AARoads Forum

National Boards => General Highway Talk => Topic started by: roadman65 on October 20, 2018, 12:23:16 PM

Title: Continuous US Routes that are not signed that way
Post by: roadman65 on October 20, 2018, 12:23:16 PM
I was thinking about US 67 as well as other routes such as US 40, 50, parts of US 6 and even US 63 where some of the states they transit will not sign them on interstate overlaps due to redundancy.

Many states like Colorado won't even acknowledge both US 40 and US 50 as one continuous routes in their logs, but have them as two separate segments of the same route.


I can think of many others as well.

US 77
US 85
US 287
US 54
US 84
US 87

Any others that are not signed in places that give them the illusion that they have two different segments?

BTW do not count US 20 in WY.  It is actually two segments and not one continuous E-W highway as far as the FHWA is concerned so its not official.
Title: Re: Continuous US Routes that are not signed that way
Post by: corco on October 20, 2018, 12:30:57 PM
US 20 in Wyoming has a break in signage through Yellowstone
Title: Re: Continuous US Routes that are not signed that way
Post by: hotdogPi on October 20, 2018, 12:40:09 PM
US 9 and US 10 are continuous, but they're obviously not signed on the ferries.
US routes (31, 36, 40, 52, 421; 136 actually ends there) "hide" on I-465 around Indianapolis.
US 441 through Great Smoky Mountains National Park.
Title: Re: Continuous US Routes that are not signed that way
Post by: Big John on October 20, 2018, 12:45:16 PM
Do US 12 and US 52 in Minnesota count as there are BGS telling them to follow the interstate?
Title: Re: Continuous US Routes that are not signed that way
Post by: Alps on October 20, 2018, 12:56:23 PM
US 1 and US 9 aren't signed on US 1-9.
Title: Re: Continuous US Routes that are not signed that way
Post by: Max Rockatansky on October 20, 2018, 01:07:59 PM
US 85 is the undisputed grand champion in this arena south of Denver on I-25 south towards El Paso.  I don't believe US 70 or US 180 is Signed on I-10 in New Mexico.  I'm fairly certainly US 180 isn't signed on I-40 in Arizona. 
Title: Re: Continuous US Routes that are not signed that way
Post by: oscar on October 20, 2018, 01:17:42 PM
Quote from: 1 on October 20, 2018, 12:40:09 PM
US 9 and US 10 are continuous, but they're obviously not signed on the ferries.

US 10 is signed on its ferry crossing (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=23627.0), on the Wisconsin side and also the vessel itself, though there is a US 10 Ends sign assembly on the Michigan side.
Title: Re: Continuous US Routes that are not signed that way
Post by: Roadwarriors79 on October 20, 2018, 01:32:38 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 20, 2018, 01:07:59 PM
US 85 is the undisputed grand champion in this arena south of Denver on I-25 south towards El Paso.  I don't believe US 70 or US 180 is Signed on I-10 in New Mexico.  I'm fairly certainly US 180 isn't signed on I-40 in Arizona.

Arizona usually signs its US/Interstate overlaps. I-40 and US 180 are featured here:

https://www.aaroads.com/guides/i-040-east-winslow-az/
Title: Re: Continuous US Routes that are not signed that way
Post by: hbelkins on October 20, 2018, 04:32:22 PM
And then you have cases like the I-57/US 60 overlap in Missouri, where US 60 signs are just stuck beneath the I-57 markers almost as an afterthought, without the proper directional banner. So, for a short section between Sikeston and Charleston, US 60 is signed as a N-S route.
Title: Re: Continuous US Routes that are not signed that way
Post by: cjk374 on October 20, 2018, 06:05:57 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 20, 2018, 04:32:22 PM
And then you have cases like the I-57/US 60 overlap in Missouri, where US 60 signs are just stuck beneath the I-57 markers almost as an afterthought, without the proper directional banner. So, for a short section between Sikeston and Charleston, US 60 is signed as a N-S route.

At least they are there. Wait til Arkansas gets hold of a bunch of I-57 shields and starts putting them out. Bye-bye US/67/167/64 shields.  :-( :-( :banghead: :banghead:
Title: Re: Continuous US Routes that are not signed that way
Post by: mrcmc888 on October 20, 2018, 07:44:57 PM
Tennessee:

Around Chattanooga, US-11 and 64 disappear when they overlap with I-75.  US-27 disappears at I-24.

In Knoxville, US-11E, 70, and 25W disappear on I-40 east of I-640.

Title: Re: Continuous US Routes that are not signed that way
Post by: US71 on October 20, 2018, 09:21:16 PM
Almost anything in Arkansas
Title: Re: Continuous US Routes that are not signed that way
Post by: jp the roadgeek on October 20, 2018, 10:31:08 PM
US 1 goes into hiding for it's short concurrency with I-95 in Pawtucket, RI.  Granted it's one exit, but the BGS's on  I-95 don't mention cardinal directions at the splits nor are there any US 1 reassurance shields on I-95.

Title: Re: Continuous US Routes that are not signed that way
Post by: Max Rockatansky on October 20, 2018, 11:06:17 PM
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on October 20, 2018, 01:32:38 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 20, 2018, 01:07:59 PM
US 85 is the undisputed grand champion in this arena south of Denver on I-25 south towards El Paso.  I don't believe US 70 or US 180 is Signed on I-10 in New Mexico.  I'm fairly certainly US 180 isn't signed on I-40 in Arizona.

Arizona usually signs its US/Interstate overlaps. I-40 and US 180 are featured here:

https://www.aaroads.com/guides/i-040-east-winslow-az/

Funny, I thought that I would have remembered that...it was only 2 years ago since I was on I-40/US 180.  I know for certain I-10/US 95 is co-signed:

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.6602561,-114.2411696,3a,75y,166.56h,72.71t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-XmyhobSb6o_c-BsKTh4lQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
Title: Re: Continuous US Routes that are not signed that way
Post by: jon daly on October 21, 2018, 08:04:42 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on October 20, 2018, 10:31:08 PM
US 1 goes into hiding for it's short concurrency with I-95 in Pawtucket, RI.  Granted it's one exit, but the BGS's on  I-95 don't mention cardinal directions at the splits nor are there any US 1 reassurance shields on I-95.



How are things in CT. I'm blanking now. The only concurrency that I regularly travel on is the Gold Star Bridge.
Title: Re: Continuous US Routes that are not signed that way
Post by: english si on October 21, 2018, 09:48:37 AM
Quote from: corco on October 20, 2018, 12:30:57 PMUS 20 in Wyoming has a break in signage through Yellowstone
US 20 in Wyoming has a break in existence through Yellowstone.

Sorry, but this is due to it not being a continuous route rather than a signage failure.
Title: Re: Continuous US Routes that are not signed that way
Post by: Roadwarriors79 on October 21, 2018, 11:41:57 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 20, 2018, 11:06:17 PM
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on October 20, 2018, 01:32:38 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 20, 2018, 01:07:59 PM
US 85 is the undisputed grand champion in this arena south of Denver on I-25 south towards El Paso.  I don't believe US 70 or US 180 is Signed on I-10 in New Mexico.  I'm fairly certainly US 180 isn't signed on I-40 in Arizona.

Arizona usually signs its US/Interstate overlaps. I-40 and US 180 are featured here:

https://www.aaroads.com/guides/i-040-east-winslow-az/

Funny, I thought that I would have remembered that...it was only 2 years ago since I was on I-40/US 180.  I know for certain I-10/US 95 is co-signed:

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.6602561,-114.2411696,3a,75y,166.56h,72.71t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-XmyhobSb6o_c-BsKTh4lQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

In fairness, where US 60 overlaps with I-17 and I-10, US 60 is signed on its mainline, but at some cross streets either I-10 or I-17 is mentioned, but US 60 is not acknowledged.
Title: Re: Continuous US Routes that are not signed that way
Post by: corco on October 21, 2018, 11:43:43 AM
Quote from: english si on October 21, 2018, 09:48:37 AM
Quote from: corco on October 20, 2018, 12:30:57 PMUS 20 in Wyoming has a break in signage through Yellowstone
US 20 in Wyoming has a break in existence through Yellowstone.

Sorry, but this is due to it not being a continuous route rather than a signage failure.

Yeah I know, I just don't like being told what to do
Title: Re: Continuous US Routes that are not signed that way
Post by: Eth on October 21, 2018, 12:13:21 PM
US 23 disappears on I-985, which is particularly odd because I believe every other concurrency on Georgia's interstates is signed in full (including GA 5 on the entirety of I-575).
Title: Re: Continuous US Routes that are not signed that way
Post by: TEG24601 on October 21, 2018, 12:20:38 PM
Quote from: corco on October 20, 2018, 12:30:57 PM
US 20 in Wyoming has a break in signage through Yellowstone


I don't count any National Park breaks as actually being breaks.  The routes just go from being state maintained to being federally maintained... and are signed, just not with the official signs.


Unsigned Continuous routes would include all of the US routes that are supposed to circle Indiana cities like Ft. Wayne, Indianapolis, and Lafayette, but are usually just not signed from one side to the other.
Title: Re: Continuous US Routes that are not signed that way
Post by: Max Rockatansky on October 21, 2018, 01:08:08 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on October 21, 2018, 12:20:38 PM
Quote from: corco on October 20, 2018, 12:30:57 PM
US 20 in Wyoming has a break in signage through Yellowstone


I don't count any National Park breaks as actually being breaks.  The routes just go from being state maintained to being federally maintained... and are signed, just not with the official signs.


Unsigned Continuous routes would include all of the US routes that are supposed to circle Indiana cities like Ft. Wayne, Indianapolis, and Lafayette, but are usually just not signed from one side to the other.

I've only ever seen signage directing you to the exits in Yellowstone along with what routes are at those exits.  There never has been anything ever put out by Yellowstone implying any particular Road is a US Route.  That would be akin to people in California calling the Tioga Road part of CA 120 in Yosemite.  An actually example of a US Route existing in a National Park but isn't Signed is US 34 over the Trail Ridge Road in Rocky Mountain National Park.  If I recall correct US 34 is Maintained by CDOT and not the NPS. 
Title: Re: Continuous US Routes that are not signed that way
Post by: hbelkins on October 21, 2018, 03:06:55 PM
Quote from: mrcmc888 on October 20, 2018, 07:44:57 PM
Tennessee:

Around Chattanooga, US-11 and 64 disappear when they overlap with I-75.  US-27 disappears at I-24.

In Knoxville, US-11E, 70, and 25W disappear on I-40 east of I-640.

Of course, US 74 is not signed whatsoever on its concurrency with I-75.  And in your Knoxville example, the only route concurrent with I-40 is 25W. 11E and 70 are never concurrent with it.
Title: Re: Continuous US Routes that are not signed that way
Post by: Mapmikey on October 21, 2018, 08:13:25 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on October 21, 2018, 12:20:38 PM


I don't count any National Park breaks as actually being breaks.  The routes just go from being state maintained to being federally maintained... and are signed, just not with the official signs.




This is not universal...US 441 is supposedly no longer signed through GMSP and it was officially removed as the designation within the park boundaries by AASHTO in November 1970.

OTOH, US 33 and US 211 are fully signed and maintained by VDOT through Shenandoah NP.
Title: Re: Continuous US Routes that are not signed that way
Post by: froggie on October 21, 2018, 10:18:35 PM
QuoteOTOH, US 33 and US 211 are fully signed and maintained by VDOT through Shenandoah NP.

Begs the question of whether the ROW along both routes is actually part of the park or isn't because it's owned by VDOT...
Title: Re: Continuous US Routes that are not signed that way
Post by: jp the roadgeek on October 22, 2018, 12:44:35 AM
Quote from: jon daly on October 21, 2018, 08:04:42 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on October 20, 2018, 10:31:08 PM
US 1 goes into hiding for it's short concurrency with I-95 in Pawtucket, RI.  Granted it's one exit, but the BGS's on  I-95 don't mention cardinal directions at the splits nor are there any US 1 reassurance shields on I-95.



How are things in CT. I'm blanking now. The only concurrency that I regularly travel on is the Gold Star Bridge.

CTDOT has actually done a decent job in the Danbury area of marking the quadplex on I-84.  While the BGS's don't show it, there are reassurance markers for all 4 roads; I-84 and US 7 appear on one dual signpost, and US 6 and 202 appear on the other.    https://goo.gl/maps/j52QDCUPpDG2

CTDOT's general practice is not to include a US route on the BGS with an interstate route in a concurrency (both on pull-thrus and at entrances).  The only exceptions I see are in the Danbury area where US 7 gets preferential treatment by getting BGS status with I-84; and at the southern end of CT 9 where US 1 appears along with I-95 on all BGS's for the Baldwin Bridge area concurrency.   US-state concurrencies (such as US 5/CT 15) have each signed equally on BGS's and signposts, except that the new practice at the I-91 interchange in Hartford is to eliminate US 5 from overhead signage.  State-state concurrencies (such as CT 8/25) are treated as equals on all signage.   
Title: Re: Continuous US Routes that are not signed that way
Post by: Mapmikey on October 22, 2018, 06:14:04 AM
Quote from: froggie on October 21, 2018, 10:18:35 PM
QuoteOTOH, US 33 and US 211 are fully signed and maintained by VDOT through Shenandoah NP.

Begs the question of whether the ROW along both routes is actually part of the park or isn't because it's owned by VDOT...

Given the existence of VA 48 as a ROW-only designation in the park my first guess would be that VDOT does own the ROW...now to see if any proof can be found
Title: Re: Continuous US Routes that are not signed that way
Post by: PHLBOS on October 22, 2018, 09:16:58 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on October 22, 2018, 12:44:35 AM
Quote from: jon daly on October 21, 2018, 08:04:42 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on October 20, 2018, 10:31:08 PM
US 1 goes into hiding for it's short concurrency with I-95 in Pawtucket, RI.  Granted it's one exit, but the BGS's on  I-95 don't mention cardinal directions at the splits nor are there any US 1 reassurance shields on I-95.



How are things in CT. I'm blanking now. The only concurrency that I regularly travel on is the Gold Star Bridge.

CTDOT has actually done a decent job in the Danbury area of marking the quadplex on I-84.  While the BGS's don't show it, there are reassurance markers for all 4 roads; I-84 and US 7 appear on one dual signpost, and US 6 and 202 appear on the other.    https://goo.gl/maps/j52QDCUPpDG2

CTDOT's general practice is not to include a US route on the BGS with an interstate route in a concurrency (both on pull-thrus and at entrances).  The only exceptions I see are in the Danbury area where US 7 gets preferential treatment by getting BGS status with I-84; and at the southern end of CT 9 where US 1 appears along with I-95 on all BGS's for the Baldwin Bridge area concurrency.   US-state concurrencies (such as US 5/CT 15) have each signed equally on BGS's and signposts, except that the new practice at the I-91 interchange in Hartford is to eliminate US 5 from overhead signage.  State-state concurrencies (such as CT 8/25) are treated as equals on all signage.   
One concurrency that doesn't seem to be signed at all along I-84 mainline (not even reassurance markers) is US 44 through Hartford, between Exits 52 and 53.
Title: Re: Continuous US Routes that are not signed that way
Post by: Brandon on October 22, 2018, 09:45:59 AM
US-41 along I-41 in Wisconsin - varies, but signed more for I-41.
https://goo.gl/maps/xUgtqxdkH3J2
https://goo.gl/maps/KQevHhqVDP82
https://goo.gl/maps/5TMTV8hdQTQ2
https://goo.gl/maps/8pzKuAGDxC92
https://goo.gl/maps/YWYKkBRRRXE2
https://goo.gl/maps/FhFvYZyWwd62
Title: Re: Continuous US Routes that are not signed that way
Post by: kphoger on October 22, 2018, 02:19:00 PM
Is US-6 still unsigned along I-70 in Colorado?
Title: Re: Continuous US Routes that are not signed that way
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on October 22, 2018, 07:01:06 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 22, 2018, 02:19:00 PM
Is US-6 still unsigned along I-70 in Colorado?

Correct, but Colorado has additionally decided US 6 does not exist anywhere it overlaps with I-70 in its logs and inventory. FHWA obviously puts it on I-70 still.
Title: Re: Continuous US Routes that are not signed that way
Post by: txstateends on October 22, 2018, 09:11:12 PM
* US 90 isn't signed from somewhere in the west Houston suburbs (Katy? Sealy? can't remember...) to the east loop portion of I-610 at the I-10 interchange.
* US 287 isn't signed on posts (but on many/most BGSes on intersecting freeways, it is) between where it meets I-35W in downtown Fort Worth north to its split from I-35W north of the north loop interchange with I-820.
* US 77 made a reappearance in recent months on new posts along parts of I-35E north of I-635 (Dallas) in the wake of work done on the interstate between I-635 and Denton.

It will be interesting to see once the new work on I-35E (and US 67) south of downtown Dallas is done, whether there will be any US 67 and/or US 77 "reappearances" in that area, or not.
Title: Re: Continuous US Routes that are not signed that way
Post by: jp the roadgeek on October 23, 2018, 05:22:47 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 22, 2018, 09:16:58 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on October 22, 2018, 12:44:35 AM
Quote from: jon daly on October 21, 2018, 08:04:42 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on October 20, 2018, 10:31:08 PM
US 1 goes into hiding for it's short concurrency with I-95 in Pawtucket, RI.  Granted it's one exit, but the BGS's on  I-95 don't mention cardinal directions at the splits nor are there any US 1 reassurance shields on I-95.



How are things in CT. I'm blanking now. The only concurrency that I regularly travel on is the Gold Star Bridge.

CTDOT has actually done a decent job in the Danbury area of marking the quadplex on I-84.  While the BGS's don't show it, there are reassurance markers for all 4 roads; I-84 and US 7 appear on one dual signpost, and US 6 and 202 appear on the other.    https://goo.gl/maps/j52QDCUPpDG2

CTDOT's general practice is not to include a US route on the BGS with an interstate route in a concurrency (both on pull-thrus and at entrances).  The only exceptions I see are in the Danbury area where US 7 gets preferential treatment by getting BGS status with I-84; and at the southern end of CT 9 where US 1 appears along with I-95 on all BGS's for the Baldwin Bridge area concurrency.   US-state concurrencies (such as US 5/CT 15) have each signed equally on BGS's and signposts, except that the new practice at the I-91 interchange in Hartford is to eliminate US 5 from overhead signage.  State-state concurrencies (such as CT 8/25) are treated as equals on all signage.   
One concurrency that doesn't seem to be signed at all along I-84 mainline (not even reassurance markers) is US 44 through Hartford, between Exits 52 and 53.

Considering it's only about a quarter mile long.  There are 84/6 reassurance shields EB by the 91 south overpass about a hundred feet or so before 44 comes in from Morgan St. 
Title: Re: Continuous US Routes that are not signed that way
Post by: Bickendan on October 23, 2018, 07:00:25 PM
US 30 along I-84 between exits 17 and 35. ODOT's using Hist US 30 as the implied routing for mainline 30.
Bonus points that Hist US 30's still closed east of Milton Falls from the fire last year.
Title: Re: Continuous US Routes that are not signed that way
Post by: bzakharin on October 29, 2018, 10:22:31 AM
Very common in large cities where US routes are routed via city streets. For example US 322, 422, and 20 through Cleveland (US 6 gets more attention). US 22 in Cincinnati as well. US 13 in Philadelphia and US 1 and US 9 in Manhattan are also seldom signed, at least away from major freeways.
Title: Re: Continuous US Routes that are not signed that way
Post by: US 89 on October 29, 2018, 10:44:10 AM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on October 22, 2018, 07:01:06 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 22, 2018, 02:19:00 PM
Is US-6 still unsigned along I-70 in Colorado?

Correct, but Colorado has additionally decided US 6 does not exist anywhere it overlaps with I-70 in its logs and inventory. FHWA obviously puts it on I-70 still.

It's not just US 6.  Colorado considers US 40 to exist in four separate pieces as well. This goes for any US-interstate concurrency in Colorado, which also affects routes like US 24, 36, and 85, and is also the reason Colorado has decided US 87 does not exist. The exception is US 160, which is apparently well-signed on its concurrency with I-25.
Title: Re: Continuous US Routes that are not signed that way
Post by: ftballfan on October 29, 2018, 05:05:56 PM
Quote from: US 89 on October 29, 2018, 10:44:10 AM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on October 22, 2018, 07:01:06 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 22, 2018, 02:19:00 PM
Is US-6 still unsigned along I-70 in Colorado?

Correct, but Colorado has additionally decided US 6 does not exist anywhere it overlaps with I-70 in its logs and inventory. FHWA obviously puts it on I-70 still.

It's not just US 6.  Colorado considers US 40 to exist in four separate pieces as well. This goes for any US-interstate concurrency in Colorado, which also affects routes like US 24, 36, and 85, and is also the reason Colorado has decided US 87 does not exist. The exception is US 160, which is apparently well-signed on its concurrency with I-25.
So US-87 is basically a two-part US highway (one in MT and one in NM and TX)
Title: Re: Continuous US Routes that are not signed that way
Post by: US 89 on October 31, 2018, 04:25:07 PM
Quote from: ftballfan on October 29, 2018, 05:05:56 PM
So US-87 is basically a two-part US highway (one in MT and one in NM and TX)

Wyoming does a great job of signing US concurrencies, so US 87 is signed all the way down to the Colorado border anyway. But US 87 actually leaves the interstate at least once and maybe twice in Wyoming. 87 definitely leaves I-90 for the old road near Sheridan WY. It may also leave I-25 east of Casper; there is conflicting signage as to whether US 20/26 is concurrent with mainline 87 or business 87.