Wikipedia asserts that MT 200 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana_Highway_200), at 706.272 miles (such precision!) is the longest state route in the US.
I... am not convinced this is accurate.
At issue is CA 1 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_1), whose official length is given as only 655.845 miles... however because CalTrans is CalTrans, this figure omits the length of CA 1's multiple concurrencies with US 101, and I suspect it may also omit the sections of route which have been relinquished from state maintenance. Regardless of the details it is clear this official number is lowballed by some substantial margin.
The TravelMapping site calculates CA 1 as being 700.8 miles long (http://travelmapping.net/hb/?units=miles&u=null&r=ca.ca001) and MT 200 as being 708.92 miles long (http://travelmapping.net/hb/?units=miles&u=null&r=mt.mt200). Buut these numbers are calculated based on the site's route traces, and routes with a lot of mountainous twists and turns routinely have their lengths underestimated because the route trace typically simplifies such things to a small number of straight lines rather than tracing out all the switchbacks and whatnot. So I'm still not convinced.
I asked Google for directions following CA 1 from end to end. I had to do this segment by segment due to limited numbers of drags to modify the route available, but by this method I came out with almost 740 miles end to end for CA 1.
That number itself has some margin of error in it depending on Google's imprecision and any errors I may have made and not noticed in where I was dragging. Even if we allow for +/- 10 miles though, this still suggests CA 1 is longer than MT 200 by an amount beyond the margin of error in the measurement.
I thus am comfortable concluding that CA 1 is longer than MT 200 and is the longest state route in the US.
Anyone care to dispute? Or have any other thoughts?
Considering MT 200 is one of many continuous State Routes carrying said number I'd say that the true champion is ID/MT/ND/MN 200. Something else worth mentioning with regards to CA 1 was that it's southern segment was originally part of the first CA 3 and US 101A. I never really understood why CA 3 wasn't just simply reapplied to it's original highway during the 1964 State Highway renumbering.
Quote from: Duke87 on December 20, 2019, 01:50:26 PM
because CalTrans is CalTrans, this figure omits the length of CA 1's multiple concurrencies with US 101, and I suspect it may also omit the sections of route which have been relinquished from state maintenance.
Is it fair to say that at least the concurrencies aren't actually part of CA-1?
Quote from: kphoger on December 20, 2019, 02:36:52 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on December 20, 2019, 01:50:26 PM
because CalTrans is CalTrans, this figure omits the length of CA 1's multiple concurrencies with US 101, and I suspect it may also omit the sections of route which have been relinquished from state maintenance.
Is it fair to say that at least the concurrencies aren't actually part of CA-1?
Legislatively they aren't but the multiplex is often very well signed. My personal opinion (and I say this writing a ton of articles on California State Highways) that the multiplex does count if it's actually signed in field. Granted the Caltrans post mileage is only going to follow what is within the legislative definition of a route.
NY 17 can't compete with either of the routes in the OP, but it would certainly be in the running for longest east of the Mississippi.
Quote from: webny99 on December 20, 2019, 02:51:02 PM
NY 17 can't compete with either of the routes in the OP, but it would certainly be in the running for longest east of the Mississippi.
WI-35 is longer, and there's probably others.
Michigan's doesn't come close. M-28 without looking is I think about 290 miles long.
Quote from: thspfc on December 20, 2019, 03:12:44 PM
Quote from: webny99 on December 20, 2019, 02:51:02 PM
NY 17 can't compete with either of the routes in the OP, but it would certainly be in the running for longest east of the Mississippi.
WI-35 is longer, and there's probably others.
As is ME-11 at 401 miles.
Speaking of the East Coast Florida has some big State Roads which are mostly hidden designations of US Routes/Interstates. For example; FL 15 if I recall correctly is technically something like 340 miles.
I want to say FL 5 is the longest State Road at 536.7 miles but it is almost entirely signed as US 1.
According to my calculations based on the major intersection tables on Wikipedia, CA 1 is actually 736 miles (1184 km) long counting its implied concurrencies with US 101 (which add 80 miles, 129 km, to its route), 30 miles (48 km) longer than MT 200.
ID/MT/ND/MN 200 is a single route.
The longest state route in Indiana (continuous) is State Road 62, which is at 227 miles.
Now, if we are talking about the total mileage between the discontinuous sections, State Road 37 would take that title as a total distance of 229 miles in two different sections.
WY/NE/IA/IL 92 is 886 miles long.
If NY 17 is truncated when I-86 is complete :-D , NY 5 will inherit the longest moniker at 370 miles (you can add another 45 miles for PA 5).
PA 29 (Northern segment)/NY 7/VT/NH/ME 9 clocks in at 701 miles.
http://web.archive.org/web/20190602124339/http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/exit/docs/1.pdf gives 724.98 miles. But the PMQT no longer gives the same numbers, because now it omits gaps.
For a small-ish state, Louisiana's highway 1 is a surprising 430 miles.
iPhone
If we want to consider overlaps, the longest state route in Tennessee is TN-1 at 539 mi, but only about 0.95 mi is signed.
Quote from: Duke87 on December 20, 2019, 01:50:26 PM
At issue is CA 1 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_1), whose official length is given as only 655.845 miles... however because CalTrans is CalTrans, this figure omits the length of CA 1's multiple concurrencies with US 101, and I suspect it may also omit the sections of route which have been relinquished from state maintenance. Regardless of the details it is clear this official number is lowballed by some substantial margin.
I'm sure your figure is closer to the truth, as I have noticed similar problems with the lengths of other routes as listed on Wikipedia. The problem is Wiki requires every statement to be sourced, which on the one hand I do understand, but then again it's laughable to pretend every bit of DOT information is reliable. Wiki frowns on "original research", but sometimes original research (as you have done) is the only way to get an accurate answer.
Quote from: 1 on December 20, 2019, 06:15:07 PM
ID/MT/ND/MN 200 is a single route.
According to whom?
Quote from: kphoger on December 23, 2019, 12:01:55 PM
Quote from: 1 on December 20, 2019, 06:15:07 PM
ID/MT/ND/MN 200 is a single route.
According to whom?
Well from Idaho 200's western terminus to Minnesota 200's eastern terminus they are connected like a single route. I can see what he's saying it's supposed to be one continuous route.
Well, obviously I can see what he means. But there is no single agency over all four of those routes. They are four routes that happen to have the same number.
Quote from: kphoger on December 23, 2019, 02:39:03 PM
Well, obviously I can see what he means. But there is no single agency over all four of those routes. They are four routes that happen to have the same number.
They are numbered like that as a continuation of the route imo. Michigan use to have one with Indiana and Ohio it was route 120, well now MDOT has M-120 in another part of the state but Ohio and Indiana still have their routes. It's strange that Indiana would have that number that far north but it's obviously meant as a spur of US-20.
Quote from: kphoger on December 23, 2019, 02:39:03 PM
Well, obviously I can see what he means. But there is no single agency over all four of those routes. They are four routes that happen to have the same number.
This:
"But there is no single agency over all four of those routes."This is why I personally do
not consider ID/MT/ND/MN 200 to be a single route. For instance, a state in the middle (say North Dakota) could (in theory) unilaterally change the number of ND 200 to something else without input from any of the other states. Maybe even a number already in use by a neighboring state. If it truly were a single route, then wouldn't all four states have to agree on any changes?
Likewise, I don't consider FL 121, GA 121, SC 121 - or others that happen to maintain the same number over state lines - to be a single route for the same reason.
There is no single agency over US routes, either.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 20, 2019, 02:40:44 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 20, 2019, 02:36:52 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on December 20, 2019, 01:50:26 PM
because CalTrans is CalTrans, this figure omits the length of CA 1's multiple concurrencies with US 101, and I suspect it may also omit the sections of route which have been relinquished from state maintenance.
Is it fair to say that at least the concurrencies aren't actually part of CA-1?
Legislatively they aren't but the multiplex is often very well signed. My personal opinion (and I say this writing a ton of articles on California State Highways) that the multiplex does count if it's actually signed in field. Granted the Caltrans post mileage is only going to follow what is within the legislative definition of a route.
That said, the longest of these concurrencies - along US-101 between Sea Cliff and Las Cruces - does not have (I'm pretty sure) a single CA-1 shield along the entire 55 miles. The LA/OC section and the Central Coast section are really two distinct routes.
From a touring standpoint I get the idea of signing as many of the coast side highways as possible as CA-1, though - they should also pick up the historic US-101 routing in San Diego County.
Quote from: Rothman on December 23, 2019, 10:00:17 PM
There is no single agency over US routes, either.
AASHTO sort of is, though - states aren't supposed to change US routes without AASHTO approval, unless you're Oklahoma.
Quote from: US 89 on December 23, 2019, 11:22:57 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 23, 2019, 10:00:17 PM
There is no single agency over US routes, either.
AASHTO sort of is, though - states aren't supposed to change US routes without AASHTO approval, unless you're Oklahoma.
States own and maintain them. Interstates, too, for that matter.
Quote from: Rothman on December 23, 2019, 11:40:52 PM
Quote from: US 89 on December 23, 2019, 11:22:57 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 23, 2019, 10:00:17 PM
There is no single agency over US routes, either.
AASHTO sort of is, though - states aren't supposed to change US routes without AASHTO approval, unless you're Oklahoma.
States own and maintain them. Interstates, too, for that matter.
Right but the numbering of those routes comes from FHWA and/or AASHTO with the idea that it's supposed to be a continuous route. If, say, Kansas decided to renumber its segment of I-70 as something else, neighboring states would fight them on that. Nothing is stopping Kansas from renumbering its portion of OK/KS/NE 99.
Quote from: dlsterner on December 23, 2019, 08:47:47 PM
This is why I personally do not consider ID/MT/ND/MN 200 to be a single route. For instance, a state in the middle (say North Dakota) could (in theory) unilaterally change the number of ND 200 to something else without input from any of the other states.
The agreement on numbering clearly means that the DOTs in question consider it to be a single route, or else, why would they bother? Not to mention the fact that while they
could change the number, why would they? Especially in the case of MSR 200, in which numbers
were changed to make it consistent.
P.S. I have established a list of state routes that traverse three or more states here (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=24662).
Can we stop with the "ID/MT/ND/MN-200" thing? If it were truly meant to be one big route, it would have a US shield on it. We're making this way harder than it needs to be.
Quote from: thspfc on December 24, 2019, 09:24:56 AM
Can we stop with the "ID/MT/ND/MN-200" thing? If it were truly meant to be one big route, it would have a US shield on it. We're making this way harder than it needs to be.
How is that possibly detracting from the conversation at hand? The argument for it being considered the longest state Route (albeit multistate) is very pervasive.
It is, however, clearly not what the OP was looking for.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 24, 2019, 10:42:21 AM
Quote from: thspfc on December 24, 2019, 09:24:56 AM
Can we stop with the "ID/MT/ND/MN-200" thing? If it were truly meant to be one big route, it would have a US shield on it. We're making this way harder than it needs to be.
How is that possibly detracting from the conversation at hand? The argument for it being considered the longest state Route (albeit multistate) is very pervasive.
Even if you only take the Montana portion it's the longest anyway, so it doesn't matter.
Quote from: thspfc on December 24, 2019, 12:51:29 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 24, 2019, 10:42:21 AM
Quote from: thspfc on December 24, 2019, 09:24:56 AM
Can we stop with the "ID/MT/ND/MN-200" thing? If it were truly meant to be one big route, it would have a US shield on it. We're making this way harder than it needs to be.
How is that possibly detracting from the conversation at hand? The argument for it being considered the longest state Route (albeit multistate) is very pervasive.
Even if you only take the Montana portion it's the longest anyway, so it doesn't matter.
Did you even read the OP? He is specifically disputing that fact. That's the whole point of the thread.
I consider the so-called multi-state routes to be a chain of as many state routes as states are implied that just happen to have the same number all the way through. For example I consider the ID/MT/ND/MN 200 to be a chain of four state routes, of which I thought MT 200 was the longest state route in the USA until Duke87 pointed out CA 1 is actually longer, but doesn't appear so from the logs.
Quote from: DTComposer on December 23, 2019, 10:44:53 PM
That said, the longest of these concurrencies - along US-101 between Sea Cliff and Las Cruces - does not have (I'm pretty sure) a single CA-1 shield along the entire 55 miles. The LA/OC section and the Central Coast section are really two distinct routes.
http://www.google.com/maps/@34.3449859,-119.4184921,3a,49y,357.22h,91.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0cgtq-EacT9CVjIV59F_Kg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Quote from: usends on December 23, 2019, 10:03:14 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on December 20, 2019, 01:50:26 PM
At issue is CA 1 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_1), whose official length is given as only 655.845 miles... however because CalTrans is CalTrans, this figure omits the length of CA 1's multiple concurrencies with US 101, and I suspect it may also omit the sections of route which have been relinquished from state maintenance. Regardless of the details it is clear this official number is lowballed by some substantial margin.
I'm sure your figure is closer to the truth, as I have noticed similar problems with the lengths of other routes as listed on Wikipedia. The problem is Wiki requires every statement to be sourced, which on the one hand I do understand, but then again it's laughable to pretend every bit of DOT information is reliable. Wiki frowns on "original research", but sometimes original research (as you have done) is the only way to get an accurate answer.
The argument following this post about whether the various routes 200 should be considered one long route is a wonderful illustration of why Wikipedia doesn't allow original research.
(P.S., don't call it "wiki", that's just the type of software it runs. It's like calling this website Forum.)
Going back to the OP, is there any official documentation from the states?
In theory, KY 80 is likely the longest state-numbered highway. And once official measurements are consulted, it's likely that would be the case as well. But Kentucky no longer officially recognizes concurrencies, even though they may be signed. Even official state maps that once designated concurrencies no longer show them. Only the highest-system route is officially recognized. That means that for the lengthy US 68/KY 80 concurrency across southern Kentucky from Kentucky Lake to Metcalfe County, KY 80 doesn't exist. The mileage is all for US 68 -- except for that stretch north of Bowling Green where the two are concurrent with US 31W, and in that case US 31W is dominant because it's the same route classification as US 68 but carries a lower number. Ditto the short concurrency with US 25 in London and longer ones with US 421, US 23, and US 460.
Other places where this occurs are segments of concurrency with KY 61, KY 76 and KY 15. The official mileage and mileposting is for those lower-numbered routes.
It would be possible to compute the total signed length of KY 80 from the beginning of state maintenance near the old ferry at the Mississippi River at Columbus to the Virginia state line near Breaks, but that would be an unofficial figure.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on December 24, 2019, 12:44:25 AM
Quote from: dlsterner on December 23, 2019, 08:47:47 PM
This is why I personally do not consider ID/MT/ND/MN 200 to be a single route. For instance, a state in the middle (say North Dakota) could (in theory) unilaterally change the number of ND 200 to something else without input from any of the other states.
The agreement on numbering clearly means that the DOTs in question consider it to be a single route, or else, why would they bother? Not to mention the fact that while they could change the number, why would they? Especially in the case of MSR 200, in which numbers were changed to make it consistent.
P.S. I have established a list of state routes that traverse three or more states here (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=24662).
Many places number their routes on state borders to match neighboring states as a matter of course. On the NY/VT border, only two routes change number - NY 7/VT 9, because US 9 intersects NY 7, and US 7 intersects VT 9, making renumbering each to match the other impossible; and NY 185/VT 17, because NY 185 was only given a signed number in the last decade. There are also former examples on the US/Canadian border, including BC 99, which was numbered to match US 99, but now changes to I-5 (BC 97, meanwhile, actually was explicitly to be part of a corridor with US 97, but the Yukon didn't cooperate, so US 97 didn't make it to Alaska).
Quote from: NE2 on December 24, 2019, 12:59:16 PM
Quote from: DTComposer on December 23, 2019, 10:44:53 PM
That said, the longest of these concurrencies - along US-101 between Sea Cliff and Las Cruces - does not have (I'm pretty sure) a single CA-1 shield along the entire 55 miles. The LA/OC section and the Central Coast section are really two distinct routes.
http://www.google.com/maps/@34.3449859,-119.4184921,3a,49y,357.22h,91.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0cgtq-EacT9CVjIV59F_Kg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
That's why I said Sea Cliff - this is specifically the sign I was thinking of. From this point north/west, there's not another CA-1 sign until Las Cruces.
Quote from: hbelkins on December 24, 2019, 04:14:05 PM
In theory, KY 80 is likely the longest state-numbered highway.
In what world is 486 (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/36.7780665,-89.0960984/37.2973299,-82.3125917/@37.142427,-88.422941,7z/data=!4m56!4m55!1m50!3m4!1m2!1d-88.4298484!2d36.6565997!3s0x887a4bb09331231d:0x224382d49f81d451!3m4!1m2!1d-86.88097!2d36.8666428!3s0x8865a0f45c3795ab:0xff2f6d78e090332!3m4!1m2!1d-86.4731316!2d37.0073108!3s0x8865eec23a93dde5:0xc182c715724e65de!3m4!1m2!1d-84.0912111!2d37.1341555!3s0x885ccd5caa198f17:0x86f09b3fb5521385!3m4!1m2!1d-83.8972139!2d37.087483!3s0x885cb5b0036101a9:0xfd9484f2f376d351!3m4!1m2!1d-83.649761!2d37.1150066!3s0x885cab3a3c002f73:0x71fdd83bc6bc1e68!3m4!1m2!1d-83.4758775!2d37.1512699!3s0x8844acf04f7ca339:0x2a176ebbb8ebc361!3m4!1m2!1d-83.3357762!2d37.1430769!3s0x8844b482a7ae8873:0x45697c1d737f7ae0!3m4!1m2!1d-83.2210199!2d37.265352!3s0x8844c871c82b2293:0xf4bb0ba568f6b1f2!3m4!1m2!1d-82.7594447!2d37.6143429!3s0x8845051387b338d7:0x5a4891bca9a9a6fa!1m0!2m1!1b1!3e0) greater than 706?
Quote from: NE2 on December 24, 2019, 06:21:12 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on December 24, 2019, 04:14:05 PM
In theory, KY 80 is likely the longest state-numbered highway.
In what world is 486 (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/36.7780665,-89.0960984/37.2973299,-82.3125917/@37.142427,-88.422941,7z/data=!4m56!4m55!1m50!3m4!1m2!1d-88.4298484!2d36.6565997!3s0x887a4bb09331231d:0x224382d49f81d451!3m4!1m2!1d-86.88097!2d36.8666428!3s0x8865a0f45c3795ab:0xff2f6d78e090332!3m4!1m2!1d-86.4731316!2d37.0073108!3s0x8865eec23a93dde5:0xc182c715724e65de!3m4!1m2!1d-84.0912111!2d37.1341555!3s0x885ccd5caa198f17:0x86f09b3fb5521385!3m4!1m2!1d-83.8972139!2d37.087483!3s0x885cb5b0036101a9:0xfd9484f2f376d351!3m4!1m2!1d-83.649761!2d37.1150066!3s0x885cab3a3c002f73:0x71fdd83bc6bc1e68!3m4!1m2!1d-83.4758775!2d37.1512699!3s0x8844acf04f7ca339:0x2a176ebbb8ebc361!3m4!1m2!1d-83.3357762!2d37.1430769!3s0x8844b482a7ae8873:0x45697c1d737f7ae0!3m4!1m2!1d-83.2210199!2d37.265352!3s0x8844c871c82b2293:0xf4bb0ba568f6b1f2!3m4!1m2!1d-82.7594447!2d37.6143429!3s0x8845051387b338d7:0x5a4891bca9a9a6fa!1m0!2m1!1b1!3e0) greater than 706?
I think he was meaning the longest in Kentucky
Quote from: NE2 on December 24, 2019, 06:21:12 PM
In what Trumpo dystopia is 486 (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/36.7780665,-89.0960984/37.2973299,-82.3125917/@37.142427,-88.422941,7z/data=!4m56!4m55!1m50!3m4!1m2!1d-88.4298484!2d36.6565997!3s0x887a4bb09331231d:0x224382d49f81d451!3m4!1m2!1d-86.88097!2d36.8666428!3s0x8865a0f45c3795ab:0xff2f6d78e090332!3m4!1m2!1d-86.4731316!2d37.0073108!3s0x8865eec23a93dde5:0xc182c715724e65de!3m4!1m2!1d-84.0912111!2d37.1341555!3s0x885ccd5caa198f17:0x86f09b3fb5521385!3m4!1m2!1d-83.8972139!2d37.087483!3s0x885cb5b0036101a9:0xfd9484f2f376d351!3m4!1m2!1d-83.649761!2d37.1150066!3s0x885cab3a3c002f73:0x71fdd83bc6bc1e68!3m4!1m2!1d-83.4758775!2d37.1512699!3s0x8844acf04f7ca339:0x2a176ebbb8ebc361!3m4!1m2!1d-83.3357762!2d37.1430769!3s0x8844b482a7ae8873:0x45697c1d737f7ae0!3m4!1m2!1d-83.2210199!2d37.265352!3s0x8844c871c82b2293:0xf4bb0ba568f6b1f2!3m4!1m2!1d-82.7594447!2d37.6143429!3s0x8845051387b338d7:0x5a4891bca9a9a6fa!1m0!2m1!1b1!3e0) greater than 706?
This should win post of the day!
:awesomeface:
Quote from: NE2 on December 24, 2019, 06:21:12 PM
In what Trumpo dystopia is 486 (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/36.7780665,-89.0960984/37.2973299,-82.3125917/@37.142427,-88.422941,7z/data=!4m56!4m55!1m50!3m4!1m2!1d-88.4298484!2d36.6565997!3s0x887a4bb09331231d:0x224382d49f81d451!3m4!1m2!1d-86.88097!2d36.8666428!3s0x8865a0f45c3795ab:0xff2f6d78e090332!3m4!1m2!1d-86.4731316!2d37.0073108!3s0x8865eec23a93dde5:0xc182c715724e65de!3m4!1m2!1d-84.0912111!2d37.1341555!3s0x885ccd5caa198f17:0x86f09b3fb5521385!3m4!1m2!1d-83.8972139!2d37.087483!3s0x885cb5b0036101a9:0xfd9484f2f376d351!3m4!1m2!1d-83.649761!2d37.1150066!3s0x885cab3a3c002f73:0x71fdd83bc6bc1e68!3m4!1m2!1d-83.4758775!2d37.1512699!3s0x8844acf04f7ca339:0x2a176ebbb8ebc361!3m4!1m2!1d-83.3357762!2d37.1430769!3s0x8844b482a7ae8873:0x45697c1d737f7ae0!3m4!1m2!1d-83.2210199!2d37.265352!3s0x8844c871c82b2293:0xf4bb0ba568f6b1f2!3m4!1m2!1d-82.7594447!2d37.6143429!3s0x8845051387b338d7:0x5a4891bca9a9a6fa!1m0!2m1!1b1!3e0) greater than 706?
Kentucky, apparently.
Quote from: NE2 on December 24, 2019, 06:21:12 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on December 24, 2019, 04:14:05 PM
In theory, KY 80 is likely the longest state-numbered highway.
In what world is 486 (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/36.7780665,-89.0960984/37.2973299,-82.3125917/@37.142427,-88.422941,7z/data=!4m56!4m55!1m50!3m4!1m2!1d-88.4298484!2d36.6565997!3s0x887a4bb09331231d:0x224382d49f81d451!3m4!1m2!1d-86.88097!2d36.8666428!3s0x8865a0f45c3795ab:0xff2f6d78e090332!3m4!1m2!1d-86.4731316!2d37.0073108!3s0x8865eec23a93dde5:0xc182c715724e65de!3m4!1m2!1d-84.0912111!2d37.1341555!3s0x885ccd5caa198f17:0x86f09b3fb5521385!3m4!1m2!1d-83.8972139!2d37.087483!3s0x885cb5b0036101a9:0xfd9484f2f376d351!3m4!1m2!1d-83.649761!2d37.1150066!3s0x885cab3a3c002f73:0x71fdd83bc6bc1e68!3m4!1m2!1d-83.4758775!2d37.1512699!3s0x8844acf04f7ca339:0x2a176ebbb8ebc361!3m4!1m2!1d-83.3357762!2d37.1430769!3s0x8844b482a7ae8873:0x45697c1d737f7ae0!3m4!1m2!1d-83.2210199!2d37.265352!3s0x8844c871c82b2293:0xf4bb0ba568f6b1f2!3m4!1m2!1d-82.7594447!2d37.6143429!3s0x8845051387b338d7:0x5a4891bca9a9a6fa!1m0!2m1!1b1!3e0) greater than 706?
Context is your friend. I was using the Kentucky example to speculate if this might not be the case with other states. Or, even a factor in calculating Kentucky's longest highway, given that much of what is signed as KY 80 does not officially exist. (As noted, it's US 68, US 31E, US 421, etc.)
Quote from: DTComposer on December 23, 2019, 10:44:53 PM
From a touring standpoint I get the idea of signing as many of the coast side highways as possible as CA-1, though - they should also pick up the historic US-101 routing in San Diego County.
According to my ex-Caltrans employee cousin who had just started working there while they were in the process of coming up with the '64 renumbering, the original idea for PCH in SoCal
was to reinstate CA 3 on that segment of then-Alternate US 101. But several jurisdictions along that route, including both L.A. and Ventura counties, pushed for CA 1 for just the reasons cited above -- as an aid to tourism, making the coastal route west of US 101 a single easy-to-remember number. That view prevailed, and CA 3 ended up as a relatively obscure mountain highway in the northern reaches of the state.
Since Caltrans isn't in the least interested in assuming maintenance of additional urban/suburban surface mileage, the chances of a CA 1 in northern San Diego County are effectively nil.
Quote from: hbelkins on December 24, 2019, 04:14:05 PM
Going back to the OP, is there any official documentation from the states?
As with KY 80, CA 1 does not officially exist where concurrent with US 101. Nor does it officially exist on segments that are signed but locally maintained.
This is why only an unofficial figure for the end-to-end length of the route is possible - the official mileage figure from CalTrans is only the total state-maintained mileage that is inventoried as CA 1. You could add the concurrencies back in manually using official numbers by consulting the postmiles for US 101, but for the locally maintained segments... CalTrans just doesn't measure the length of those.
Kentucky and California are not the only two states where there are issues like this - offhand, I know Utah also only counts concurrency mileage for one route, the other route will have its mile markers freeze where the concurrency begins and then resume where they left off after it ends.
For the purpose of this specific question, however, most states are irrelevant. California, Montana, Texas, Alaska, Idaho, and Florida are the only states whose geography could realistically contain a state route over 700 miles long. It is easily demonstratable that Alaska, Idaho, and Florida have none that are anywhere near that long.
Texas, meanwhile, has the same issue of concurrencies not being counted in official mileage, but nonetheless a perusal of TravelMapping data does not identify any likely candidates. The longest state highway in Texas is... well it appears to be a close call between TX 6 and TX 16, both are ~560 miles give or take a few. The most recent minute order for TX 6 (https://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/hwy/SH/SH0006.htm) actually states within its text "total approximate distance of 560.0 miles", so that jives. You also wouldn't expect any large discrepancies between TM mileage and actual mileage with these roads like is seen with CA 1, since Texas' topography does not produce any routes that have loads of switchbacks and other twists over the course of hundreds of miles.
Montana measures mileage using an internal inventorying system that usually does not match signed numbers. MT 200 consists of pieces of P-6, N-5, I-90, N-24, N-3, I-15, I-315, N-60, N-57, P-51, and N-20. So the mileage listed on Wikipedia is computed from official data rather than explicitly listed within it, but it includes all concurrencies and thus is accurate to what's in the field. So we can be confident MT 200 isn't secretly longer than Wikipedia says it us, unlike CA 1.
Quote from: DTComposer on December 23, 2019, 10:44:53 PM
That said, the longest of these concurrencies - along US-101 between Sea Cliff and Las Cruces - does not have (I'm pretty sure) a single CA-1 shield along the entire 55 miles. The LA/OC section and the Central Coast section are really two distinct routes.
Now this... is an interesting point.
There is the one sign NE2 linked to asserting that CA 1 continues north along US 101 from Sea Cliff, but that may be the only signed indication of such that there is. I checked in Las Cruces and signs at the split there are just for US 101 north and south, with no mention of CA 1 continuing south from there. There was even an end sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.5103553,-120.2285129,3a,15y,115.23h,80.63t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1siz4TLK0c7Qk8iEnp35P6BA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3Diz4TLK0c7Qk8iEnp35P6BA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D168.34926%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656) in 2015! Though imagery from 2017 on that ramp shows it gone.
So, okay, it looks like one could make a reasonable argument that there are actually two discontinuous segments of CA 1. If this is assumed to be the case, then the longer of the two segments is well under 600 miles long, leaving MT 200 head and shoulders above anything else. Even if the mileage from the two segments is combined, it's still going to be under 700 miles and thus less than MT 200.
This potentially reduces this question to not having a single objectively correct answer!
Quote from: Duke87 on December 30, 2019, 01:28:02 AM
Texas, meanwhile, has the same issue of concurrencies not being counted in official mileage, but nonetheless a perusal of TravelMapping data does not identify any likely candidates. The longest state highway in Texas is... well it appears to be a close call between TX 6 and TX 16, both are ~560 miles give or take a few. The most recent minute order for TX 6 (https://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/hwy/SH/SH0006.htm) actually states within its text "total approximate distance of 560.0 miles", so that jives.
I measured both of those manually when researching this article (https://www.usends.com/blog/intersection-of-the-two-longest-texas-state-highways), and came up with:
TX 16: 568 mi.
TX 6: 551 mi.
...and
why did I have to measure them myself? Because WP's figure for TX 16 is 26 miles short, and their figure for TX 6 is 75 miles short. But hey, their figures are sourced to TXDoT, so everyone can carry on pretending they're correct.
Quote from: Duke87 on December 30, 2019, 01:28:02 AM
For the purpose of this specific question, however, most states are irrelevant. California, Montana, Texas, Alaska, Idaho, and Florida are the only states whose geography could realistically contain a state route over 700 miles long. It is easily demonstratable that Alaska, Idaho, and Florida have none that are anywhere near that long.
The temptation to lobby NY to create a numbered state route "beltway" around the state following the NY 17, I-87, US 9/NY 9A, NY 27, NY 114, NY 25/NY 25A, I-95, NY 22, US 11, NY 37, NY 12, NY 12E, NY 3, NY 104, NY 384, NY 5, and NY 76 corridors just to make this statement false is strong. Such a route would be over 1100 miles long.
Quote from: usends on December 30, 2019, 09:56:33 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on December 30, 2019, 01:28:02 AM
Texas, meanwhile, has the same issue of concurrencies not being counted in official mileage, but nonetheless a perusal of TravelMapping data does not identify any likely candidates. The longest state highway in Texas is... well it appears to be a close call between TX 6 and TX 16, both are ~560 miles give or take a few. The most recent minute order for TX 6 (https://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/hwy/SH/SH0006.htm) actually states within its text "total approximate distance of 560.0 miles", so that jives.
I measured both of those manually when researching this article (https://www.usends.com/blog/intersection-of-the-two-longest-texas-state-highways), and came up with:
TX 16: 568 mi.
TX 6: 551 mi.
...and why did I have to measure them myself? Because WP's figure for TX 16 is 26 miles short, and their figure for TX 6 is 75 miles short. But hey, their figures are sourced to TXDoT, so everyone can carry on pretending they're correct.
Coming at it from the Wikipedian perspective: If TxDOT says that 75 miles is not part of SH 6, and TxDOT/the Transportation Commission is the authority responsible for determining what is and is not a Texas state highway, doesn't that make that 75 miles factually not part of SH 6?
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 30, 2019, 02:33:55 PM
If TxDOT says that 75 miles is not part of SH 6
Then they shouldn't post signs saying it is.
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 30, 2019, 02:33:55 PM
Coming at it from the Wikipedian perspective: If TxDOT says that 75 miles is not part of SH 6, and TxDOT/the Transportation Commission is the authority responsible for determining what is and is not a Texas state highway, doesn't that make that 75 miles factually not part of SH 6?
The 75 "missing" miles of TX 6 are comprised of overlaps with US routes, namely US 290, US 79, US 190, US 281, and US 180. Each of those segments are dual-signed with TX 6 markers:
https://goo.gl/maps/mc6pP3k6ZRonPiK67
https://goo.gl/maps/ZNQJHUe8ABPy3JsB8
https://goo.gl/maps/PpiTMBi3MQCm9Zzh8
https://goo.gl/maps/TjYptWJB8UazjDEt7
https://goo.gl/maps/cS7GyKDULwaoMnPu7
So I would suggest that the TXDoT source that WP editors have cited was intended for inventory purposes, but not for determining total route mileage.
Quote from: usends on December 30, 2019, 03:26:53 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 30, 2019, 02:33:55 PM
Coming at it from the Wikipedian perspective: If TxDOT says that 75 miles is not part of SH 6, and TxDOT/the Transportation Commission is the authority responsible for determining what is and is not a Texas state highway, doesn't that make that 75 miles factually not part of SH 6?
The 75 "missing" miles of TX 6 are comprised of overlaps with US routes, namely US 290, US 79, US 190, US 281, and US 180. Each of those segments are dual-signed with TX 6 markers:
https://goo.gl/maps/mc6pP3k6ZRonPiK67
https://goo.gl/maps/ZNQJHUe8ABPy3JsB8
https://goo.gl/maps/PpiTMBi3MQCm9Zzh8
https://goo.gl/maps/TjYptWJB8UazjDEt7
https://goo.gl/maps/cS7GyKDULwaoMnPu7
So I would suggest that the TXDoT source that WP editors have cited was intended for inventory purposes, but not for determining total route mileage.
Going back to my home state, Kentucky tends to sign concurrencies. But there are some notable exceptions -- KY 80 has only been sporadically signed across the Russellville bypass. It was originally fully signed with US 68, but later re-signings have omitted much of the KY 80 signage.
Quote from: NE2 on December 30, 2019, 02:51:00 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 30, 2019, 02:33:55 PM
If TxDOT says that 75 miles is not part of SH 6
Then they shouldn't post signs saying it is.
Yeah, see, this is Wikipedia being unable to see the forest for the trees. "TxDOT says that 75 miles is not part of SH 6" is not a correct interpretation of the information presented in the Highway Designation File (TxDOT's own signs, after all, say otherwise). But determining this requires having some broader conceptual understanding of the situation rather than just reading numbers off and taking them at face value.
It's totally understandable that for TxDOT's internal purposes they want to have each stretch of pavement be uniquely identifiable by one route number. They know that when they need to look something up along the US 290/SH 6 concurrency they will find it filed under US 290 rather than having to check both places. This makes their job easier. Not counting concurrent mileage also allows them to simply add up the inventoried length of every route to get the total mileage maintained in the state or any part thereof.
But it's completely misleading to state that SH 6 is 476.4 miles long in an encyclopedia article with no caveat whatsoever because the average reader isn't going to understand TxDOT's inventorying procedures, and is intuitively going to assume - incorrectly - that this number is the distance one will travel if one drives the route end-to-end. It's even more misleading that this figure is then placed right underneath an image that highlights the entire length of the route
including concurrences.
The 476.4 mile figure was never intended to be used for the purpose Wikipedia is using it. And while I get that a more accurate number isn't available without doing original research, this is the sort of situation where the best response would be to simply omit any mention of the route's length from the article about it - because providing bad information is worse than providing no information.
Or, at least do what is done in the CA 1 article and put a caveat under the mileage that some concurrencies are not included in that figure.
But no, that doesn't happen because Wikipedia doesn't care whether information is actually correct so long as there is a source to cite it to that
appears official or reliable.
This is also, kids, why your teachers and professors are right to not let you cite Wikipedia as a source of information.
"Wikipedia" doesn't do anything. Wikipedia is a website that hosts a wiki. The articles are written by people, most of which are also on this forum.
So a mocking "don't use Wikipedia, kids, the editors don't care about what's right" to an audience that includes those same editors just makes you look like a jackass!
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 31, 2019, 03:52:36 AM
"Wikipedia" doesn't do anything. Wikipedia is a website that hosts a wiki. The articles are written by people, most of which are also on this forum.
So a mocking "don't use Wikipedia, kids, the editors don't care about what's right" to an audience that includes those same editors just makes you look like a jackass!
Well, if most of you do edit Wikipedia, and if it's that easy, then why don't you go to the page about SH 6 and fix it?
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on January 03, 2020, 07:07:09 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 31, 2019, 03:52:36 AM
"Wikipedia" doesn't do anything. Wikipedia is a website that hosts a wiki. The articles are written by people, most of which are also on this forum.
So a mocking "don't use Wikipedia, kids, the editors don't care about what's right" to an audience that includes those same editors just makes you look like a jackass!
Well, if most of you do edit Wikipedia, and if it's that easy, then why don't you go to the page about SH 6 and fix it?
Because it will get reverted.
Quote from: 1 on January 03, 2020, 03:05:30 PM
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on January 03, 2020, 07:07:09 AM
Well, if most of you do edit Wikipedia, and if it's that easy, then why don't you go to the page about SH 6 and fix it?
Because it will get reverted.
Even a modest caveat, cited by Duke87, that some concurrencies are not included in the mileage figure?
Quote from: oscar on January 03, 2020, 06:53:12 PM
Quote from: 1 on January 03, 2020, 03:05:30 PM
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on January 03, 2020, 07:07:09 AM
Well, if most of you do edit Wikipedia, and if it's that easy, then why don't you go to the page about SH 6 and fix it?
Because it will get reverted.
Even a modest caveat, cited by Duke87, that some concurrencies are not included in the mileage figure?
Quite possibly. I've made edits that were immediately reverted by people who saw it differently. And I mean immediately, within a few minutes.
This strikes me as being a point in favor of splitting off the roads content into its own wiki. I can understand why Wikipedia made the policies, but in the case of highways it leads to demonstrably false information being presented as fact.
Quote from: sparker on December 28, 2019, 03:21:14 PM
Quote from: DTComposer on December 23, 2019, 10:44:53 PM
From a touring standpoint I get the idea of signing as many of the coast side highways as possible as CA-1, though - they should also pick up the historic US-101 routing in San Diego County.
According to my ex-Caltrans employee cousin who had just started working there while they were in the process of coming up with the '64 renumbering, the original idea for PCH in SoCal was to reinstate CA 3 on that segment of then-Alternate US 101. But several jurisdictions along that route, including both L.A. and Ventura counties, pushed for CA 1 for just the reasons cited above -- as an aid to tourism, making the coastal route west of US 101 a single easy-to-remember number. That view prevailed, and CA 3 ended up as a relatively obscure mountain highway in the northern reaches of the state.
Since Caltrans isn't in the least interested in assuming maintenance of additional urban/suburban surface mileage, the chances of a CA 1 in northern San Diego County are effectively nil.
I wonder if they likewise considered restoring CA-7 to the segment of former U.S. 6 between I-5 and U.S. 395. I think that would have been preferable to assigning it 14.
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on January 04, 2020, 12:04:34 AM
Quote from: sparker on December 28, 2019, 03:21:14 PM
Quote from: DTComposer on December 23, 2019, 10:44:53 PM
From a touring standpoint I get the idea of signing as many of the coast side highways as possible as CA-1, though - they should also pick up the historic US-101 routing in San Diego County.
According to my ex-Caltrans employee cousin who had just started working there while they were in the process of coming up with the '64 renumbering, the original idea for PCH in SoCal was to reinstate CA 3 on that segment of then-Alternate US 101. But several jurisdictions along that route, including both L.A. and Ventura counties, pushed for CA 1 for just the reasons cited above -- as an aid to tourism, making the coastal route west of US 101 a single easy-to-remember number. That view prevailed, and CA 3 ended up as a relatively obscure mountain highway in the northern reaches of the state.
Since Caltrans isn't in the least interested in assuming maintenance of additional urban/suburban surface mileage, the chances of a CA 1 in northern San Diego County are effectively nil.
I wonder if they likewise considered restoring CA-7 to the segment of former U.S. 6 between I-5 and U.S. 395. I think that would have been preferable to assigning it 14.
All things considered the second CA 7 on the corridor of what is now I-710 wasn't too bad.
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 31, 2019, 03:52:36 AM
"Wikipedia" doesn't do anything. Wikipedia is a website that hosts a wiki. The articles are written by people, most of which are also on this forum[citation needed].
😌
(sorry, couldn't resist)
Quote from: froggie on January 04, 2020, 06:19:36 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 31, 2019, 03:52:36 AM
"Wikipedia" doesn't do anything. Wikipedia is a website that hosts a wiki. The articles are written by people, most of which are also on this forum[citation needed].
😌
(sorry, couldn't resist)
Ha! Very nicely done.
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 31, 2019, 03:52:36 AM
"Wikipedia" doesn't do anything. Wikipedia is a website that hosts a wiki. The articles are written by people, most of which are also on this forum.[citation needed]
Fixed the formatting to more closely resemble. :)
This thread about
state highways seems to have run its course for now. However, as was established earlier...
Quote from: Rothman on December 23, 2019, 11:40:52 PM
States own and maintain [US routes]. Interstates, too, for that matter.
...so I thought this would be a good place to discuss a similar question: what is the
longest US route in any state? And what is the
longest Interstate route in any state?
Please note, I am not talking about intra-state US routes, or intra-state Interstates.
An example of what I am talking about: US 83 in Texas is 893.1 miles long. Does any state have a longer US route?
And I've heard the longest in-state mileage for any Interstate is I-10 through Texas. True, or not?
Quote from: Interstate 10 in Texas- Wikipedia
At just under 880 miles (1,420 km), the Texas segment of I-10, maintained by the Texas Department of Transportation, is the longest continuous untolled freeway in North America that is operated by a single authority.
Quote from: ozarkman417 on April 25, 2020, 02:23:21 PM
Quote from: Interstate 10 in Texas- Wikipedia
At just under 880 miles (1,420 km), the Texas segment of I-10, maintained by the Texas Department of Transportation, is the longest continuous untolled freeway in North America that is operated by a single authority.
Not to get back into the question of accuracy, but is that untolled bit really correct? Aren't there tolls in the Houston area?
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on April 25, 2020, 02:50:36 PM
Quote from: ozarkman417 on April 25, 2020, 02:23:21 PM
Quote from: Interstate 10 in Texas- Wikipedia
At just under 880 miles (1,420 km), the Texas segment of I-10, maintained by the Texas Department of Transportation, is the longest continuous untolled freeway in North America that is operated by a single authority.
Not to get back into the question of accuracy, but is that untolled bit really correct? Aren't there tolls in the Houston area?
Along I-10 there is the KATY Managed Lanes, which are HOV and tolled lanes along the interstate, but the mainline isn't tolled.
Quote from: ozarkman417 on April 25, 2020, 02:23:21 PM
Quote from: Interstate 10 in Texas- Wikipedia
At just under 880 miles (1,420 km), the Texas segment of I-10, maintained by the Texas Department of Transportation, is the longest continuous untolled freeway in North America that is operated by a single authority.
So there are toll roads longer than 880 miles in North America? I'll believe it when I see it.
Without looking into the history, that wording is probably specifically because someone wanted to be a pedantic asshole and claim all of the Pennsylvania Turnpike system is one freeway or something like that.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 26, 2020, 05:58:47 AM
Without looking into the history, that wording is probably specifically because someone wanted to be a pedantic asshole and claim all of the Pennsylvania Turnpike system is one freeway or something like that.
But even then, is the total amount of PA toll mileage more than 880? I thought mainline plus NE extension was still only somewhere around 500.
Mainline - 360
NE Extension (toll portion) - 111
That's 471 but there are other PTC owned non-connected roads to the mainline
PA 43 south of Uniontown - 8
PA 43 north of Uniontown - 40
PA 66 - 14
I-376 - 16
PA 576 - 6
There's 84 miles there bringing the total PTC responsibility to 555.
Nonetheless, I think the NY Thruway may have close to the same or more? Mainline is 496 and then there are other NYT maintained facilities.
Quote from: usends on April 25, 2020, 01:56:17 PM
US 83 in Texas is 893.1 miles long. Does any state have a longer US route?
I don't think any state other than California has the dimensions to compete with this distance. And of course CA deleted or truncated most of their US routes, so US 83 in Texas probably holds the trophy currently. But historically, US 99 in California was very close to that distance, and I suspect that some early alignments could have been even longer.
Quote from: usends on April 26, 2020, 02:23:30 PM
Quote from: usends on April 25, 2020, 01:56:17 PM
US 83 in Texas is 893.1 miles long. Does any state have a longer US route?
I don't think any state other than California has the dimensions to compete with this distance. And of course CA deleted or truncated most of their US routes, so US 83 in Texas probably holds the trophy currently. But historically, US 99 in California was very close to that distance, and I suspect that some early alignments could have been even longer.
Present US 101 is 807 miles long. I-5 currently meets it at Exit 134 so it's safe to say that US 101 in California was the historic winner.