1 would be incredibly frustrating right now because of the mudslides wiping out a segment of that highway.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on March 31, 2018, 08:56:50 PM
Quote from: NE2 on March 30, 2018, 05:36:30 PM
AK 7? Multiple segments with ferries connecting their midpoints.
Excellent suggestion. This is the best one so far imo. I was going to suggest US9 or US10 because of the ferry crossings, but AK-7 takes the cake. I'd also suggest any highway going through a mountain pass seeing seasonal closures, like WA-20 or CA-120, for example. CA-1 would be incredibly frustrating right now because of the mudslides wiping out a segment of that highway.
120 actually has two closure zones. The road closes west of US 395 before the Tioga Pass entrance station of Yosemite but it also closed between US 395 to US 6. 168 might be the most difficult route as it exists on both sides of the Sierras in remote terrain with no through route.
Relative to its length, GA 177 (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/31.168628,-82.2241437/31.0578449,-82.2725121/30.8289311,-82.3606433/@30.9516593,-82.6944526,10.28z/data=!4m2!4m1!3e0) is probably up there thanks to its discontinuity through Okefenokee Swamp. It's less than 30 miles long, but requires nearly 100 miles of driving.
Quote from: Eth on March 31, 2018, 10:20:33 PM
Relative to its length, GA 177 (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/31.168628,-82.2241437/31.0578449,-82.2725121/30.8289311,-82.3606433/@30.9516593,-82.6944526,10.28z/data=!4m2!4m1!3e0) is probably up there thanks to its discontinuity through Okefenokee Swamp. It's less than 30 miles long, but requires nearly 100 miles of driving.
Was there ever a plan in the far-flung past to connect them?
Quote from: formulanone on April 02, 2018, 09:48:17 PM
Quote from: Eth on March 31, 2018, 10:20:33 PM
Relative to its length, GA 177 (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/31.168628,-82.2241437/31.0578449,-82.2725121/30.8289311,-82.3606433/@30.9516593,-82.6944526,10.28z/data=!4m2!4m1!3e0) is probably up there thanks to its discontinuity through Okefenokee Swamp. It's less than 30 miles long, but requires nearly 100 miles of driving.
Was there ever a plan in the far-flung past to connect them?
Not that I can tell. Looking through historic GDOT maps, only the northern segment was on the state highway system until either 1962 or '63. When the southern segment was added, it was given the same number, but there's no indication of even a proposed alignment to link them.
WA 339, which is still on the books but is no longer under state jurusdiction.
It's actually a short passenger ferry that runs six times during the AM and PM commutes. So you have to catch it at the right time of the day (missing a run means an hour of waiting at the dock) and then take the same boat back or navigate a different transit option.
Quote from: Bruce on April 03, 2018, 01:15:02 AM
WA 339, which is still on the books but is no longer under state jurusdiction.
How is that different from other legislated highways that are not maintained, like the unbuilt tunnel in the Cascades?
Quote from: NE2 on April 03, 2018, 01:32:23 AM
Quote from: Bruce on April 03, 2018, 01:15:02 AM
WA 339, which is still on the books but is no longer under state jurusdiction.
How is that different from other legislated highways that are not maintained, like the unbuilt tunnel in the Cascades?
At least it exists. You can't clinch Hwy 168 because it physically doesn't exist (obviously).
Quote from: sparker on March 30, 2018, 05:06:03 PM
Considering the north end (WTF that happens to be at the time!) features toll facilities, some of them regularly congested; the middle end passes through the center of cities (Richmond, Petersburg) before jumping on and off a neighboring Interstate but generally slogging through small/medium-sized towns, and once away from the Interstate, passes through one speed trap after another -- I'd have to say US 301. An old friend of mine who originally hailed from the NYC area and who, with his family, regularly schlepped down 301 to Florida and back at least once a year in the early '60's to visit relocated family around St. Petersburg, has horror stories about either being pulled over or tailed for miles on end (apparently NY, NJ, or CT license plates triggered such activity along 301) during those travels. Of course, the cash cow ceased giving milk (for the most part) when I-95 was completed.
US-301 in Florida was always notorious for the speed traps in towns like Waldo, Starke and Lawtey but 301 is somewhat of a shortcut going NE to SW or vice versa.
Quote from: cl94 on March 30, 2018, 09:04:28 PM
Quote from: froggie on March 30, 2018, 08:35:14 PM
Quote from: vdeaneI deliberately turned around as far away from the booths as I could and still see to the border when I did them to minimize the changes of this.
By most regards, that's not an actual clinch then. But I suppose there are different definitions of such just as there are different definitions amongst some regarding county visitation.
Eh, the community is pretty evenly split on border clinches. Among the chat regulars, the opinion is that sight clinches count for borders if you can see the border from where you turn around AND you turn around at the last legal location. Of course, I have crossed the border at all locations where an NY route currently ends at the border, so I do have NY clinched without any fudging.
I'd argue that US 5 can be done legitimately without crossing the border (I literally walked the last 50 yards and stuck my hand out to clinch it back in September). But other than those cases, I accept fudging with an asterisk if an international border or military installation (NJ 68, for example) prevents one from getting the last ~1/4 mile or less without entering.
I have entered the US on US-5 before and could never figure out the Customs situation on the US side. It's in a building on the side of the street after another street that stays in the US has already intersected it (Caswell Avenue). The Canadian customs you can't miss but the US customs it seems like you could drive right on by without clearing customs.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on March 31, 2018, 01:00:30 AM
I've never crossed an international border, so forgive me if this is a dumb question. But, for example, if you're just trying to clinch a route that crosses into Canada, do the Canadian border patrol actually ask why you're crossing into Canada? I mean, aside from the time hassle, is there any other reason to not cross the border for maximum completeness?
I haven't crossed the Canadian border in about 15 years and I live within 2 hours of 3 border crossings. This is at least how it was the last time I went across the border, they'll ask for your citizenship and you'd say US and then they'll ask you what your purpose for being in Canada is, I'd just tell them I'm passing through to re-enter the US or going to a Canada city most of the time for me it'd be Toronto. Now you need a passport though from what I understand and I don't have one but would like to get one because I'd like to travel in Canada again. It was always harder to re-enter the US than it was to enter Canada even as a US citizen.
Quote from: Flint1979Now you need a passport though from what I understand and I don't have one but would like to get one because I'd like to travel in Canada again.
An Enhanced Drivers License (EDL) will also suffice for ground travel (air travel to Canada requires passport).
To some extent, two contenders might be US Highway 9 and US Highway 10. This is because both of them go on ferries over a body of water. US 9 goes on a ferry in the waters between Delaware and New Jersey, and US 10 crosses Lake Michigan between the states of Wisconsin and Michigan. If I recall correctly, it is quite expensive to put your car on a ferry, if that is what it takes to technically clinch these routes, so this would be rather complicated to do if you wanted to clinch US 9 or US 10. I would be interested to hear if anyone has ever clinched either or both of these routes in their entirety before. :nod:
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on April 03, 2018, 01:39:12 PM
To some extent, two contenders might be US Highway 9 and US Highway 10. This is because both of them go on ferries over a body of water. US 9 goes on a ferry in the waters between Delaware and New Jersey, and US 10 crosses Lake Michigan between the states of Wisconsin and Michigan. If I recall correctly, it is quite expensive to put your car on a ferry, if that is what it takes to technically clinch these routes, so this would be rather complicated to do if you wanted to clinch US 9 or US 10. I would be interested to hear if anyone has ever clinched either or both of these routes in their entirety before. :nod:
I have clinched US 9, including taking my car on the ferry a few years ago. I took the SS Badger auto ferry taking US 10 across Lake Michigan in 1996, but still have a lot of unclinched mileage elsewhere on that route.
Quote from: jakeroot on April 03, 2018, 01:44:19 AM
Quote from: NE2 on April 03, 2018, 01:32:23 AM
Quote from: Bruce on April 03, 2018, 01:15:02 AM
WA 339, which is still on the books but is no longer under state jurusdiction.
How is that different from other legislated highways that are not maintained, like the unbuilt tunnel in the Cascades?
At least it exists. You can't clinch Hwy 168 because it physically doesn't exist (obviously).
You could clinch 168 by foot, just like 339. Does WSDOT consider 339 to exist on the ferry? If not, it no longer exists.
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on April 03, 2018, 01:39:12 PM
To some extent, two contenders might be US Highway 9 and US Highway 10. This is because both of them go on ferries over a body of water. US 9 goes on a ferry in the waters between Delaware and New Jersey, and US 10 crosses Lake Michigan between the states of Wisconsin and Michigan. If I recall correctly, it is quite expensive to put your car on a ferry, if that is what it takes to technically clinch these routes, so this would be rather complicated to do if you wanted to clinch US 9 or US 10. I would be interested to hear if anyone has ever clinched either or both of these routes in their entirety before. :nod:
I'm one of the handful that has clinched US 9. Ferry is $28 for a car and driver if you go in the off season. Jumps up to $47 on summer weekends, where reservations are a necessity. You could also park your car at the terminal and do a round trip by foot for $18, because you'd technically be traveling the entire route.
Do note that not all routes involving ferries require the ferry for a clinch. With NY 114, for example, the ferries are NOT part of the route and you can clinch by only using one ferry (and save a pretty penny) if you don't need stuff on one of the forks.
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on April 03, 2018, 01:39:12 PM
To some extent, two contenders might be US Highway 9 and US Highway 10. This is because both of them go on ferries over a body of water. US 9 goes on a ferry in the waters between Delaware and New Jersey, and US 10 crosses Lake Michigan between the states of Wisconsin and Michigan. If I recall correctly, it is quite expensive to put your car on a ferry, if that is what it takes to technically clinch these routes, so this would be rather complicated to do if you wanted to clinch US 9 or US 10. I would be interested to hear if anyone has ever clinched either or both of these routes in their entirety before. :nod:
The ferry on US-10 is considered part of US-10, as in the route over Lake Michigan is still a part of the highway.
Quote from: oscar on April 03, 2018, 01:49:12 PM
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on April 03, 2018, 01:39:12 PM
To some extent, two contenders might be US Highway 9 and US Highway 10. This is because both of them go on ferries over a body of water. US 9 goes on a ferry in the waters between Delaware and New Jersey, and US 10 crosses Lake Michigan between the states of Wisconsin and Michigan. If I recall correctly, it is quite expensive to put your car on a ferry, if that is what it takes to technically clinch these routes, so this would be rather complicated to do if you wanted to clinch US 9 or US 10. I would be interested to hear if anyone has ever clinched either or both of these routes in their entirety before. :nod:
I have clinched US 9, including taking my car on the ferry a few years ago. I took the SS Badger auto ferry taking US 10 across Lake Michigan in 1996, but still have a lot of unclinched mileage elsewhere on that route.
I've clinched US-10 between Bay City and Ludington so I've clinched the Michigan section of the route unless you want to count going out into Lake Michigan for about 40 miles until you actually cross into Wisconsin. I haven't done the ferry across Lake Michigan, if I did I'd rather do the Muskegon to Milwaukee route since that's faster.
Quote from: NE2 on April 03, 2018, 01:50:22 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 03, 2018, 01:44:19 AM
Quote from: NE2 on April 03, 2018, 01:32:23 AM
Quote from: Bruce on April 03, 2018, 01:15:02 AM
WA 339, which is still on the books but is no longer under state jurusdiction.
How is that different from other legislated highways that are not maintained, like the unbuilt tunnel in the Cascades?
At least it exists. You can't clinch Hwy 168 because it physically doesn't exist (obviously).
You could clinch 168 by foot, just like 339. Does WSDOT consider 339 to exist on the ferry? If not, it no longer exists.
Yeah, I would not consider the county ferry to be part of State Route 339- it's just a random ferry that happens to travel the same trajectory.
I don't think it's possible to clinch either 168 or 339- WSDOT doesn't have right of way or state maintenance/a state operated ferry on either corridor, so it's impossible to know exactly where the highway is.
I would say Utah SRs 298 and 299. It's technically possible to clinch them in a car, but you'd have to be taking your driver's road test to obtain a Utah Driver's License and the instructor would have to direct you to drive the whole thing.
E30. Three segments (Ireland, England, mainland Europe), 4000 miles total, requires clearing customs to/from Russia, and partially in Siberia.
Quote from: corco on April 03, 2018, 03:05:08 PM
I would say Utah SRs 298 and 299. It's technically possible to clinch them in a car, but you'd have to be taking your driver's road test to obtain a Utah Driver's License and the instructor would have to direct you to drive the whole thing.
I still find the concept of off-road testing locations interesting. My road test was on US 20A/NY 16/NY 78 and a bunch of other streets in East Aurora, NY.
That's very cool for those of you who have had the opportunity to ride on the "Highway" ferries (and in cl94's case with US 9, even been able to clinch the entire route by doing so). It would definitely be one heck of a ferry ride to know you are clinching a US Route in the process of riding it. :nod:
I have been on a ferry from the Massachusetts mainland (near Falmouth) to the Martha's Vineyard island either at Vineyard Haven or Oak Bluffs (probably the former, IIRC), and then again in the other direction on the way back to Boston (this was on a trip in June 2013). If I recall correctly, the price for the ferry was somewhere over $100. I guess I thought all ferries were that expensive until now - around $50 (during peak travel times on the US 9 ferry) is still a good bit, but it's definitely better than the $120-$130 that may have been the fare for that Martha's Vineyard ferry I was on. :-o :-D
Also, for what it's worth, when looking on Google Maps, what's interesting and strange that I noticed is that US 9 is overtly designated over the ferry in the Delaware Bay, but the same is not true for US 10 on Lake Michigan, as it is not overtly designated over the ferry there on Google Maps. I wonder if this means US 9 is more solidly associated with its ferry than US 10 is with its, or is Google Maps falling short of perfection? :hmm: :-D
US 9 has been designated on the ferry since it was extended to Delaware, long before Google was even a thing. US 10 was only designated on the ferry in 2015 (it was originally discontinuous) and it is one of the few US routes that can only be clinched 5 months a year. But yeah, the time to get the Cape May-Lewes ferry is in the winter. Boat wasn't even half full and the price was reasonable.
Quote from: cl94 on April 03, 2018, 03:52:47 PM
US 9 has been designated on the ferry since it was extended to Delaware, long before Google was even a thing. US 10 was only designated on the ferry in 2015 (it was originally discontinuous) and it is one of the few US routes that can only be clinched 5 months a year. But yeah, the time to get the Cape May-Lewes ferry is in the winter. Boat wasn't even half full and the price was reasonable.
Oh okay. That makes a lot of sense. I did not realize that US 10 only officially became part of the ferry in very recent times (a few years ago), and that it was discontinuous before. And if US 10 can only be clinched five months a year (due to the ferry), then that probably means that US 10 is an even better contender for this thread than US 9. It sounds like if you come at the wrong time of year, US 10 would not only be a pain in the ass to clinch, but it'd be impossible to do so. :-D
Quote from: Mapmikey on March 30, 2018, 01:17:57 PM
US 1 from Fort Lauderdale southward can be very difficult.
Quite doable on a Saturday or Sunday to Homestead/Florida City, but a generally not so interesting during weekday grind. At least it's several lanes wide in most places. Conversely, weekdays might have less traffic for the US 1 trek towards Key West; unless you're renting a car and flying out of their airport, or chartering a ferry elsewhere, you're probably completing the Overseas Highway trip twice.
One advantage is that it's hard to wind up off-route!
Quote from: corco on April 03, 2018, 03:05:08 PM
I would say Utah SRs 298 and 299. It's technically possible to clinch them in a car, but you'd have to be taking your driver's road test to obtain a Utah Driver's License and the instructor would have to direct you to drive the whole thing.
This seems like a situation where one might have to work at it in an honest way, simply stating that you have a goal of driving all state routes in Utah, that their test track is SR 298/299, and that you want to clinch it. Play the bureaucracy game and talk to people's supervisors until you get permission to do so, possibly with supervision.
On the other hand, the gate is wide open on the Street View of SR-299. If you're a decent actor, you could probably pretend to be lost.
SR-298 is probably the harder get of the two. Depending on what is and isn't SR-298 (in either case, how would you know for sure? unless there's shapefiles), it looks like most of it is disused, with part of it impassible due to what appears to be shipping containers stored on the roadway.
Are there any places where DOTs maintain internal testing facilities (i.e. for things like signage or paint materials, or staff training) that are carried under their own state highway number and are not open to the public?
Quote from: 1 on April 03, 2018, 03:10:18 PM
E30. Three segments (Ireland, England, mainland Europe), 4000 miles total, requires clearing customs to/from Russia, and partially in Siberia.
And the English section is unsigned, like all E routes in the UK. For maximum difficulty try E90, with four different sections (Iberia, Sicily, mainland Italy and Greece-Turkey), no direct ferry connection between Barcelona (always Spain) and Mazara del Vallo (Sicily, Italy), crossing the mafious regions of Sicily and Calabria as well as Kurdistan, and ending at the Iraqi border.
In Spain I'd nominate national highway N-260. Created from former
comarcal routes just 30 years ago, large sections of it are still goat paths.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 04, 2018, 04:30:10 AM
Quote from: corco on April 03, 2018, 03:05:08 PM
I would say Utah SRs 298 and 299. It's technically possible to clinch them in a car, but you'd have to be taking your driver's road test to obtain a Utah Driver's License and the instructor would have to direct you to drive the whole thing.
This seems like a situation where one might have to work at it in an honest way, simply stating that you have a goal of driving all state routes in Utah, that their test track is SR 298/299, and that you want to clinch it. Play the bureaucracy game and talk to people's supervisors until you get permission to do so, possibly with supervision.
On the other hand, the gate is wide open on the Street View of SR-299. If you're a decent actor, you could probably pretend to be lost.
SR-298 is probably the harder get of the two. Depending on what is and isn't SR-298 (in either case, how would you know for sure? unless there's shapefiles), it looks like most of it is disused, with part of it impassible due to what appears to be shipping containers stored on the roadway.
SR-298 is one of those roads that will probably get decommissioned in the next few years anyway, since a lot of it is fenced off and looks like it hasn't been maintained in many years.
A lot of the Utah SRs in the 281-320 block (especially 282-299) are random roads that UDOT just happens to maintain because they go to a state park or serve a state institution. And because the state maintains them, they get a number. A lot of those routes aren't signed.
SR-287 is another difficult one to clinch, since the north end of it is on the other side of the prison control gate. But the worst one (aside from 298/299 mentioned above) would probably be 293, which is the roads and parking lots at the state capital building. The western side of 293 is restricted parking and deliveries only.
Also, here's a link (https://maps.udot.utah.gov/uplan_data/documents/HRO/) to the official UDOT highway reference map.
All former US highways in the west, with their alignments through towns being Business Loops of the Interstates that replaced them. Old US 99 is such an example, with all three state routes not being continuous with each other. And that silent concurrency with I-5 in Sacramento can be a dealbreaker if you don't know the area too well.
Utah also has SR 900 and SR 901. These are a collection of low-quality BLM roads designated as state routes solely to prevent transport of nuclear waste across them.
Quote from: roadguy2 on April 04, 2018, 07:56:42 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 04, 2018, 04:30:10 AM
Quote from: corco on April 03, 2018, 03:05:08 PM
I would say Utah SRs 298 and 299. It's technically possible to clinch them in a car, but you'd have to be taking your driver's road test to obtain a Utah Driver's License and the instructor would have to direct you to drive the whole thing.
This seems like a situation where one might have to work at it in an honest way, simply stating that you have a goal of driving all state routes in Utah, that their test track is SR 298/299, and that you want to clinch it. Play the bureaucracy game and talk to people's supervisors until you get permission to do so, possibly with supervision.
On the other hand, the gate is wide open on the Street View of SR-299. If you're a decent actor, you could probably pretend to be lost.
SR-298 is probably the harder get of the two. Depending on what is and isn't SR-298 (in either case, how would you know for sure? unless there's shapefiles), it looks like most of it is disused, with part of it impassible due to what appears to be shipping containers stored on the roadway.
SR-298 is one of those roads that will probably get decommissioned in the next few years anyway, since a lot of it is fenced off and looks like it hasn’t been maintained in many years.
A lot of the Utah SRs in the 281-320 block (especially 282-299) are random roads that UDOT just happens to maintain because they go to a state park or serve a state institution. And because the state maintains them, they get a number. A lot of those routes aren’t signed.
SR-287 is another difficult one to clinch, since the north end of it is on the other side of the prison control gate. But the worst one (aside from 298/299 mentioned above) would probably be 293, which is the roads and parking lots at the state capital building. The western side of 293 is restricted parking and deliveries only.
Also, here’s a link (https://maps.udot.utah.gov/uplan_data/documents/HRO/) to the official UDOT highway reference map.
SR 320 looks to be the nearly-impossible one: "All Roads within the Emergency Operation (EVO) Facility - Including the parking lot and the Skill Pad in Utah County" (Any open track days?)
Seems that a lot of us wouldn't mind skipping above-mentioned SR 287.
Quote from: corco on April 03, 2018, 03:02:38 PM
Quote from: NE2 on April 03, 2018, 01:50:22 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 03, 2018, 01:44:19 AM
Quote from: NE2 on April 03, 2018, 01:32:23 AM
Quote from: Bruce on April 03, 2018, 01:15:02 AM
WA 339, which is still on the books but is no longer under state jurusdiction.
How is that different from other legislated highways that are not maintained, like the unbuilt tunnel in the Cascades?
At least it exists. You can't clinch Hwy 168 because it physically doesn't exist (obviously).
You could clinch 168 by foot, just like 339. Does WSDOT consider 339 to exist on the ferry? If not, it no longer exists.
Yeah, I would not consider the county ferry to be part of State Route 339- it's just a random ferry that happens to travel the same trajectory.
I don't think it's possible to clinch either 168 or 339- WSDOT doesn't have right of way or state maintenance/a state operated ferry on either corridor, so it's impossible to know exactly where the highway is.
I must admit that I forgot that no
state ferry runs between Vashon and Seattle proper (only Fauntleroy). I guess it is equally as unclinchable (unless you have a boat).
In order to clinch Highway 168, you would probably need to tunnel as one was included in the plan (Naches tunnel). Although, semantically, a tunnel is not mentioned in the RCW, so I guess you could get away with tracing the original route on foot.
IIRC US 6 is really badly signed. I'm guessing that would be pretty difficult to clinch since you don't know where you're going.
(The views from CA to CO would make up for it though)
Quote from: corco on April 03, 2018, 03:02:38 PM
Quote from: NE2 on April 03, 2018, 01:50:22 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 03, 2018, 01:44:19 AM
Quote from: NE2 on April 03, 2018, 01:32:23 AM
Quote from: Bruce on April 03, 2018, 01:15:02 AM
WA 339, which is still on the books but is no longer under state jurusdiction.
How is that different from other legislated highways that are not maintained, like the unbuilt tunnel in the Cascades?
At least it exists. You can't clinch Hwy 168 because it physically doesn't exist (obviously).
You could clinch 168 by foot, just like 339. Does WSDOT consider 339 to exist on the ferry? If not, it no longer exists.
Yeah, I would not consider the county ferry to be part of State Route 339- it's just a random ferry that happens to travel the same trajectory.
I don't think it's possible to clinch either 168 or 339- WSDOT doesn't have right of way or state maintenance/a state operated ferry on either corridor, so it's impossible to know exactly where the highway is.
The county water taxi was created to replace the state run after the legislature ordered WSF to drop all passenger-only service (partially because Bremerton's "fast" ferries were sued out of existence). I consider it to be the legitimate successor.
Ferry route clinches are quite relaxing, in my experience.
Just sit back and enjoy the ride. They usually sell beer on the longer voyages; The Badger, the Lake Express, The Alaska Marine Highway's larger vessels. Crack a brew and enjoy the view.
And in the case of the ferries between segments of AK 7; it's an amazing view. Keep your eyes peeled for charismatic mega-fauna! ;)
Quote from: cl94 on April 04, 2018, 11:42:45 AM
Utah also has SR 900 and SR 901. These are a collection of low-quality BLM roads designated as state routes solely to prevent transport of nuclear waste across them.
Totally forgot about those. When they were created, they were called "public safety interest highways" or something like that.
Another difficult Utah one is SR 276, which runs across Lake Powell via the Charles Hall Ferry. The ferry is only open Thursday through Saturday (and frequently closes even on those days), and it closes if the lake level drops below 3575 feet.
The ferry isn't technically part of the route, but getting from one side of the lake to the other without using the ferry requires a significant amount of backtracking on both sides in order to get to the nearest bridge over the Colorado, which is SR-95. Getting from Bullfrog to Halls Crossing without using the ferry is 143 miles (and you actually wind up clinching the rest of SR-276 anyway).
Actually, this area is one of the most difficult to traverse simply because the Colorado River flows in large canyons, which makes it a huge obstacle to travel. In fact, between Fruita CO and Laughlin NV, there are only six bridges over the Colorado:
-UT 128 at Dewey
-US 191 at Moab
-UT 95 at Hite
-US 89 at Page
-US 89A at Marble Canyon
-I-11/US-93 at Hoover Dam
Quote from: Flint1979 on April 03, 2018, 02:21:12 AMI have entered the US on US-5 before and could never figure out the Customs situation on the US side. It's in a building on the side of the street after another street that stays in the US has already intersected it (Caswell Avenue). The Canadian customs you can't miss but the US customs it seems like you could drive right on by without clearing customs.
I was up there couple of months ago, to interview for my NEXUS card (the "interviews" in Derby Line are done at the Main St. station, not the I-91 port).
I didn't actually cross the border at Derby Line, but I of course did the obligatory gawking drive down Caswell.
The GSV imagery of the US border station is out of date. Bing Maps shows the new gantry and additional lighting that's been erected in the past couple of years, making the station obvious. There's also some signage on Main St. between the border and Caswell that doesn't show in either GSV or Bing.
I'll admit that during my sightseeing drive-by, I was a little concerned about setting off some kind of alert for running the border, but I believe the umpteen border patrol vehicles and agents stationed around the area are well-practiced at identifying who's supposed to stop, and who is good-to-go.
In terms of highway-clinching at the border, agents on both sides of the line are aware of the concept of "flagpoling": crossing the border, turning around, and coming back. Usually flagpoling is done for paperwork reasons (e.g., to apply for/pick up paperwork that can only be handled upon arrival). You'd probably have to go inside the station on both sides of the line, explain yourself, and pick up a form in the country you're not entering...and possibly face a search. Essentially, a bureaucratic headache, but not a big one if you're aware of the possibility and have the right mentality.
Being friendly, relaxed, and extremely honest and compliant are part of the "right mentality". Having an uncluttered vehicle also helps, as does an appreciation for a possible 10-30 minute break to stretch your legs. All of the Canadian border officials I've encountered have been professional, and on the U.S. side...well, it sometimes helps to believe that some of them are only being grouchy to stress any bad guys into making a mistake.
I don't know that I'd try flagpoling for highway clinching purposes, but I have had the dubious honor of explaining county-counting to a couple of bemused guards before, when explaining why I was crossing, driving around for a little while, and taking a different route home.
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on April 05, 2018, 02:38:05 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on April 03, 2018, 02:21:12 AMI have entered the US on US-5 before and could never figure out the Customs situation on the US side. It's in a building on the side of the street after another street that stays in the US has already intersected it (Caswell Avenue). The Canadian customs you can't miss but the US customs it seems like you could drive right on by without clearing customs.
I was up there couple of months ago, to interview for my NEXUS card (the "interviews" in Derby Line are done at the Main St. station, not the I-91 port).
I didn't actually cross the border at Derby Line, but I of course did the obligatory gawking drive down Caswell.
The GSV imagery of the US border station is out of date. Bing Maps shows the new gantry and additional lighting that's been erected in the past couple of years, making the station obvious. There's also some signage on Main St. between the border and Caswell that doesn't show in either GSV or Bing.
I'll admit that during my sightseeing drive-by, I was a little concerned about setting off some kind of alert for running the border, but I believe the umpteen border patrol vehicles and agents stationed around the area are well-practiced at identifying who's supposed to stop, and who is good-to-go.
In terms of highway-clinching at the border, agents on both sides of the line are aware of the concept of "flagpoling": crossing the border, turning around, and coming back. Usually flagpoling is done for paperwork reasons (e.g., to apply for/pick up paperwork that can only be handled upon arrival). You'd probably have to go inside the station on both sides of the line, explain yourself, and pick up a form in the country you're not entering...and possibly face a search. Essentially, a bureaucratic headache, but not a big one if you're aware of the possibility and have the right mentality.
Being friendly, relaxed, and extremely honest and compliant are part of the "right mentality". Having an uncluttered vehicle also helps, as does an appreciation for a possible 10-30 minute break to stretch your legs. All of the Canadian border officials I've encountered have been professional, and on the U.S. side...well, it sometimes helps to believe that some of them are only being grouchy to stress any bad guys into making a mistake.
I don't know that I'd try flagpoling for highway clinching purposes, but I have had the dubious honor of explaining county-counting to a couple of bemused guards before, when explaining why I was crossing, driving around for a little while, and taking a different route home.
That's what I was thinking since US-5's northern terminus is a couple of miles west of I-91's. But now that you say GSV is out of date I guess a new building has been built since I was there and GSV looks the same as when I was there.
I'd much rather try clinching US highways before Interstate's. Interstate's all seem the same to me, US highways have some uniqueness to them. The only US highway so far that I've clinched is US-223 and I only did that so I could say I drove on it since it was the only US highway in the Lower Peninsula of Michigan that I never drove on. On the other side of the bridge I have never driven on US-45 and that is now the only one I have never driven on in Michigan.
Quote from: Flint1979 on April 05, 2018, 03:21:33 PM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on April 05, 2018, 02:38:05 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on April 03, 2018, 02:21:12 AMI have entered the US on US-5 before and could never figure out the Customs situation on the US side. It's in a building on the side of the street after another street that stays in the US has already intersected it (Caswell Avenue). The Canadian customs you can't miss but the US customs it seems like you could drive right on by without clearing customs.
I was up there couple of months ago, to interview for my NEXUS card (the "interviews" in Derby Line are done at the Main St. station, not the I-91 port).
I didn't actually cross the border at Derby Line, but I of course did the obligatory gawking drive down Caswell.
The GSV imagery of the US border station is out of date. Bing Maps shows the new gantry and additional lighting that's been erected in the past couple of years, making the station obvious. There's also some signage on Main St. between the border and Caswell that doesn't show in either GSV or Bing.
I'll admit that during my sightseeing drive-by, I was a little concerned about setting off some kind of alert for running the border, but I believe the umpteen border patrol vehicles and agents stationed around the area are well-practiced at identifying who's supposed to stop, and who is good-to-go.
In terms of highway-clinching at the border, agents on both sides of the line are aware of the concept of "flagpoling": crossing the border, turning around, and coming back. Usually flagpoling is done for paperwork reasons (e.g., to apply for/pick up paperwork that can only be handled upon arrival). You'd probably have to go inside the station on both sides of the line, explain yourself, and pick up a form in the country you're not entering...and possibly face a search. Essentially, a bureaucratic headache, but not a big one if you're aware of the possibility and have the right mentality.
Being friendly, relaxed, and extremely honest and compliant are part of the "right mentality". Having an uncluttered vehicle also helps, as does an appreciation for a possible 10-30 minute break to stretch your legs. All of the Canadian border officials I've encountered have been professional, and on the U.S. side...well, it sometimes helps to believe that some of them are only being grouchy to stress any bad guys into making a mistake.
I don't know that I'd try flagpoling for highway clinching purposes, but I have had the dubious honor of explaining county-counting to a couple of bemused guards before, when explaining why I was crossing, driving around for a little while, and taking a different route home.
That's what I was thinking since US-5's northern terminus is a couple of miles west of I-91's. But now that you say GSV is out of date I guess a new building has been built since I was there and GSV looks the same as when I was there.
I'd much rather try clinching US highways before Interstate's. Interstate's all seem the same to me, US highways have some uniqueness to them. The only US highway so far that I've clinched is US-223 and I only did that so I could say I drove on it since it was the only US highway in the Lower Peninsula of Michigan that I never drove on. On the other side of the bridge I have never driven on US-45 and that is now the only one I have never driven on in Michigan.
Again, you can get US 5 without crossing the border because you can park your car half a block away, walk to the actual border, stick your hand out, and call it a day. There are even stores right up against the border. Multiple forum members (myself included) have done that and customs didn't care. There's usually a CBP car sitting at the border to tell people entering the US how to report and they can see you didn't cross the border.
Quote from: 1 on April 03, 2018, 03:10:18 PM
E30. Three segments (Ireland, England, mainland Europe), 4000 miles total, requires clearing customs to/from Russia, and partially in Siberia.
You've missed off Wales (linked to the English bit)! And at least there's a ferry for the Ireland-Wales crossing, unlike the England-Netherlands bit.
I raise you the E22. Not as long (3362.46 miles vs 3840.59 miles, according to TM, the E22 is shorter than the continental bit of the E30 by 1.99 miles), but 4 segments (that unlike the E30 don't really go together), also reaching Siberia, and lower-quality roads on average.
I guess you don't have to get a Belarusian visa, but...
Though really something like AH1 takes the cake - only one ferry, but massively long and lots of terrible roads as it.
And if border issues are a problem, then one of the Mashreq routes that goes through Israel (not that they recognise that) - if you are doing one that also goes via Syria you will have to two-passport it as a stamp from one country stops you going to another.
Quote from: cl94 on April 05, 2018, 03:37:32 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on April 05, 2018, 03:21:33 PM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on April 05, 2018, 02:38:05 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on April 03, 2018, 02:21:12 AMI have entered the US on US-5 before and could never figure out the Customs situation on the US side. It's in a building on the side of the street after another street that stays in the US has already intersected it (Caswell Avenue). The Canadian customs you can't miss but the US customs it seems like you could drive right on by without clearing customs.
I was up there couple of months ago, to interview for my NEXUS card (the "interviews" in Derby Line are done at the Main St. station, not the I-91 port).
I didn't actually cross the border at Derby Line, but I of course did the obligatory gawking drive down Caswell.
The GSV imagery of the US border station is out of date. Bing Maps shows the new gantry and additional lighting that's been erected in the past couple of years, making the station obvious. There's also some signage on Main St. between the border and Caswell that doesn't show in either GSV or Bing.
I'll admit that during my sightseeing drive-by, I was a little concerned about setting off some kind of alert for running the border, but I believe the umpteen border patrol vehicles and agents stationed around the area are well-practiced at identifying who's supposed to stop, and who is good-to-go.
In terms of highway-clinching at the border, agents on both sides of the line are aware of the concept of "flagpoling": crossing the border, turning around, and coming back. Usually flagpoling is done for paperwork reasons (e.g., to apply for/pick up paperwork that can only be handled upon arrival). You'd probably have to go inside the station on both sides of the line, explain yourself, and pick up a form in the country you're not entering...and possibly face a search. Essentially, a bureaucratic headache, but not a big one if you're aware of the possibility and have the right mentality.
Being friendly, relaxed, and extremely honest and compliant are part of the "right mentality". Having an uncluttered vehicle also helps, as does an appreciation for a possible 10-30 minute break to stretch your legs. All of the Canadian border officials I've encountered have been professional, and on the U.S. side...well, it sometimes helps to believe that some of them are only being grouchy to stress any bad guys into making a mistake.
I don't know that I'd try flagpoling for highway clinching purposes, but I have had the dubious honor of explaining county-counting to a couple of bemused guards before, when explaining why I was crossing, driving around for a little while, and taking a different route home.
That's what I was thinking since US-5's northern terminus is a couple of miles west of I-91's. But now that you say GSV is out of date I guess a new building has been built since I was there and GSV looks the same as when I was there.
I'd much rather try clinching US highways before Interstate's. Interstate's all seem the same to me, US highways have some uniqueness to them. The only US highway so far that I've clinched is US-223 and I only did that so I could say I drove on it since it was the only US highway in the Lower Peninsula of Michigan that I never drove on. On the other side of the bridge I have never driven on US-45 and that is now the only one I have never driven on in Michigan.
Again, you can get US 5 without crossing the border because you can park your car half a block away, walk to the actual border, stick your hand out, and call it a day. There are even stores right up against the border. Multiple forum members (myself included) have done that and customs didn't care. There's usually a CBP car sitting at the border to tell people entering the US how to report and they can see you didn't cross the border.
Well if that's the case then it's easy. But what my issue with that border crossing was is not knowing where to clear customs.
Quote from: english si on April 05, 2018, 03:48:20 PM
Though really something like AH1 takes the cake - only one ferry, but massively long and lots of terrible roads as it.
Yup. That is one hell of a route. Not only has a convoluted route, it also crosses dangerous areas such as Afghanistan or Burma. And to top that it goes right through Best Korea :bigass:.
Quote from: oscar on March 31, 2018, 01:19:34 AM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on March 31, 2018, 01:00:30 AM
I've never crossed an international border, so forgive me if this is a dumb question. But, for example, if you're just trying to clinch a route that crosses into Canada, do the Canadian border patrol actually ask why you're crossing into Canada? I mean, aside from the time hassle, is there any other reason to not cross the border for maximum completeness?
They hope that you plan on doing conventional touristy things, preferably involving your spending lots of money. They also try to find out if you really have some suspicious or strange reason for entering Canada, or plan on doing something they don't like such as smuggling drugs or kiddie porn (sometimes mentioned as a bogus reason to search your laptop), or taking jobs away from Canadians. Route-clinching and other roadgeeky reasons are often to them in the "suspicious or strange" category.
They won't turn you away without better reason, but they can subject you to a vehicle search, which is not a pleasant beginning for your visit to Canada.
After an implausibly short visit to Canada, U.S. border agents might wonder what you were really doing up there, and whether you're bringing back drugs, kiddie porn, etc. (border agents on both sides of the border seem to think that stuff is more abundant on the other side of the border), so you might draw a PITA vehicle search on your return to the U.S.
You do not want the pain in the ass search, i went to a Furry convention in Toronto, i left the USA via buffalo, came back via thousand Islands, 90 minutes later i had my laptop, and phone searched. "we did not know what a furry convention was, so we searched you, next time you may want to show us a brochure" It does help to cross and return at the same location you left the country.
Quote from: SteveG1988 on April 05, 2018, 05:52:20 PM
You do not want the pain in the ass search, i went to a Furry convention in Toronto, i left the USA via buffalo, came back via thousand Islands, 90 minutes later i had my laptop, and phone searched. "we did not know what a furry convention was, so we searched you, next time you may want to show us a brochure" It does help to cross and return at the same location you left the country.
They probably searched you because they DID know what a furry convention was. :rofl: :bigass:
Arkansas has institutional drives that are roads serving state parks, prisons, highway department buildings, colleges and other state-owned properties which would make clinching the state's highway system would be very difficult. Most of these roads are not linear - for example, most or all of the drives on a college campus (some of which are closed to vehicular traffic) are part of the state highway system and they all have the same route and section numbers. I have only seen a couple of maps showing these institutional drives (one was the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville) and I don't think these maps are generally available online (correct me in I'm wrong) so it would be hard to figure out just what roads are part of the institutional drive system. These roads are usually unsigned and other than the design of the road and signage you would never know they were a part of the state highway system. Here is a list I came up with a few years ago:
AR 600 - State Park roads all over the state (Most state park roads that are maintained by AHTD are numbered 600)
AR 803 - Clarksville state police headquarters (decommissioned)
AR 805 - Warren state police headquarters
AR 806 - Forrest City state police headquarters
AR 809 - Arkansas State Capitol grounds in Little Rock
AR 810 - Arkansas Services Center at Jonesboro (decommissioned?)
AR 811 - Lon Mann Cotton Research Station
AR 813 - University of Arkansas Experiment Station in Independence County
AR 814 - University of Arkansas Experiment Station in Hempstead County
AR 815 - University of Arkansas Experiment Station Rice Branch
AR 817 - Experiment Station in Mississippi County
AR 818 - University of Arkansas Agriculture Experimental Station (there are rumors that this is partially signed)
AR 819 - Joe Hogan Fish Hatchery road near Lonoke. It is also known as Game and Fish Access Route 943.
AR 820 - University of Arkansas Agriculture Experiment Station in Newport
AR 821 - Phillips County Community College in Helena
AR 823 - Southeast Branch of the University of Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station
AR 824 - Pine Tree Branch of the University of Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station
AR 825 - Governor's Mansion
AR 830 - AHTD headquarters across the state
AR 831 - Cummins Prison
AR 832 - Tucker Prison
AR 833 - Woman's Unit Prison
AR 834 - Dermott Unit Prison
AR 835 - Arkansas Training School for Girls at Alexander (probably decommissioned)
AR 839 - Arkansas State Fairgrounds
AR 840 - Southeast Arkansas Human Development Center in Warren
AR 841 - State Hospital drives
AR 846 - Game and Fish complex
AR 871 - University of Arkansas at Monticello
AR 872 - Arkansas Tech University
AR 873 - University of Arkansas and UALR
AR 874 - Henderson State University
AR 875 - Southern Arkansas University
AR 876 - University of Central Arkansas
AR 877 - Arkansas State University
AR 878 - UAPB
AR 879 - School for the Deaf and Blind
AR 881 - Huntsville state police headquarters
AR 883 - Arkansas State University at Beebe
AR 885 - School for the Blind and Deaf
AR 887 - Garland County Community College
AR 888 - Morrilton's community college
AR 889 - Arkansas State University at Searcy
AR 890 - Assigned to a large number of vo tech drives. Many of these old vo tech schools became community colleges and the state still maintains the roads under the AR 890 designation
AR 917 - Marine Tax Road (This one is signed at least part of the time)
AR 926 - Marine Tax Road (This one is usually signed)
AR 949, 949-2, 949-3. and 949-4 - These four spurs of US 270 connect the highway to the south shore of the crystal clear Lake Ouachita are Marine Tax Roads and are fully signed. As far as I know, these are the only three 4 digit highways in Arkansas
AR 959 - Lake Des Arc
AR 980 - This one is the one everybody knows about, and they are usually fully signed. There are literally dozens of instances of Airport 980 all over the state.
One road that is impossible to do, Normandy Road in New Jersey, driving on it will get a military police officer to escort you off, and you have to visit a federal magistrate to pay the fine in person. It is used for movement between sections of naval weapons station earle.
Quote from: SteveG1988 on April 07, 2018, 06:58:07 AM
One road that is impossible to do, Normandy Road in New Jersey, driving on it will get a military police officer to escort you off, and you have to visit a federal magistrate to pay the fine in person. It is used for movement between sections of naval weapons station earle.
Interesting you bring that up. Joseph Boil Avenue in Marine Corps Logistics Base Barstow is an old alignment of US 66. Boca Chica Road and Midway Avenue on Boca Chica Key are former alignments of US 1 along the Overseas Highway. It would be certainly impossible to do any former route clinches unless you were some how affiliated with the military.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 07, 2018, 12:40:37 PM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on April 07, 2018, 06:58:07 AM
One road that is impossible to do, Normandy Road in New Jersey, driving on it will get a military police officer to escort you off, and you have to visit a federal magistrate to pay the fine in person. It is used for movement between sections of naval weapons station earle.
Interesting you bring that up. Joseph Boil Avenue in Marine Corps Logistics Base Barstow is an old alignment of US 66. Boca Chica Road and Midway Avenue on Boca Chica Key are former alignments of US 1 along the Overseas Highway. It would be certainly impossible to do any former route clinches unless you were some how affiliated with the military.
Burlington County NJ route 545 and NJ state route 68 have sections within Fort Dix, that were closed off post 9/11.
Quote from: jakeroot on April 04, 2018, 10:33:22 PM
Quote from: corco on April 03, 2018, 03:02:38 PM
Quote from: NE2 on April 03, 2018, 01:50:22 PM
You could clinch 168 by foot, just like 339. Does WSDOT consider 339 to exist on the ferry? If not, it no longer exists.
Yeah, I would not consider the county ferry to be part of State Route 339- it's just a random ferry that happens to travel the same trajectory.
I don't think it's possible to clinch either 168 or 339- WSDOT doesn't have right of way or state maintenance/a state operated ferry on either corridor, so it's impossible to know exactly where the highway is.
I must admit that I forgot that no state ferry runs between Vashon and Seattle proper (only Fauntleroy). I guess it is equally as unclinchable (unless you have a boat).
In order to clinch Highway 168, you would probably need to tunnel as one was included in the plan (Naches tunnel). Although, semantically, a tunnel is not mentioned in the RCW, so I guess you could get away with tracing the original route on foot.
To me this seems like an absurd consideration. If a road does not physically exist, it does not physically exist. There is nothing to clinch. It's no different than trying to clinch WA 43274.3f9q. There simply is no such thing.
And I would argue that ferries are an entirely separate thing from roads, so the use of a ferry is not a necessary condition of clinching a route that is split by one, even if the route officially includes the ferry on paper. My hobby is clinching roads, not boat rides.
As for the original question, I would have to second US 1 as a significant contender. It's not that it's slow in any one particular state, it's that significant lengths of it in a lot of states are pretty slow. That's what being a local road up the often densely developed east coast will get you.
Quote from: Duke87 on April 07, 2018, 02:22:24 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 04, 2018, 10:33:22 PM
Quote from: corco on April 03, 2018, 03:02:38 PM
Quote from: NE2 on April 03, 2018, 01:50:22 PM
You could clinch 168 by foot, just like 339. Does WSDOT consider 339 to exist on the ferry? If not, it no longer exists.
Yeah, I would not consider the county ferry to be part of State Route 339- it's just a random ferry that happens to travel the same trajectory.
I don't think it's possible to clinch either 168 or 339- WSDOT doesn't have right of way or state maintenance/a state operated ferry on either corridor, so it's impossible to know exactly where the highway is.
I must admit that I forgot that no state ferry runs between Vashon and Seattle proper (only Fauntleroy). I guess it is equally as unclinchable (unless you have a boat).
In order to clinch Highway 168, you would probably need to tunnel as one was included in the plan (Naches tunnel). Although, semantically, a tunnel is not mentioned in the RCW, so I guess you could get away with tracing the original route on foot.
To me this seems like an absurd consideration. If a road does not physically exist, it does not physically exist. There is nothing to clinch. It's no different than trying to clinch WA 43274.3f9q. There simply is no such thing.
The issue is that WA-168 physically exists
on paper. You can't skip it as a route just because it wasn't built. Just traverse where the route should have been on foot, and you're golden. :biggrin:
Quote from: Duke87 on April 07, 2018, 02:22:24 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 04, 2018, 10:33:22 PM
Quote from: corco on April 03, 2018, 03:02:38 PM
Quote from: NE2 on April 03, 2018, 01:50:22 PM
You could clinch 168 by foot, just like 339. Does WSDOT consider 339 to exist on the ferry? If not, it no longer exists.
Yeah, I would not consider the county ferry to be part of State Route 339- it's just a random ferry that happens to travel the same trajectory.
I don't think it's possible to clinch either 168 or 339- WSDOT doesn't have right of way or state maintenance/a state operated ferry on either corridor, so it's impossible to know exactly where the highway is.
I must admit that I forgot that no state ferry runs between Vashon and Seattle proper (only Fauntleroy). I guess it is equally as unclinchable (unless you have a boat).
In order to clinch Highway 168, you would probably need to tunnel as one was included in the plan (Naches tunnel). Although, semantically, a tunnel is not mentioned in the RCW, so I guess you could get away with tracing the original route on foot.
To me this seems like an absurd consideration. If a road does not physically exist, it does not physically exist. There is nothing to clinch. It's no different than trying to clinch WA 43274.3f9q. There simply is no such thing.
And I would argue that ferries are an entirely separate thing from roads, so the use of a ferry is not a necessary condition of clinching a route that is split by one, even if the route officially includes the ferry on paper. My hobby is clinching roads, not boat rides.
As for the original question, I would have to second US 1 as a significant contender. It's not that it's slow in any one particular state, it's that significant lengths of it in a lot of states are pretty slow. That's what being a local road up the often densely developed east coast will get you.
To clinch a highway such as US-10 it would actually be quicker to take the ferry across rather than driving all the way around Lake Michigan. It would take about 6 hours to drive from Ludington to Manitowoc or vice versa. The boat ride takes about 4 hours. Lake Michigan is 62 miles wide between Ludington and Manitowoc. Even with the 2 extra hours you would have to drive through Chicago and Milwaukee as well.
Quote from: jakeroot on April 07, 2018, 02:32:31 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on April 07, 2018, 02:22:24 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 04, 2018, 10:33:22 PM
Quote from: corco on April 03, 2018, 03:02:38 PM
Quote from: NE2 on April 03, 2018, 01:50:22 PM
You could clinch 168 by foot, just like 339. Does WSDOT consider 339 to exist on the ferry? If not, it no longer exists.
Yeah, I would not consider the county ferry to be part of State Route 339- it's just a random ferry that happens to travel the same trajectory.
I don't think it's possible to clinch either 168 or 339- WSDOT doesn't have right of way or state maintenance/a state operated ferry on either corridor, so it's impossible to know exactly where the highway is.
I must admit that I forgot that no state ferry runs between Vashon and Seattle proper (only Fauntleroy). I guess it is equally as unclinchable (unless you have a boat).
In order to clinch Highway 168, you would probably need to tunnel as one was included in the plan (Naches tunnel). Although, semantically, a tunnel is not mentioned in the RCW, so I guess you could get away with tracing the original route on foot.
To me this seems like an absurd consideration. If a road does not physically exist, it does not physically exist. There is nothing to clinch. It's no different than trying to clinch WA 43274.3f9q. There simply is no such thing.
The issue is that WA-168 physically exists on paper. You can't skip it as a route just because it wasn't built. Just traverse where the route should have been on foot, and you're golden. :biggrin:
If it only exists on paper, then writing Washington State Route 168 on a blank sheet of paper constitutes a route clinch.
Next discussion: does chocolate milk come from chocolate cows?
Quote from: formulanone on April 07, 2018, 07:24:24 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 07, 2018, 02:32:31 PM
The issue is that WA-168 physically exists on paper. You can't skip it as a route just because it wasn't built. Just traverse where the route should have been on foot, and you're golden. :biggrin:
If it only exists on paper, then writing Washington State Route 168 on a blank sheet of paper constitutes a route clinch.
Does the ROW exist for it? If WSDOT does own the land for the route, then I would think a clinch would require walking the length of the land.
Quote from: formulanone on April 07, 2018, 07:24:24 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 07, 2018, 02:32:31 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on April 07, 2018, 02:22:24 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 04, 2018, 10:33:22 PM
Quote from: corco on April 03, 2018, 03:02:38 PM
Quote from: NE2 on April 03, 2018, 01:50:22 PM
You could clinch 168 by foot, just like 339. Does WSDOT consider 339 to exist on the ferry? If not, it no longer exists.
Yeah, I would not consider the county ferry to be part of State Route 339- it's just a random ferry that happens to travel the same trajectory.
I don't think it's possible to clinch either 168 or 339- WSDOT doesn't have right of way or state maintenance/a state operated ferry on either corridor, so it's impossible to know exactly where the highway is.
I must admit that I forgot that no state ferry runs between Vashon and Seattle proper (only Fauntleroy). I guess it is equally as unclinchable (unless you have a boat).
In order to clinch Highway 168, you would probably need to tunnel as one was included in the plan (Naches tunnel). Although, semantically, a tunnel is not mentioned in the RCW, so I guess you could get away with tracing the original route on foot.
To me this seems like an absurd consideration. If a road does not physically exist, it does not physically exist. There is nothing to clinch. It's no different than trying to clinch WA 43274.3f9q. There simply is no such thing.
The issue is that WA-168 physically exists on paper. You can't skip it as a route just because it wasn't built. Just traverse where the route should have been on foot, and you're golden. :biggrin:
If it only exists on paper, then writing Washington State Route 168 on a blank sheet of paper constitutes a route clinch.
As long as that paper forms a trail roughly following this route:
Quote from: RCW 47.17.335
Beginning at a junction with state route number 410 in the vicinity of the junction of the Greenwater and White rivers, thence easterly to a junction with state route number 410 in the vicinity north of Cliffdell.
NF-70 lays exactly between those two points, so I suppose that would have to suffice.
I was being sarcastic with my "on paper" comment, by the way. Hence the big grin.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on April 07, 2018, 08:29:31 PM
Quote from: formulanone on April 07, 2018, 07:24:24 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 07, 2018, 02:32:31 PM
The issue is that WA-168 physically exists on paper. You can't skip it as a route just because it wasn't built. Just traverse where the route should have been on foot, and you're golden. :biggrin:
If it only exists on paper, then writing Washington State Route 168 on a blank sheet of paper constitutes a route clinch.
Does the ROW exist for it? If WSDOT does own the land for the route, then I would think a clinch would require walking the length of the land.
I think the land is owned by the forest service.
Since WA-168 doesn't exist how would you clinch it?
Quote from: jakeroot on April 07, 2018, 09:07:46 PM
Quote from: formulanone on April 07, 2018, 07:24:24 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 07, 2018, 02:32:31 PM
The issue is that WA-168 physically exists on paper. You can't skip it as a route just because it wasn't built. Just traverse where the route should have been on foot, and you're golden. :biggrin:
If it only exists on paper, then writing Washington State Route 168 on a blank sheet of paper constitutes a route clinch.
As long as that paper forms a trail roughly following this route:
Quote from: RCW 47.17.335
Beginning at a junction with state route number 410 in the vicinity of the junction of the Greenwater and White rivers, thence easterly to a junction with state route number 410 in the vicinity north of Cliffdell.
NF-70 lays exactly between those two points, so I suppose that would have to suffice.
I was being sarcastic with my "on paper" comment, by the way. Hence the big grin.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on April 07, 2018, 08:29:31 PM
Does the ROW exist for it? If WSDOT does own the land for the route, then I would think a clinch would require walking the length of the land.
I think the land is owned by the forest service.
So, let me get this straight: while there isn't currently a road signed with WA-168 markers, there does exist a road that exists roughly where a hypothetical WA-168 would be? If so, wouldn't driving that road then count, in a sense?
Quote from: Flint1979 on April 07, 2018, 09:12:21 PM
Since WA-168 doesn't exist how would you clinch it?
Okay, I am purposely being ridiculous about this. There's no expectation that anyone would ever clinch WA-168 because no one knows the exact route. I'm having a bit of fun here.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on April 07, 2018, 09:13:39 PM
So, let me get this straight: while there isn't currently a road, signed with WA-168 markers, there does exist a road that exists roughly where a hypothetical WA-168 would be? If so, wouldn't driving that road then count, in a sense?
It's not really a road for the entire route. Partly paved, partly gravel. I can't seem to find a video on Youtube, but I think it might even be a Jeep trail.
Quote from: jakeroot on April 07, 2018, 10:35:46 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on April 07, 2018, 09:12:21 PM
Since WA-168 doesn't exist how would you clinch it?
Okay, I am purposely being ridiculous about this. There's no expectation that anyone would ever clinch WA-168 because no one knows the exact route. I'm having a bit of fun here.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on April 07, 2018, 09:13:39 PM
So, let me get this straight: while there isn't currently a road, signed with WA-168 markers, there does exist a road that exists roughly where a hypothetical WA-168 would be? If so, wouldn't driving that road then count, in a sense?
It's not really a road for the entire route. Partly paved, partly gravel. I can't seem to find a video on Youtube, but I think it might even be a Jeep trail.
I was thinking that it would follow NF-70 but NF-70 dead ends it looks like I can't get any grasp on how that area looks.
Quote from: jakeroot on April 07, 2018, 10:35:46 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on April 07, 2018, 09:13:39 PM
So, let me get this straight: while there isn't currently a road, signed with WA-168 markers, there does exist a road that exists roughly where a hypothetical WA-168 would be? If so, wouldn't driving that road then count, in a sense?
It's not really a road for the entire route. Partly paved, partly gravel. I can't seem to find a video on Youtube, but I think it might even be a Jeep trail.
Depends on how you define "road," I guess. I personally am of the opinion that a road is any man-made modification of the terrain to allow easier passage of vehicles; thus, even a dirt track is technically a road, even though most vehicles would not be adequate for passage over it. Other people might be more stringent with the basic requirements of what labeling something as a "road" requires.
Quote from: Flint1979 on April 07, 2018, 10:56:28 PM
I was thinking that it would follow NF-70 but NF-70 dead ends it looks like I can't get any grasp on how that area looks.
You have to use NF-7080 between the two dead ends. Forgot to mention this earlier.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on April 07, 2018, 10:59:56 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 07, 2018, 10:35:46 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on April 07, 2018, 09:13:39 PM
So, let me get this straight: while there isn't currently a road, signed with WA-168 markers, there does exist a road that exists roughly where a hypothetical WA-168 would be? If so, wouldn't driving that road then count, in a sense?
It's not really a road for the entire route. Partly paved, partly gravel. I can't seem to find a video on Youtube, but I think it might even be a Jeep trail.
Depends on how you define "road," I guess. I personally am of the opinion that a road is any man-made modification of the terrain to allow easier passage of vehicles; thus, even a dirt track is technically a road, even though most vehicles would not be adequate for passage over it. Other people might be more stringent with the basic requirements of what labeling something as a "road" requires.
When I say that it's "not really a road", what I mean is that it's a "highway" (official use of the word), but difficult to traverse in anything but a 4x4. So it's not really a road that one might use as an alternative to WA-410. It's not a "road" as far as my Golf is concerned.
Probably getting a bit off-topic here. Let's just go ahead and conclude this. If you want to clinch WA-168, drive NF-70 to NF-7080, and then back to NF-70. That is roughly the route the highway was to take. Any roadgeek to actually do this would certainly be in a class of their own: the first to clinch an unbuilt highway!
Quote from: jakeroot on April 08, 2018, 12:25:40 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on April 07, 2018, 10:56:28 PM
I was thinking that it would follow NF-70 but NF-70 dead ends it looks like I can't get any grasp on how that area looks.
You have to use NF-7080 between the two dead ends. Forgot to mention this earlier.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on April 07, 2018, 10:59:56 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 07, 2018, 10:35:46 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on April 07, 2018, 09:13:39 PM
So, let me get this straight: while there isn't currently a road, signed with WA-168 markers, there does exist a road that exists roughly where a hypothetical WA-168 would be? If so, wouldn't driving that road then count, in a sense?
It's not really a road for the entire route. Partly paved, partly gravel. I can't seem to find a video on Youtube, but I think it might even be a Jeep trail.
Depends on how you define "road," I guess. I personally am of the opinion that a road is any man-made modification of the terrain to allow easier passage of vehicles; thus, even a dirt track is technically a road, even though most vehicles would not be adequate for passage over it. Other people might be more stringent with the basic requirements of what labeling something as a "road" requires.
When I say that it's "not really a road", what I mean is that it's a "highway" (official use of the word), but difficult to traverse in anything but a 4x4. So it's not really a road that one might use as an alternative to WA-410. It's not a "road" as far as my Golf is concerned.
Probably getting a bit off-topic here. Let's just go ahead and conclude this. If you want to clinch WA-168, drive NF-70 to NF-7080, and then back to NF-70. That is roughly the route the highway was to take. Any roadgeek to actually do this would certainly be in a class of their own: the first to clinch an unbuilt highway!
Which one is NF-7080?
Quote from: Flint1979 on April 08, 2018, 01:59:28 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 08, 2018, 12:25:40 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on April 07, 2018, 10:56:28 PM
I was thinking that it would follow NF-70 but NF-70 dead ends it looks like I can't get any grasp on how that area looks.
You have to use NF-7080 between the two dead ends. Forgot to mention this earlier.
Which one is NF-7080?
It starts here (from the west): https://goo.gl/46QKdC. NF-70 actually ends a bit farther west of here. Another thing I forgot to mention :pan:
RE: The above discussion on state numbered routes that have segments through military bases: Most of NC 172 runs through Camp Lejeune and is also closed off to all but military traffic.
Quote from: Sanctimoniously on April 08, 2018, 09:03:37 AM
RE: The above discussion on state numbered routes that have segments through military bases: Most of NC 172 runs through Camp Lejeune and is also closed off to all but military traffic.
Which would make me wonder why the part within the base hasn't been decommissioned. At the very least, it could be a maintenance headache if the Marines gave NCDOT a hard time about sending its work crews into the base.
Some other states seem to decommission roads within Federal facilities, unless there is a public ROW allowing non-military traffic (such as with I-5 through Camp Pendleton).
Quote from: oscar on April 08, 2018, 09:37:44 AM
Quote from: Sanctimoniously on April 08, 2018, 09:03:37 AM
RE: The above discussion on state numbered routes that have segments through military bases: Most of NC 172 runs through Camp Lejeune and is also closed off to all but military traffic.
Which would make me wonder why the part within the base hasn't been decommissioned. At the very least, it could be a maintenance headache if the Marines gave NCDOT a hard time about sending its work crews into the base.
Some other states seem to decommission roads within Federal facilities, unless there is a public ROW allowing non-military traffic (such as with I-5 through Camp Pendleton).
I haven't been down that way to check, but I believe both GA 119 and GA 144 are closed to through traffic within Fort Stewart. Meanwhile, Fort Benning has no numbered routes within its borders other than US 27/280, which is open (though exits from it are restricted).
Quote from: oscar on April 08, 2018, 09:37:44 AMWhich would make me wonder why the part within the base hasn't been decommissioned. At the very least, it could be a maintenance headache if the Marines gave NCDOT a hard time about sending its work crews into the base.
The portion of NC 172 through Camp Lejeune connects several areas of the base and access to the training areas, it's pretty well-maintained, although by NCDOT or the DoD I couldn't answer to that. And of course, if you had DoD credentials, you could use it as a through route.
Quote from: SteveG1988 on April 07, 2018, 06:58:07 AM
One road that is impossible to do, Normandy Road in New Jersey, driving on it will get a military police officer to escort you off, and you have to visit a federal magistrate to pay the fine in person. It is used for movement between sections of naval weapons station earle.
Why not just block the road off or put a gate with a security shack on it to prevent motorists from driving on it?
Quote from: bugo on April 08, 2018, 03:26:33 PM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on April 07, 2018, 06:58:07 AM
One road that is impossible to do, Normandy Road in New Jersey, driving on it will get a military police officer to escort you off, and you have to visit a federal magistrate to pay the fine in person. It is used for movement between sections of naval weapons station earle.
Why not just block the road off or put a gate with a security shack on it to prevent motorists from driving on it?
There appears to be a substantial number of at-grade crossings, which would make security shacks a waste of time. A better idea would be to place some in-road bollards that could be opened remotely.
Quote from: SteveG1988 on April 07, 2018, 06:58:07 AM
One road that is impossible to do, Normandy Road in New Jersey, driving on it will get a military police officer to escort you off, and you have to visit a federal magistrate to pay the fine in person. It is used for movement between sections of naval weapons station earle.
Interstate H-3
https://goo.gl/maps/avHcF1HhqTM2
Here's the northern end - the way the paint is striped and the way the cones are set up - I think the end is within the base itself.
EDIT: Not sure if the GSV car made it around without an incident.
Quote from: SSOWorld on April 08, 2018, 05:04:47 PM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on April 07, 2018, 06:58:07 AM
One road that is impossible to do, Normandy Road in New Jersey, driving on it will get a military police officer to escort you off, and you have to visit a federal magistrate to pay the fine in person. It is used for movement between sections of naval weapons station earle.
Interstate H-3
https://goo.gl/maps/avHcF1HhqTM2
Here's the northern end - the way the paint is striped and the way the cones are set up - I think the end is within the base itself.
EDIT: Not sure if the GSV car made it around without an incident.
No problema. If you're in the left lane approaching the sentry station, you can do a completely legal U-turn in front of the guard station. If you're in the right lane, and can't cut over into the left lane, just take a right turn into the parking lot (for people who need visitor passes to enter the base, or to visit the replica Iwo Jima memorial at the base entrance), then do a U-turn within the parking lot and then exit onto SB H-3 using the turnaround at the guard station.
HDOT officially ends H-3 short of the guard station, 26' NE of the box culvert visible in GMSV. So either manuever gets you a clinch of H-3's north end.
There are Hawaii state routes that technically end right at a base gate. The most notable one (west end of HI 92) has a right turn into a civilian area just before the gate, which you might consider "close enough". I did the "lost tourist" excuse to go through the gate and get turned around. But this was before 9/11, and also before HDOT fixed the signage on H-1 to make clear HI 92 goes to the naval base rather than the tourist attractions around Pearl Harbor, so the sentries may not be as cheerful as before about turning you around after the gate. There are other state routes that end at closed base gates (HI 50 and HI 76, at least), so you can drive up to the gate and turn around without hassle.
For some reason, the legislatively defined corridor for I-69 includes all of I-94 east of Chicago.
http://www.peaktraffic.org/graphics/hpcfi.jpg
Quote from: oscar on April 08, 2018, 09:37:44 AM
Quote from: Sanctimoniously on April 08, 2018, 09:03:37 AM
RE: The above discussion on state numbered routes that have segments through military bases: Most of NC 172 runs through Camp Lejeune and is also closed off to all but military traffic.
Which would make me wonder why the part within the base hasn't been decommissioned. At the very least, it could be a maintenance headache if the Marines gave NCDOT a hard time about sending its work crews into the base.
If Wikipedia is to be believed, the entire length of NC 172 was open to the public until April 2007.
Which would make it like NJ 68: the entire road used to be open to the public, then DoD tightened security and restricted access. The designation hasn't been adjusted because an active decision needs to be made to do that, and people who are not roadgeeks do not generally care that the entire length of a given route cannot be freely driven.
With NJ 68 at least, the end is close enough to the gate that using the last legal turnoff is an iffy but not horrible fudge. NC 172... yeah, no way around that. There is no way to clinch NC 172, and therefore no way to clinch the North Carolina state highway system, without clearing security at Camp Lejeune. This means you either need to join the military or have some other reason to be on the base due to work. Or perhaps know someone who is stationed there you can go and visit, but it's not clear whether that is allowed on this particular base.
Quote from: Duke87 on April 08, 2018, 09:11:14 PM
There is no way to clinch NC 172, and therefore no way to clinch the North Carolina state highway system, without clearing security at Camp Lejeune. This means you either need to join the military or have some other reason to be on the base due to work. Or perhaps know someone who is stationed there you can go and visit, but it's not clear whether that is allowed on this particular base.
Not all military bases are hostile to visitors. Do a little digging, and you might find a way in.
As I've noted in other threads, I've used military museums as my excuse to visit two different Army bases. Of course, I had to do some Internet research, including making sure the museum was open when I wanted to visit the base. For one of the bases, birdwatching would've been a sufficient excuse, so long as heightened security was not in effect.
In my case, it might help that I was born at Camp Lejeune. But it looks like NC 172 passes through a different part of the base than where the hospital was located, or where my family lived in the 1950s and early 1960s.
Quote from: oscar on April 08, 2018, 09:34:24 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on April 08, 2018, 09:11:14 PM
There is no way to clinch NC 172, and therefore no way to clinch the North Carolina state highway system, without clearing security at Camp Lejeune. This means you either need to join the military or have some other reason to be on the base due to work. Or perhaps know someone who is stationed there you can go and visit, but it's not clear whether that is allowed on this particular base.
Not all military bases are hostile to visitors. Do a little digging, and you might find a way in.
As I've noted in other threads, I've used military museums as my excuse to visit two different Army bases. Of course, I had to do some Internet research, including making sure the museum was open when I wanted to visit the base. For one of the bases, birdwatching would've been a sufficient excuse, so long as heightened security was not in effect.
In my case, it might help that I was born at Camp Lejeune. But it looks like NC 172 passes through a different part of the base than where the hospital was located, or where my family lived in the 1950s and early 1960s.
Louisiana may have one, too. LA 467 goes through Fort Polk. I don't believe LA 10 passes through any gates, and LA 184 and LA 469 end at the north boundaries of the base. So that's a hindrance to clinching all the Louisiana state highways. Although I don't think any of us are anywhere close to clinching the couple thousand highways Louisiana has.
iPhone
Quote from: Duke87 on April 08, 2018, 09:11:14 PM
With NJ 68 at least, the end is close enough to the gate that using the last legal turnoff is an iffy but not horrible fudge. NC 172... yeah, no way around that. There is no way to clinch NC 172, and therefore no way to clinch the North Carolina state highway system, without clearing security at Camp Lejeune. This means you either need to join the military or have some other reason to be on the base due to work. Or perhaps know someone who is stationed there you can go and visit, but it's not clear whether that is allowed on this particular base.
Or just be older. :biggrin: I drove NC 172 on the way to my honeymoon in Atlantic Beach in 1990. At the tank crossings the asphalt gave way to a concrete strip to better handle those vehicles coming across.
If we can talk about roads from other countries, I would probably say Australia National Highway 1.
The highway itself is a giant ring road that goes across all of Australia's states and Northern Territory that's 9,000 miles long. I'm mainly just including it here because of how long it is, meaning it would take a very, very long time to completely clinch it. It might not be very difficult, but it would definitely be very time-consuming.
I don't think this has been mentioned here yet...
Quote from: TBKS1 on April 09, 2018, 02:01:24 PM
Arkansas. Mountainous and scenic in the west, practically almost flat in the east.
Actually, the northwestern half of Arkansas is typically highlands while the southeastern half is largely flat. The dividing line is roughly US 67. Eastern Arkansas towns like Pocahontas are hilly while western towns like Texarkana are generally flatter.
Quote from: Flint1979 on April 03, 2018, 02:25:46 PM
Quote from: oscar on April 03, 2018, 01:49:12 PM
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on April 03, 2018, 01:39:12 PM
To some extent, two contenders might be US Highway 9 and US Highway 10. This is because both of them go on ferries over a body of water. US 9 goes on a ferry in the waters between Delaware and New Jersey, and US 10 crosses Lake Michigan between the states of Wisconsin and Michigan. If I recall correctly, it is quite expensive to put your car on a ferry, if that is what it takes to technically clinch these routes, so this would be rather complicated to do if you wanted to clinch US 9 or US 10. I would be interested to hear if anyone has ever clinched either or both of these routes in their entirety before. :nod:
I have clinched US 9, including taking my car on the ferry a few years ago. I took the SS Badger auto ferry taking US 10 across Lake Michigan in 1996, but still have a lot of unclinched mileage elsewhere on that route.
I've clinched US-10 between Bay City and Ludington so I've clinched the Michigan section of the route unless you want to count going out into Lake Michigan for about 40 miles until you actually cross into Wisconsin. I haven't done the ferry across Lake Michigan, if I did I'd rather do the Muskegon to Milwaukee route since that's faster.
One roadgeek fantasy that I've had is for US 18 in Milwaukee to be extended to the ferry dock, cross the lake on the ferry, and then replace M-46 across Michigan in its entirety, from Muskegon to Port Sanilac (and then maybe replace M-25 from there to Port Huron; M-25 would then be truncated at Port Sanilac).
Mineral King Road (planned CA 276/current Tulare Mountain Road 375) is difficult to clinch given it's geography. Mineral King Road starts around an elevation of 1,400 feet above sea level and ends at about 7,800 feet above sea level within 25 miles. The problem is that it takes a solid 75-90 minutes of really difficult and physical driving on a really bumpy one-lane road deck. There is some several mile 18% grades in places which present another challenge that a driver normally wouldn't encounter. Not impossible, but you're pretty much committed to a second clinch since they are no other ways out of Mineral King.
Quote from: KCRoadFan on June 20, 2020, 07:36:55 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on April 03, 2018, 02:25:46 PM
Quote from: oscar on April 03, 2018, 01:49:12 PM
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on April 03, 2018, 01:39:12 PM
To some extent, two contenders might be US Highway 9 and US Highway 10. This is because both of them go on ferries over a body of water. US 9 goes on a ferry in the waters between Delaware and New Jersey, and US 10 crosses Lake Michigan between the states of Wisconsin and Michigan. If I recall correctly, it is quite expensive to put your car on a ferry, if that is what it takes to technically clinch these routes, so this would be rather complicated to do if you wanted to clinch US 9 or US 10. I would be interested to hear if anyone has ever clinched either or both of these routes in their entirety before. :nod:
I have clinched US 9, including taking my car on the ferry a few years ago. I took the SS Badger auto ferry taking US 10 across Lake Michigan in 1996, but still have a lot of unclinched mileage elsewhere on that route.
I've clinched US-10 between Bay City and Ludington so I've clinched the Michigan section of the route unless you want to count going out into Lake Michigan for about 40 miles until you actually cross into Wisconsin. I haven't done the ferry across Lake Michigan, if I did I'd rather do the Muskegon to Milwaukee route since that's faster.
One roadgeek fantasy that I've had is for US 18 in Milwaukee to be extended to the ferry dock, cross the lake on the ferry, and then replace M-46 across Michigan in its entirety, from Muskegon to Port Sanilac (and then maybe replace M-25 from there to Port Huron; M-25 would then be truncated at Port Sanilac).
That would be strange. M-46 isn't far from my house and I'm on it everyday. I honestly think that it would be cool to call it US-18 instead. The only thing is that M-25 goes straight thru Port Sanillac and US-18 would need to turn to the south to get to Port Huron. Also it would be north of US-12 over here too.
Someone probably mentioned this but M-134 and M-154 would be a pain to clinch. Both require travel on ferries.
Quote from: Flint1979 on June 20, 2020, 09:17:33 PM
Someone probably mentioned this but M-134 and M-154 would be a pain to clinch. Both require travel on ferries.
As would NC 12 which has three segments connected by two ferries to Ocracoke Island. I've also seen parts get washed away by hurricane.
I would imagine trying to find the routing of all the Dixie Highway segments would be a pain in the arse.
A couple on the state level that come to mind because of length/time, access, lack of signage or changes of direction:
WIS 35 East Dubuque IL to Superior
WIS 23 Darlington to Sheboygan
WIS 32 Pleasant Prairie to Land O'Lakes
ILL 1 Cave In The Rock to Chicago
Quote from: skluth on June 21, 2020, 11:13:09 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on June 20, 2020, 09:17:33 PM
Someone probably mentioned this but M-134 and M-154 would be a pain to clinch. Both require travel on ferries.
As would NC 12 which has three segments connected by two ferries to Ocracoke Island. I've also seen parts get washed away by hurricane.
I've clinched the southern end through the ferries. If you're a casual tourist, it may be harder to clinch the long, slow section parallel to US 158.
Any long US highway with significant urban street mileage, would be just a miserable slog.
Quote from: hobsini2 on June 21, 2020, 08:33:25 PM
I would imagine trying to find the routing of all the Dixie Highway segments would be a pain in the arse.
A couple on the state level that come to mind because of length/time, access, lack of signage or changes of direction:
WIS 35 East Dubuque IL to Superior
WIS 23 Darlington to Sheboygan
WIS 32 Pleasant Prairie to Land O'Lakes
ILL 1 Cave In The Rock to Chicago
I have the Saginaw Trail down pat but don't know where in Ohio it starts and ends. I've seen it in Kentucky.
Quote from: Rothman on June 22, 2020, 12:00:02 AMIf you're a casual tourist, it may be harder to clinch the long, slow section parallel to US 158.
Not as hard as you'd think. US 158 is full of signals and clogged with traffic. NC 12 by comparison is almost entirely a residential 2-lane road, with only 2 signals. The speed limit may be lower (35 vs 50 IIRC) but it's not constant stop-and-go.
Quote from: hobsini2 on June 21, 2020, 08:33:25 PM
I would imagine trying to find the routing of all the Dixie Highway segments would be a pain in the arse.
Twenty years ago, yes.
Nowadays, not so much.
https://2lanetraveler.com/home/dhmaps/
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on June 22, 2020, 10:38:03 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on June 21, 2020, 08:33:25 PM
I would imagine trying to find the routing of all the Dixie Highway segments would be a pain in the arse.
Twenty years ago, yes.
Nowadays, not so much.
https://2lanetraveler.com/home/dhmaps/
Clinching that would require a lot of dedication and doubling back. It really should have been two (or more) separate auto trails.
A textbook example of "design by committee".
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on June 22, 2020, 10:56:09 AM
Quote from: Rothman on June 22, 2020, 12:00:02 AMIf you're a casual tourist, it may be harder to clinch the long, slow section parallel to US 158.
Not as hard as you'd think. US 158 is full of signals and clogged with traffic. NC 12 by comparison is almost entirely a residential 2-lane road, with only 2 signals. The speed limit may be lower (35 vs 50 IIRC) but it's not constant stop-and-go.
I would suspect this isn't always the case, especially on summer beach weekends.
Until the new Cline Ave Bridge is finished, the western leg of IN 912 is closed. If you hadn't clinched it already, you'll have to wait until the new bridge opens (supposedly sometime this year, but I really doubt it).
There aren't any other highways in Indiana that would be considered terribly difficult to clinch.
IN 158 and IN 645 both end a couple hundred feet before reaching gates at Crane Naval Center. 158 has a spot to turn around between the highway end and the gate, but 645 does not. You have to do a multiple-point turnaround in the roadway.
LA 10 in Louisiana would be a bit of a pain now that there is no ferry across the Atchafalaya River. It's a 25 mile detour to get around to the other side and LA 10 on the east side of the river is unpaved. Taking just 10 across all of Louisiana would be a pretty long haul.
iPhone
Quote from: cabiness42 on June 23, 2020, 09:28:02 AM
Until the new Cline Ave Bridge is finished, the western leg of IN 912 is closed. If you hadn't clinched it already, you'll have to wait until the new bridge opens (supposedly sometime this year, but I really doubt it).
There aren't any other highways in Indiana that would be considered terribly difficult to clinch.
IN 158 and IN 645 both end a couple hundred feet before reaching gates at Crane Naval Center. 158 has a spot to turn around between the highway end and the gate, but 645 does not. You have to do a multiple-point turnaround in the roadway.
I clinched IN-912 on accident trying to get around traffic on the Borman.
Quote from: Flint1979 on June 22, 2020, 12:05:34 AM
Quote from: hobsini2 on June 21, 2020, 08:33:25 PM
I would imagine trying to find the routing of all the Dixie Highway segments would be a pain in the arse.
A couple on the state level that come to mind because of length/time, access, lack of signage or changes of direction:
WIS 35 East Dubuque IL to Superior
WIS 23 Darlington to Sheboygan
WIS 32 Pleasant Prairie to Land O'Lakes
ILL 1 Cave In The Rock to Chicago
I have the Saginaw Trail down pat but don't know where in Ohio it starts and ends. I've seen it in Kentucky.
And did you know that there is a Dixie Hwy segment (signed still) into Chicago?
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on June 22, 2020, 10:38:03 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on June 21, 2020, 08:33:25 PM
I would imagine trying to find the routing of all the Dixie Highway segments would be a pain in the arse.
Twenty years ago, yes.
Nowadays, not so much.
https://2lanetraveler.com/home/dhmaps/
Thanks for this.
Quote from: hobsini2 on June 23, 2020, 04:49:57 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on June 22, 2020, 12:05:34 AM
Quote from: hobsini2 on June 21, 2020, 08:33:25 PM
I would imagine trying to find the routing of all the Dixie Highway segments would be a pain in the arse.
A couple on the state level that come to mind because of length/time, access, lack of signage or changes of direction:
WIS 35 East Dubuque IL to Superior
WIS 23 Darlington to Sheboygan
WIS 32 Pleasant Prairie to Land O'Lakes
ILL 1 Cave In The Rock to Chicago
I have the Saginaw Trail down pat but don't know where in Ohio it starts and ends. I've seen it in Kentucky.
And did you know that there is a Dixie Hwy segment (signed still) into Chicago?
Yup I'm aware of that one as well.
I'd say any highway with gaps that indicate it will be extended in the future, such as I-69 and I-74. The two I-76s, I-84s, I-86s and I-88s (plus the US 2s as well) are exempt from this because their gaps are too large for them to connect on their own, and therefore can be considered two separate segments.
In Canada's or Alaska's northern reaches, is there any highway whose northern terminus is beyond an oil field security gate?
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 22, 2020, 12:01:49 AM
Any long US highway with significant urban street mileage, would be just a miserable slog.
This is the truth...
I drove US 1 from New Brunswick NJ to Providence RI in one sitting....took about 8 hrs
Quote from: kphoger on June 24, 2020, 11:32:24 AM
In Canada's or Alaska's northern reaches, is there any highway whose northern terminus is beyond an oil field security gate?
I don't think so. The Dalton higwhay (AK 11) ends in Deadhorse, about 2 miles shy of the gate. That's the only numbered one I can think of that leads to a restricted-access oilfield. The Tuktoyaktuk highway (NWT 10) leads right to the Arctic coast.
Plenty of those northern roads would be a real PITA to clinch though, due to extreme remoteness and poor road conditions. Some dead-end out in the wilderness with no services for hundreds of miles and likely single-digit daily traffic volumes. Plenty are also only maintained seasonally.
I don't think length wise this was a hard one but I clinched IN-42 last night. With all the curves and the narrowness of the highway it seemed like it took forever to clinch.
YT-6 would be a PITA to clinch, although at least the portion beyond the YT/NT border is no longer a state route. On the other hand, oscar actually clinched it (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=24472.msg2394352#msg2394352) back in 2012, over the course of two days (not counting return-trip mileage).