What states seem to go absolutely overboard with designations? This isn't region specific or fictional.
Quote from: CapeCodder on August 30, 2018, 10:13:04 AM
What states seem to go absolutely overboard with designations? This isn't region specific or fictional.
California? Looking at it's history... yeah.
Quote from: TheArkansasRoadgeek on August 30, 2018, 10:26:34 AM
Quote from: CapeCodder on August 30, 2018, 10:13:04 AM
What states seem to go absolutely overboard with designations? This isn't region specific or fictional.
California? Looking at it's history... yeah.
I would assume California too. Is the purpose of such numberings for revenue?
California seems downright stingy with state routes compared to places I've lived and worked like New Mexico or Florida. Florida is pretty hard core shout even making sure County Routes line with the state grid even if the route is insignificant. New Mexico has a wild variation of build quality all the way from gravel to freeway. Utah has a lot of odd hidden designations for Routes in state parks or on right-of-way grabbed up to block building of something else.
West Virginia and its fraction routes. Pennsylvania and all its little 4 digit SR designations.
New Hampshire and its suffixed routes. Just look at NH 9A in Chesterfield or NH 11D and 28A in Alton. (New York has crazier suffixes, but it also has much more land area.)
Quote from: CapeCodder on August 30, 2018, 10:13:04 AM
What states seem to go absolutely overboard with designations? This isn't region specific or fictional.
Kentucky. Everything that would be a county or township level road is a state highway of some sort.
Here on the Cape, it seems every major road that goes from 6A on the north shore to 28 on the south shore has a number. 130, 149, 132, 134, 124, and finally 137 and 39 do as well.
39 and 151 go from 28 to 28.
Quote from: CapeCodder on August 30, 2018, 12:47:38 PM
Here on the Cape, it seems every major road that goes from 6A on the north shore to 28 on the south shore has a number. 130, 149, 132, 134, 124, and finally 137 and 39 do as well.
39 and 151 go from 28 to 28.
Those are mostly roads that I would expect to have numbers. I don't think there are any extraneous designations.
Quote from: Brandon on August 30, 2018, 12:46:35 PM
Quote from: CapeCodder on August 30, 2018, 10:13:04 AM
What states seem to go absolutely overboard with designations? This isn't region specific or fictional.
Kentucky. Everything that would be a county or township level road is a state highway of some sort.
Nope. We have plenty of county routes that may have an inventory number assigned internally, but they aren't posted.
You're thinking of West Virginia or Virginia, where there are no county-maintained routes and the state numbers (and posts) everything.
Kentucky's system is FAR denser than other states would have. Makes me wonder if the counties there maintain road that towns would here (and maybe the towns maintain people's driveways? :-D).
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on August 30, 2018, 12:31:32 PM
West Virginia and its fraction routes. Pennsylvania and all its little 4 digit SR designations.
How does the fractional route system work? I've seen some county roads in Ohio with decimals.
Quote from: CapeCodder on August 30, 2018, 02:08:35 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on August 30, 2018, 12:31:32 PM
West Virginia and its fraction routes. Pennsylvania and all its little 4 digit SR designations.
How does the fractional route system work? I've seen some county roads in Ohio with decimals.
They're not actually fractions; they're just two numbers separated by a horizontal line.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 30, 2018, 12:18:28 PM
California seems downright stingy with state routes compared to places I've lived and worked like New Mexico or Florida.
I would even go as far as saying that California post-1998 has been more about relinquishments than creating any new signed surface routes, and that many surface corridors that were on proposed freeway routes have never been adopted/signed even if they have navigational value. (Case in point: Route 93 in Richmond, along the current pathway of the municipally-maintained Richmond Parkway)
Quote from: TheStranger on August 30, 2018, 02:19:15 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 30, 2018, 12:18:28 PM
California seems downright stingy with state routes compared to places I've lived and worked like New Mexico or Florida.
I would even go as far as saying that California post-1998 has been more about relinquishments than creating any new signed surface routes, and that many surface corridors that were on proposed freeway routes have never been adopted/signed even if they have navigational value. (Case in point: Route 93 in Richmond, along the current pathway of the municipally-maintained Richmond Parkway)
Up until the '64 renumbering, there were quite a few LRN's -- a lot of them in the Central Valley -- that had never been posted as SSR's in the field. And these weren't latter-day additions; most dated from 1934, when signage efforts were in process. Some were simply connections from signed routes into cities, like LRN 124 (present CA 233) from CA 152 through Chowchilla and on to (then) US 99; only about 6 miles long, it wasn't considered worth signing prior to the change of policy that came after '64. Some longer cross-valley routes, most notably LRN 134 (current CA 137) provided both connectivity between Valley towns (Corcoran, Tulare, Lindsay) -- but were still deemed too sparsely traveled for signage. And even after the renumbering, it still took the Division of Highways about 5 years to complete its signage efforts (some districts were more prompt than others in this regard).
But compared with today's Caltrans attitudes, those were certainly the "good old days"!
Do not forget about Georgia and their ridiculous state routes paired with the US routes and fully signed.
That maybe why GA cops are dicks due to the revenue needed to support the manufacturing and installation of those redundant signs.
I feel like Maryland goes pretty nuts on designations and then they have random roads with pieces of the same designation (I'm looking at you MD-7).
Likewise, why have two Route 68s? Two Route 70s? Then you end up with situations like this (photo from Wikimedia user MPD01605):
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/MD68notI68.jpg)
Quote from: vdeane on August 30, 2018, 01:31:56 PM
Kentucky's system is FAR denser than other states would have. Makes me wonder if the counties there maintain road that towns would here (and maybe the towns maintain people's driveways? :-D).
Kentucky doesn't have towns, at least not in the sense with which you're familiar. There are three levels of government -- state, county, and city/municipal. The state maintains all the numbered routes, the cities maintain streets within their corporate limits, and the counties maintain everything else. As far as driveways are concerned, that's West Virginia, again (the HARP roads.)
How has nobody mentioned Texas yet? They have so many routes that they have to have multiple route systems.
Quote from: sparker on August 30, 2018, 05:14:49 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on August 30, 2018, 02:19:15 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 30, 2018, 12:18:28 PM
California seems downright stingy with state routes compared to places I've lived and worked like New Mexico or Florida.
I would even go as far as saying that California post-1998 has been more about relinquishments than creating any new signed surface routes, and that many surface corridors that were on proposed freeway routes have never been adopted/signed even if they have navigational value. (Case in point: Route 93 in Richmond, along the current pathway of the municipally-maintained Richmond Parkway)
Up until the '64 renumbering, there were quite a few LRN's -- a lot of them in the Central Valley -- that had never been posted as SSR's in the field. And these weren't latter-day additions; most dated from 1934, when signage efforts were in process. Some were simply connections from signed routes into cities, like LRN 124 (present CA 233) from CA 152 through Chowchilla and on to (then) US 99; only about 6 miles long, it wasn't considered worth signing prior to the change of policy that came after '64. Some longer cross-valley routes, most notably LRN 134 (current CA 137) provided both connectivity between Valley towns (Corcoran, Tulare, Lindsay) -- but were still deemed too sparsely traveled for signage. And even after the renumbering, it still took the Division of Highways about 5 years to complete its signage efforts (some districts were more prompt than others in this regard).
But compared with today's Caltrans attitudes, those were certainly the "good old days"!
I'd say on the whole there aren't a ton of routes in California that simple go nowhere or are on nonsensical. Granted there are a TON of routes with gaps that were never finished and may/may not have adopted connective alignments. Compared to most states I think its fair to say that the overwhelming amount of highways at minimum have a purpose.
Quote from: roadman65 on August 30, 2018, 07:24:57 PM
Do not forget about Georgia and their ridiculous state routes paired with the US routes and fully signed.
In Georgia, not only are there the state routes that pretty much spend the entirety of their time concurrent with a US Highway(s), as you say, such as GA 3 and GA 7, but there are also the "secret" state routes that are concurrent with every
interstate within the state (such as GA 401 being paired with I-75), even though they aren't signed.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on August 30, 2018, 12:31:32 PM
Pennsylvania and all its little 4 digit SR designations.
I think this thread is more for signed designations. PennDOT's SR designations aren't meant to be signed. They just own a lot of roads around the state and have to have
some kind of reference system.
Quote from: Roadsguy on August 30, 2018, 11:11:38 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on August 30, 2018, 12:31:32 PM
Pennsylvania and all its little 4 digit SR designations.
I think this thread is more for signed designations. PennDOT's SR designations aren't meant to be signed. They just own a lot of roads around the state and have to have some kind of reference system.
Especially true for Delaware. I heard that DelDOT maintains something like 90% of the state's road network so if you look at Google Maps, you'll see tons of rural roads named things like "Road 535" without a name (because Google doesn't bother putting them in). However, we don't really have that many signed routes, although some of their numbers I'd like to see changed (cough, cough DE-62).
I heard from one of my coworkers that up until about 15 years ago, the DelDOT road number was pretty much your street name, but then people living/working along those roads were given the option to give them an actual name.
TJSANOATD, Interstate edition: http://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/index.html (scroll down for map)
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on August 30, 2018, 11:08:31 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 30, 2018, 07:24:57 PM
Do not forget about Georgia and their ridiculous state routes paired with the US routes and fully signed.
In Georgia, not only are there the state routes that pretty much spend the entirety of their time concurrent with a US Highway(s), as you say, such as GA 3 and GA 7, but there are also the "secret" state routes that are concurrent with every interstate within the state (such as GA 401 being paired with I-75), even though they aren't signed.
And marked on Google Maps for some odd reason.
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 30, 2018, 10:48:33 PM
How has nobody mentioned Texas yet? They have so many routes that they have to have multiple route systems.
But amazingly enough, not every road in TX is numbered. Dallas N. Tollway, Hardy Toll Road, and OSR are a few examples. There may be a few county roads around that don't have some kind of CR numbering but I'm not sure what those would be.
New York will:
Suffix signed routes, sometimes multiple times
Continue Interstates as numbered SRs
Duplicate interstate and numbered highways
I would say Arkansas, but we don't have the money! Well, we did just get 612.
Kentucky, West Virginia, and Virginia all make county routes part of their state route system, so they will slap at least a four digit route number on every single back road it's possible to do.
Have they all been dipping into the 'shine together, or what?
Quote from: mrcmc888 on September 03, 2018, 01:27:58 AM
Kentucky, West Virginia, and Virginia all make county routes part of their state route system, so they will slap at least a four digit route number on every single back road it's possible to do.
Have they all been dipping into the 'shine together, or what?
Kentucky and West Virginia used to be part of Virginia.
Any state with county highway.
Quote from: mrcmc888 on September 03, 2018, 01:27:58 AM
Kentucky, West Virginia, and Virginia all make county routes part of their state route system...
Wrong. Kentucky will sometimes adopt a county road into the state network but it's usually a trade-off. The county will take over maintenance of a former state route.
Quote from: TEG24601 on September 03, 2018, 04:23:16 PM
Any state with county highway.
To be fair, a lot of MN county roads are better than other people's state highways.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on September 03, 2018, 09:46:36 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on September 03, 2018, 04:23:16 PM
Any state with county highway.
To be fair, a lot of MN county roads are better than other people's state highways.
Florida's County Routes generally are up to a pretty high standard overall. The Signed County Routes in California vary in quality but generally are important corridors.
Here in Alabama, most counties will either sign every road that isn't state or city maintained as a county route, or not use/sign county routes at all. There are a few exceptions (like Colbert County), but it's generally not the norm.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 30, 2018, 12:18:28 PM
Florida is pretty hard core shout even making sure County Routes line with the state grid even if the route is insignificant.
I think that's because most signed county routes in Florida were originally state routes, hence why many of them feature suffixes.
Louisiana has a dense highway system. Here we have 4 digit routes & hyphenated routes....and 4 digit hyphenated routes.
But the parishes maintain their own system of roads, which usually includes the streets of the smaller towns. Parishes will either name or number their roads...or both:
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1851/29563693507_9a566ac881.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/M3rE6z)CVOC Rd. Very ugly pentagon. (https://flic.kr/p/M3rE6z) by Jess Kilgore (https://www.flickr.com/photos/130771900@N08/), on Flickr
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on September 03, 2018, 09:46:36 PM
To be fair, a lot of MN county roads are better than other people's state highways.
The multi-county CSAH 42 needs a state number...
Quote from: ipeters61 on August 30, 2018, 08:58:48 PM
I feel like Maryland goes pretty nuts on designations and then they have random roads with pieces of the same designation (I'm looking at you MD-7).
Likewise, why have two Route 68s? Two Route 70s? Then you end up with situations like this (photo from Wikimedia user MPD01605):
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/MD68notI68.jpg)
I like how clear and direct this sign is. A version of this sign in Texas would be perfect for southbound US 75 to resolve the SH 121/FM 121 differentiation.
Assuming secondary routes count, a lot of states do this. With NC, our secondary routes are 4 digits, and almost every road is one. They also reset at county lines. Even the drop off loop at my school has one, SR 1383. Even not counting secondary routes, NC uses most numbers 1-999. We also have a numbering scheme, but it isn't really used anymore and hasn't been used for a while, AFAIK.
Quote from: Roadsguy on August 30, 2018, 11:11:38 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on August 30, 2018, 12:31:32 PM
Pennsylvania and all its little 4 digit SR designations.
I think this thread is more for signed designations. PennDOT's SR designations aren't meant to be signed. They just own a lot of roads around the state and have to have some kind of reference system.
At least in the parts of Pennsylvania that I have occasion to visit, they're signed.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on August 30, 2018, 12:31:32 PM
West Virginia and its fraction routes. Pennsylvania and all its little 4 digit SR designations.
The routes have to be inventoried somehow. This isn't any different than county and township road numbers used in plenty of other states.
Quote from: Doctor Whom on September 06, 2018, 03:18:23 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on August 30, 2018, 11:11:38 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on August 30, 2018, 12:31:32 PM
Pennsylvania and all its little 4 digit SR designations.
I think this thread is more for signed designations. PennDOT's SR designations aren't meant to be signed. They just own a lot of roads around the state and have to have some kind of reference system.
At least in the parts of Pennsylvania that I have occasion to visit, they're signed.
The 4-digit SRs in Pennsylvania don't get shields like with a regular state (traffic) route. The signs that exist are normally just for PennDOT inventory purposes with section numbers.
To me, I feel that Washington state is the opposite of this concept. I almost wish there were more numbered routes in the state, and especially wish we used numbered county routes here. There are several county roads I can think of that are significant enough to be numbered county routes.
Most of the newer interstates annoy me (I-2; I-11; I-14; I-41; I-73, I-74, and I-87 in NC; I-99), even though some are longer than the older ones. I really can't give a rational explanation, but it's along the lines of a feeling that the older designations were decided by merit (passing over the issue of whether one agrees said merit is warranted) and in line with an overall national plan, whereas the newer designations feel like the clubhouse door is wide open for anyone who pays off the right people.
Quote from: wanderer2575 on September 08, 2018, 09:21:33 PM
Most of the newer interstates annoy me (I-2; I-11; I-14; I-41; I-73, I-74, and I-87 in NC; I-99), even though some are longer than the older ones. I really can't give a rational explanation, but it's along the lines of a feeling that the older designations were decided by merit (passing over the issue of whether one agrees said merit is warranted) and in line with an overall national plan, whereas the newer designations feel like the clubhouse door is wide open for anyone who pays off the right people.
I get that feeling too. Also, seriously, why did they choose I-87 for NC? I'd think it's too close to I-87 in NY....
Speaking of that, I feel slightly annoyed by 3dis which are assigned to routes under, say, 5 miles (e.g. I-395 in Baltimore, I-381 in Bristol VA, I-579 in Pittsburgh, I-705 in Tacoma, etc). I get that they're supposed to "promote connection to the interstate highway system," but it just seems excessive. Likewise, why bother assigning I-595 to US-50/US-301 in Maryland? They don't even bother signing it!
I get that it has to do with the massive amount of federal highway dollars that are granted to states which are only given for interstate projects, but still...I feel like an interstate should be a major route with some length to it (speaking of, honest question here, does anybody know of extremely short 3 digit US routes?).
Quote from: ipeters61 on September 08, 2018, 10:07:56 PM
(speaking of, honest question here, does anybody know of extremely short 3 digit US routes?).
Former US 630.
Extremely short US routes are still required to be in more than one state.
Quote from: Road Hog on September 06, 2018, 11:48:58 AM
Quote from: ipeters61 on August 30, 2018, 08:58:48 PM
I feel like Maryland goes pretty nuts on designations and then they have random roads with pieces of the same designation (I'm looking at you MD-7).
Likewise, why have two Route 68s? Two Route 70s? Then you end up with situations like this (photo from Wikimedia user MPD01605):
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/MD68notI68.jpg)
I like how clear and direct this sign is. A version of this sign in Texas would be perfect for southbound US 75 to resolve the SH 121/FM 121 differentiation.
I like the sign in principle but in practice I think it ought to be better worded. Instead of the useless "National Freeway" reference, it ought to say something like "to Cumberland and Morgantown" or "to Cumberland and Points West" or some such. Cumberland is a no-brainer as the only significant population center in Maryland on that highway. The rest of it would depend on what Maryland wants to promote. There are other signs elsewhere noting I-68 as a route to Ohio and points west, so I have in mind some variation on that.
There are two reasons why I feel that way about the sign. The first is that nobody calls I-68 the "National Freeway." Everybody calls it I-68 or plain old 68. Referring to where the road goes would be more useful than a silly name nobody uses. The second is that I think underscoring where it goes would help people whose directions don't distinguish between types of roads, which is something I think is fairly common. That is, if I gave you directions to Rocky Gap State Park I'd tell you to take I-70 west to Hancock, then I-68 west towards Cumberland, and then look for the brown sign for the park, but a lot of people would simply tell you to take "70 to 68." Those are the people for whom the BGS seen in the photo above is important, but it doesn't necessarily help them if they weren't told to look for Interstate 68. It always surprises me how some people will e-mail directions that use just numbers without saying "US" or "I-" or whatever.
Regarding the original topic, Virginia has those ubiquitous white rectangular signs for almost every road in the VDOT System ("almost" denoting I'm sure there are exceptions), even down to some streets an outsider might expect to be locally or privately maintained. For example, my parents' house out near Fairfax City is on a T-intersection where one street is a court that ends in two cul-de-sacs (is that the correct plural form?). That court has a VDOT route number posted. If it were in my neighborhood about 15 minutes away, both streets would probably be HOA-owned and -maintained. In this case it's primarily a function of when our neighborhoods were built (VDOT rules on proffers and such changed over time), but it makes the larger point that there are plenty of streets here that would not even qualify for county route numbers in most states but have VDOT state secondary route numbers.
^^^
I'd change the sign to read, "If you're too stupid to recognize the difference between an interstate route marker and a state route marker, you're too stupid to be driving."
Maryland duplicates state and interstate route numbers, but I suppose this is the only location where one might get confused. But still... Wonder if anyone has ever entered Maryland from the west on I-68 and then gotten off at MD 495, expecting to enter the Beltway?
There's a similar dynamic at work in West Virginia, where except for an exit near Morgantown, they refuse to sign US 19 on southbound I-79 exits, with the thinking being that someone who plans to use Corridor L to get to Beckley would exit too soon. Surely, people aren't that dumb.
Quote from: hbelkins on September 09, 2018, 01:34:50 PM
^^^
I'd change the sign to read, "If you're too stupid to recognize the difference between an interstate route marker and a state route marker, you're too stupid to be driving."
Maryland duplicates state and interstate route numbers, but I suppose this is the only location where one might get confused. But still... Wonder if anyone has ever entered Maryland from the west on I-68 and then gotten off at MD 495, expecting to enter the Beltway?
There's a similar dynamic at work in West Virginia, where except for an exit near Morgantown, they refuse to sign US 19 on southbound I-79 exits, with the thinking being that someone who plans to use Corridor L to get to Beckley would exit too soon. Surely, people aren't that dumb.
Arizona has done route duplications and I've never heard anything about it being an issue before. US 95 and AZ 95 even meet in Quartzite, signage is generally good enough to allow anyone who can properly read to figure out where they need to go. Even AZ 89 and AZ 89A are signed clearly enough for drivers to understand which highway they want.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 09, 2018, 02:03:10 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 09, 2018, 01:34:50 PM
^^^
I'd change the sign to read, "If you're too stupid to recognize the difference between an interstate route marker and a state route marker, you're too stupid to be driving."
Maryland duplicates state and interstate route numbers, but I suppose this is the only location where one might get confused. But still... Wonder if anyone has ever entered Maryland from the west on I-68 and then gotten off at MD 495, expecting to enter the Beltway?
There's a similar dynamic at work in West Virginia, where except for an exit near Morgantown, they refuse to sign US 19 on southbound I-79 exits, with the thinking being that someone who plans to use Corridor L to get to Beckley would exit too soon. Surely, people aren't that dumb.
Arizona has done route duplications and I've never heard anything about it being an issue before. US 95 and AZ 95 even meet in Quartzite, signage is generally good enough to allow anyone who can properly read to figure out where they need to go. Even AZ 89 and AZ 89A are signed clearly enough for drivers to understand which highway they want.
The problem is greater for regions that use just the number when mentioning routes. Here, it's "Route 2" for single digits (or possibly single syllables; I don't live near anything numbered 7, 10, or 12) and just the number ("495") for the rest. Places that use different terms for Interstates and/or US routes in common usage would have less confusion.
Quote from: 1 on September 09, 2018, 02:12:05 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 09, 2018, 02:03:10 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 09, 2018, 01:34:50 PM
^^^
I'd change the sign to read, "If you're too stupid to recognize the difference between an interstate route marker and a state route marker, you're too stupid to be driving."
Maryland duplicates state and interstate route numbers, but I suppose this is the only location where one might get confused. But still... Wonder if anyone has ever entered Maryland from the west on I-68 and then gotten off at MD 495, expecting to enter the Beltway?
There's a similar dynamic at work in West Virginia, where except for an exit near Morgantown, they refuse to sign US 19 on southbound I-79 exits, with the thinking being that someone who plans to use Corridor L to get to Beckley would exit too soon. Surely, people aren't that dumb.
Arizona has done route duplications and I've never heard anything about it being an issue before. US 95 and AZ 95 even meet in Quartzite, signage is generally good enough to allow anyone who can properly read to figure out where they need to go. Even AZ 89 and AZ 89A are signed clearly enough for drivers to understand which highway they want.
The problem is greater for regions that use just the number when mentioning routes. Here, it's "Route 2" for single digits (or possibly single syllables; I don't live near anything numbered 7, 10, or 12) and just the number ("495") for the rest. Places that use different terms for Interstates and/or US routes in common usage would have less confusion.
Speaking as someone who lived in Arizona as long as they did there generally is a delineation in conversation between; County Route, US Route, State Highway, and Interstate. Since I've been working in Californian on the other hand the slang tends to be "The insert route number" no matter what highway type. I suspect that it played a somewhat significant role in the 1964 State Highway renumbering which sought to eliminate number duplications and ultimately did so by defining all state maintained routes as the same thing.
Quote from: wanderer2575 on September 08, 2018, 09:21:33 PM
Most of the newer interstates annoy me (I-2; I-11; I-14; I-41; I-73, I-74, and I-87 in NC; I-99), even though some are longer than the older ones. I really can't give a rational explanation, but it's along the lines of a feeling that the older designations were decided by merit (passing over the issue of whether one agrees said merit is warranted) and in line with an overall national plan, whereas the newer designations feel like the clubhouse door is wide open for anyone who pays off the right people.
I feel (and i think many others here agree with me) that the same thing has happened to US highways in the past 25-30 years (I'm looking at you, US 400!)
Quote from: ipeters61 on September 08, 2018, 10:07:56 PM
Quote from: wanderer2575 on September 08, 2018, 09:21:33 PM
Most of the newer interstates annoy me (I-2; I-11; I-14; I-41; I-73, I-74, and I-87 in NC; I-99), even though some are longer than the older ones. I really can't give a rational explanation, but it's along the lines of a feeling that the older designations were decided by merit (passing over the issue of whether one agrees said merit is warranted) and in line with an overall national plan, whereas the newer designations feel like the clubhouse door is wide open for anyone who pays off the right people.
I get that feeling too. Also, seriously, why did they choose I-87 for NC? I'd think it's too close to I-87 in NY....
Speaking of that, I feel slightly annoyed by 3dis which are assigned to routes under, say, 5 miles (e.g. I-395 in Baltimore, I-381 in Bristol VA, I-579 in Pittsburgh, I-705 in Tacoma, etc). I get that they're supposed to "promote connection to the interstate highway system," but it just seems excessive. Likewise, why bother assigning I-595 to US-50/US-301 in Maryland? They don't even bother signing it!
I get that it has to do with the massive amount of federal highway dollars that are granted to states which are only given for interstate projects, but still...I feel like an interstate should be a major route with some length to it (speaking of, honest question here, does anybody know of extremely short 3 digit US routes?).
I agree completely. I-705 in Tacoma is a glorified on/off-ramp to I-5, WA 7, and WA 509. They should've signed it as an extension of WA 7 and been done with it. This is about comparable to signing the US 30 freeway stub off the Fremont Bridge in Portland as I-505 (like it was supposed to be originally). Yes, technically it is Interstate-standard, but it is so short that ODOT didn't bother, after the I-505 proposal was nixed. I-705 in Tacoma technically isn't even completely Interstate-standard, as it has only one northbound through lane briefly.
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 09, 2018, 01:06:41 PM
I like the sign in principle but in practice I think it ought to be better worded. Instead of the useless "National Freeway" reference, it ought to say something like "to Cumberland and Morgantown" or "to Cumberland and Points West" or some such. Cumberland is a no-brainer as the only significant population center in Maryland on that highway. The rest of it would depend on what Maryland wants to promote. There are other signs elsewhere noting I-68 as a route to Ohio and points west, so I have in mind some variation on that.
There are two reasons why I feel that way about the sign. The first is that nobody calls I-68 the "National Freeway." Everybody calls it I-68 or plain old 68. Referring to where the road goes would be more useful than a silly name nobody uses. The second is that I think underscoring where it goes would help people whose directions don't distinguish between types of roads, which is something I think is fairly common. That is, if I gave you directions to Rocky Gap State Park I'd tell you to take I-70 west to Hancock, then I-68 west towards Cumberland, and then look for the brown sign for the park, but a lot of people would simply tell you to take "70 to 68." Those are the people for whom the BGS seen in the photo above is important, but it doesn't necessarily help them if they weren't told to look for Interstate 68. It always surprises me how some people will e-mail directions that use just numbers without saying "US" or "I-" or whatever.
I agree. I've never been to Western Maryland but I figured that nobody would know I-68 as the "National Freeway" (frankly, when I first saw the name I was pretty confused).
I remember one time my grandparents (from PA) rented a beach house in Cape May NJ and they mentioned taking NJ-55 to NJ-47, and not to take NJ-47 at any exit off NJ-55 (it's the parallel route) because "it's just to trick you." Because, you know, NJDOT definitely wants long-distance traffic clogging a local road when an expressway immediately parallel exists, and also, you know, nobody who lives in Millville or Vineland would be interested in an exit serving NJ-47.
Texas, with 4 digit state highways that seem more like county roads
Quote from: wanderer2575 on September 08, 2018, 09:21:33 PM
Most of the newer interstates annoy me (I-2; I-11; I-14; I-41; I-73, I-74, and I-87 in NC; I-99), even though some are longer than the older ones. I really can't give a rational explanation, but it's along the lines of a feeling that the older designations were decided by merit (passing over the issue of whether one agrees said merit is warranted) and in line with an overall national plan, whereas the newer designations feel like the clubhouse door is wide open for anyone who pays off the right people.
Not to mention the return (in Texas) of lettered Interstates (I-69E, I-69C...the former even has its own I-169)
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmtvVhct
In the above album are pictures of LA 3239. The road is dirt...and signed & maintained...on both ends by LaDOTD. It is paved in the middle. I don't know how long this has been a state road, but it seems like a waste.
Quote from: texaskdog on September 09, 2018, 07:10:26 PM
Texas, with 4 digit state highways that seem more like county roads
But there are hardly any state routes in Texas that aren't two-lane paved highways, and almost all of them connect the primary network to a community of some sort. The truly minor roads in Texas truly are county roads, not state routes.
My interpretation of the OP is to find places that will slap a route number on roads that really just don't matter very much. And, in that, I'd say West Virginia fits the bill, where neighborhood streets sometimes end up with route shields.
Apparently Louisiana has a new state road: LA 3271
wwwapps.dotd.la.gov/administration/announcements/announcement.aspx?key=18060 (http://wwwapps.dotd.la.gov/administration/announcements/announcement.aspx?key=18060)
What it looks like courtesy GSV:
https://www.google.com/maps/@32.7439624,-92.4281308,3a,75y,312.12h,93.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1su5pQ1j2Z2WcdEH78SXZJeA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
A new quarter-mile paved state road that will become dirt and Union Parish maintained that goes to Tech Landing...a boat ramp on Lake D'Arbonne. Why? :pan: :hmmm:
Quote from: cjk374 on October 20, 2018, 05:58:15 PM
Apparently Louisiana has a new state road: LA 3271
wwwapps.dotd.la.gov/administration/announcements/announcement.aspx?key=18060 (http://wwwapps.dotd.la.gov/administration/announcements/announcement.aspx?key=18060)
What it looks like courtesy GSV:
https://www.google.com/maps/@32.7439624,-92.4281308,3a,75y,312.12h,93.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1su5pQ1j2Z2WcdEH78SXZJeA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
A new quarter-mile paved state road that will become dirt and Union Parish maintained that goes to Tech Landing...a boat ramp on Lake D'Arbonne. Why? :pan: :hmmm:
Well, they don't call it Bad Eye Rd for nothing.
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on October 20, 2018, 09:38:57 PM
Quote from: cjk374 on October 20, 2018, 05:58:15 PM
Apparently Louisiana has a new state road: LA 3271
wwwapps.dotd.la.gov/administration/announcements/announcement.aspx?key=18060 (http://wwwapps.dotd.la.gov/administration/announcements/announcement.aspx?key=18060)
What it looks like courtesy GSV:
https://www.google.com/maps/@32.7439624,-92.4281308,3a,75y,312.12h,93.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1su5pQ1j2Z2WcdEH78SXZJeA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
A new quarter-mile paved state road that will become dirt and Union Parish maintained that goes to Tech Landing...a boat ramp on Lake D'Arbonne. Why? :pan: :hmmm:
Well, they don't call it Bad Eye Rd for nothing.
This is very true.