As someone who likes US Highways and doesn't mind concurrencies as much as a lot of people do, there are a lot of highways (US and State) that still exist, despite them being replaced by other highways (most commonly interstates). What's a highway (any highway) you're surprised still exists.
For example, I'm surprised that US 42 still exists in Ohio, especially considering their approach to US 21 and 25. Though US 42 does stray away from I-71 for a bit, so this is somewhat justified. It's also shocking to see that US 81 is concurrent with I-29 from Watertown, SD all the way to the Canadian border (with the exception of a stretch from Manvel to Pembina, ND.
US 5 would be gone if the New England states were like California.
US-46, US-266 and US-350 come to mind for me.
Pretty much all of the unconstructed highways in California that weren't legislatively deleted. The list is absolutely massive despite how little chance any of them have being built.
GA Highway 23, being it does not connect to FL SR 23 anymore. It's concurrency through the GA Bend of the St. Mary's River is not really warranted anymore.
US 181 in Texas, as I-37 replaced it. Usually Texas likes to decommission or truncate every time an interstate parallels a part of or entire route. I-27 is the other exception, only because it's US routes continue on both ends of it all. However US 181 ends at both ends at I-37 and goes between Corpus Christi and San Antonio.
US 92 and US 192 in Florida considering that I-4 replaced the former. The latter is a child of US 92 and is less than 100 miles long.
How about both US 85 and US 87? Both concur with I-25 in Colorado and New Mexico and both states ignore their existence. Especially US 85, at least US 87 continues north of Denver and many miles south of its deviation in New Mexico all the way to Port Lavaca on the Gulf Coast of Texas.
US 223 has needed to go for quite a long time given it's bogus terminus in Ohio. I've always found it odd US 319 hasn't been scaled back off of a multiplex of US 98.
Quote from: Some one on June 03, 2020, 07:18:20 PM
For example, I'm surprised that US 42 still exists in Ohio, especially considering their approach to US 21 and 25. Though US 42 does stray away from I-71 for a bit, so this is somewhat justified.
US 42 does serve a lot of communities not served by I-71 and never is/was concurrent with an Interstate, and I think it's appropriate to keep. US 25 and US 21 both had long stretches that were concurrent with the current freeway, and both had adjoining states that desired decommissioning (MI and WV, respectively).
It occurs like the east US 422 in PA should be decommissioned as its noncontinuous and doesn't leave PA. Keep the west US 422 from Cleveland to PA.
US 400 should be a Kansas intrastate route as it only leaves the state on multiplexes with other US routes.
I would bet a lot of these are probably roads the DOTs would love to dump, but can't because of funding and/or local jurisdictions that won't take them.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on June 03, 2020, 10:43:43 PM
I would bet a lot of these are probably roads the DOTs would love to dump, but can't because of funding and/or local jurisdictions that won't take them.
Like most of MO's lettered system.. That's why their broke
My local example (so local it's out my apartment window) is IA 122 going east from US 65 in Mason City to the east city limits. I know it was US 18 way back when, but I have no idea why IA 122 exists east of US 65. It doesn't go back to US 18.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 03, 2020, 10:21:26 PM
US 223 has needed to go for quite a long time given it's bogus terminus in Ohio.
Why? Without the concurrency with US-23 it still runs about 41 miles on its own, and that's not going to get turned back to the counties anytime soon.
I haven't seen an answer to this question so I'll ask again: What's the point of "demoting" a US highway to a state highway solely for the purpose of conforming with an arbitrary rule (eliminating routes that are intrastate or <300 miles in length)? I could see it if the state wants to do something that AASHTO won't approve (e.g. rerouting, adding designated alternate or business routes), but nothing changes with jurisdiction or who pays for maintenance/upgrades. Change US-223 to M-223, and what is the gain?
As a real-life example, I never understood the decommissioning of US-61 at Wyoming MN and redesignating the route north of there to the Canada border as MN-61. Other than incurring the expense of replacing the route signage, what was the purpose?
Indiana is pretty aggressive about truncating/decommissioning, so there aren't a lot of good options left.
US 35 doesn't really need to be a US highway north of Kokomo and could be truncated, though the truncated part should be state highways.
IN 111 doesn't need to be a state highway south of IN 211. There's absolutely nothing down there.
IN 450 doesn't really need to be a state highway at all. No towns on it and isn't the fastest way to get anywhere.
There are a few that INDOT has tried to get rid of but local jurisdictions won't take them: IN 120 west of CR 17, IN 933 east of IN 331, northern IN 931.
Quote from: cabiness42 on June 04, 2020, 08:48:01 AM
US 35 doesn't really need to be a US highway north of Kokomo and could be truncated, though the truncated part should be state highways.
Again, what's the point? Why truncate the US route if the truncated part is still going to be a state route?
Quote from: wanderer2575 on June 04, 2020, 09:00:07 AM
Quote from: cabiness42 on June 04, 2020, 08:48:01 AM
US 35 doesn't really need to be a US highway north of Kokomo and could be truncated, though the truncated part should be state highways.
Again, what's the point? Why truncate the US route if the truncated part is still going to be a state route?
Tell that to Arizona with AZ 89 and AZ 89A.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 04, 2020, 09:07:11 AM
Quote from: wanderer2575 on June 04, 2020, 09:00:07 AM
Quote from: cabiness42 on June 04, 2020, 08:48:01 AM
US 35 doesn't really need to be a US highway north of Kokomo and could be truncated, though the truncated part should be state highways.
Again, what's the point? Why truncate the US route if the truncated part is still going to be a state route?
Tell that to Arizona with AZ 89 and AZ 89A.
I don't doubt that states have done it. I'm asking if anyone can explain states' rationale for doing it. It makes no sense to me.
US 199 is definitely one, especially since its parent doesn't exist anymore.
Quote from: wanderer2575 on June 04, 2020, 09:58:08 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 04, 2020, 09:07:11 AM
Quote from: wanderer2575 on June 04, 2020, 09:00:07 AM
Quote from: cabiness42 on June 04, 2020, 08:48:01 AM
US 35 doesn't really need to be a US highway north of Kokomo and could be truncated, though the truncated part should be state highways.
Again, what's the point? Why truncate the US route if the truncated part is still going to be a state route?
Tell that to Arizona with AZ 89 and AZ 89A.
I don't doubt that states have done it. I'm asking if anyone can explain states' rationale for doing it. It makes no sense to me.
I believe there are standards for US Routes that don't have to be maintained for State Routes.
US 11 and its splits. Everything north of Watertown, NY, is pretty much parallel to an interstate.
US 25W, since it basically parallels I-75 and I-40 and was no doubt created to give US 25 a branch through Knoxville.
Quote from: kphoger on June 04, 2020, 11:07:04 AM
Quote from: wanderer2575 on June 04, 2020, 09:58:08 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 04, 2020, 09:07:11 AM
Quote from: wanderer2575 on June 04, 2020, 09:00:07 AM
Quote from: cabiness42 on June 04, 2020, 08:48:01 AM
US 35 doesn't really need to be a US highway north of Kokomo and could be truncated, though the truncated part should be state highways.
Again, what's the point? Why truncate the US route if the truncated part is still going to be a state route?
Tell that to Arizona with AZ 89 and AZ 89A.
I don't doubt that states have done it. I'm asking if anyone can explain states' rationale for doing it. It makes no sense to me.
I believe there are standards for US Routes that don't have to be maintained for State Routes.
Are there? I've heard that so many times but never actually seen a "standard" for US Routes. Allegedly that's what happened with US 89 and it's alternate route through the mining community of Jerome.
I believe they have to meet AASHTO Green Book standards. The application for a new number or a reroute has a page where DOTs have to note where the new route would be deficient under those standards.
Quote from: vdeane on June 04, 2020, 01:37:36 PM
I believe they have to meet AASHTO Green Book standards. The application for a new number or a reroute has a page where DOTs have to note where the new route would be deficient under those standards.
I seem to recall that's how US 666 being extended over UT 95 and UT 24 was denied. I believe it had something to do with the road (I believe UT 95 at the time was mostly open range and dirt) and it not being direct enough. I've never actually seen said standards myself and would be legitimately interested in reading them.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 04, 2020, 01:31:59 PM
Quote from: kphoger on June 04, 2020, 11:07:04 AM
Quote from: wanderer2575 on June 04, 2020, 09:58:08 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 04, 2020, 09:07:11 AM
Quote from: wanderer2575 on June 04, 2020, 09:00:07 AM
Quote from: cabiness42 on June 04, 2020, 08:48:01 AM
US 35 doesn't really need to be a US highway north of Kokomo and could be truncated, though the truncated part should be state highways.
Again, what's the point? Why truncate the US route if the truncated part is still going to be a state route?
Tell that to Arizona with AZ 89 and AZ 89A.
I don't doubt that states have done it. I'm asking if anyone can explain states' rationale for doing it. It makes no sense to me.
I believe there are standards for US Routes that don't have to be maintained for State Routes.
Are there? I've heard that so many times but never actually seen a "standard" for US Routes. Allegedly that's what happened with US 89 and it's alternate route through the mining community of Jerome.
US 65 Business was turned over to the city of Branson (MO) when the Skaggs roundabout was constructed. The reason for that is that the hill grade on US 65 Business was too steep to allow a roundabout to be constructed. Branson's solution was to take over that portion of the highway and thereby exclude it from the requirement.
While I don't specifically know that this is true, my assumption is that each State can have different standards for such things.
US 199. Sure it crosses a state line, but still?
US 10, especially in Michigan. Just run M-10 to "The Beaver" and call it good.
Quote from: TEG24601 on June 04, 2020, 02:34:29 PM
US 199. Sure it crosses a state line, but still?
US 10, especially in Michigan. Just run M-10 to "The Beaver" and call it good.
US 199 at least was embroiled in the Winnemucca to the Sea saga for awhile. US 199 is one of those highways that doesn't really have apparent regional importance until you end up driving it.
Quote from: TEG24601 on June 04, 2020, 02:34:29 PM
...
US 10, especially in Michigan. Just run M-10 to "The Beaver" and call it good.
You realize that M-10 and US-10 are over 80 miles apart, right?
Quote from: hbelkins on June 04, 2020, 01:29:15 PM
US 11 and its splits. Everything north south of Watertown, NY, is pretty much parallel to an interstate.
FTFY.
Quote from: GaryV on June 04, 2020, 03:53:52 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on June 04, 2020, 02:34:29 PM
...
US 10, especially in Michigan. Just run M-10 to "The Beaver" and call it good.
You realize that M-10 and US-10 are over 80 miles apart, right?
I have the opposite take that US 10 still should end in Detroit. If anything US 24 ending at the Lodge Freeway would be just as an appropriate terminus.
US-400 west of Dodge City.
I mean, seriously, who are they kidding?
I-894. Again, why is still around? It made sense back in the day, but now it is totally redundant to I-41.
US 19W as redundant to I-26. Change US 19E to "plain" US 19.
us 62 west of okla us 85 s of Denver us 57 us 310 us 75 near canada
Quote from: webny99 on June 04, 2020, 04:07:40 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 04, 2020, 01:29:15 PM
US 11 and its splits. Everything north south of Watertown, NY, is pretty much parallel to an interstate.
FTFY.
Yeah, I had two different thoughts going and they got jumbled as fingers hit keyboard. I was torn between "everything south of Watertown" and "everything but the portion north of Watertown" and it came out wrong.
While I'm at it, all of US 25 north of Corbin.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 04, 2020, 01:31:59 PMI've heard that so many times but never actually seen a "standard" for US Routes. Allegedly that's what happened with US 89 and it's alternate route through the mining community of Jerome.
I don't know about construction standards, but there are supposed to be utility standards for US routes. They're supposed to be on major interregional corridors. That exempts a whole lot of mileage in Kentucky, including all of US 431, most if not all of US 421, and US 460 west of Pikeville. No one in Paintsville or Prestonsburg is going to take 460 to Frankfort, nor will they take US 431 from Owensboro to Nashville.
MD-3 Business in Glen Burnie. It no longer connects with mainline MD-3 because I-97 replaced it in the area.
Going back to Indiana, while I'm not surprised it hasn't been truncated or decommissioned, there's no real need for US 421 north of Greensburg. The highway heading north from Greensburg to Michigan City all follow routes that are occupied by either interstates (I-74) or various state highways. Parts of SR 29, SR 39 and SR 43 could very easily assume parts of US 421 and INDOT would lose no control of the highway. I'm guessing for some reason there's a need for a single highway connecting Indy to Michigan City.
As for US 35, in reality it's the state highway that can go from Kokomo to I-69, there's no need for SR 22. US 35 should only share a multiplex with I-69 and a part of SR 28 in Delaware County. It serves decent for a Kokomo to Michigan City highway.
And then there's my more recent belief that parts of SR 67 should be decommissioned from Indianapolis to Daleville due to the state highway sharing its route with one other highway in between those two communities (I-465, US 36, SR 9, I-69)
MA 4 or MA 225 in Lexington.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 04, 2020, 09:07:11 AM
Quote from: wanderer2575 on June 04, 2020, 09:00:07 AM
Quote from: cabiness42 on June 04, 2020, 08:48:01 AM
US 35 doesn't really need to be a US highway north of Kokomo and could be truncated, though the truncated part should be state highways.
Again, what's the point? Why truncate the US route if the truncated part is still going to be a state route?
Tell that to Arizona with AZ 89 and AZ 89A.
For some reason Arizona didn't want to sign US 89 along I-40. Why? I don't know.
MO-265. All concurrencies save a shor 3 mile section.
Quote from: STLmapboy on June 04, 2020, 08:59:59 PM
MO-265. All concurrencies save a shor 3 mile section.
MO 413 has a similar case. Its time in Springfield and a short section near Billings are the only two places were it does not have a concurrency. You could truncate 265 so it starts near Silver Dollar City and it ends at US 65.
MO 165 is entirely concurrent with County 165 and was somewhat recently truncated near Holister.
Quote from: ztonyg on June 04, 2020, 07:34:01 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 04, 2020, 09:07:11 AM
Quote from: wanderer2575 on June 04, 2020, 09:00:07 AM
Quote from: cabiness42 on June 04, 2020, 08:48:01 AM
US 35 doesn't really need to be a US highway north of Kokomo and could be truncated, though the truncated part should be state highways.
Again, what's the point? Why truncate the US route if the truncated part is still going to be a state route?
Tell that to Arizona with AZ 89 and AZ 89A.
For some reason Arizona didn't want to sign US 89 along I-40. Why? I don't know.
As if a couple reassurance shields saved them that much money and yet they didn't relinquish anything.
I’m surprised Arizona hasn’t dumped US 60 west of Phoenix given their track record with routes like US 89. The part east of Wickenburg could easily become a US 93 extension, with the remaining segments becoming either SR 60 or returned to county maintenance (as happened with 66 further north).
Quote from: Henry on June 04, 2020, 10:17:59 AM
US 199 is definitely one, especially since its parent doesn't exist anymore.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 04, 2020, 02:36:40 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on June 04, 2020, 02:34:29 PM
US 199. Sure it crosses a state line, but still?
US 10, especially in Michigan. Just run M-10 to "The Beaver" and call it good.
US 199 at least was embroiled in the Winnemucca to the Sea saga for awhile. US 199 is one of those highways that doesn't really have apparent regional importance until you end up driving it.
US 199 functions as the only reasonable tether from the coast to inland southern Oregon and northern California from the Klamath River to the Rogue River. As a bi-state route, the criteria for existence as a US route is settled; "demoting" it to two state highways would be both gratuitous and petty. Renumbering as part of the revisitation of the Winnemucca-to-the-Sea concept would be the only arguable reason for changing its current designation -- but that's a fictional subject. But in the general vicinity, routes that to me seem to have the Damoclean sword hanging over their existence would be CA 3 east of I-5 to Montague, OR 70 (there's gotta be
something political going on there!), and the northern section of CA 169 (it's pretty much a neighborhood street along the river).
Some others from California that I've found odd:
- CA 229; much of the highway is a single lane and the two lane portion is part of former US 466. CA 229 is doesn't really serve a greater transportation purpose nor connects to a state facility. The highway essentially is a local road that is overbuilt for state standards.
- CA 172; much as the and same as CA 229 with a large one lane section. This route is former CA 36 over Mineral Summit, the modern road is infinitely superior. The only people that live on CA 172 are at the East terminus and the rest of the highway is closed during winters.
Quote from: hbelkins on June 04, 2020, 05:53:18 PM
While I'm at it, all of US 25 north of Corbin.
I agree - and also all of US-25 W. But wouldn't it just get renumbered as a Kentucky route?
I am surprised that US 9 was not recommissioned in NY, being that state truncated US 15 when the NY 17 freeway was constructed west of Corning.
North of Albany it is completely surpassed by I-87. Maybe from NYC to Albany not so much as it has no freeway directly near it.
Any of the remaining spurs in Michigan that serve state parks (M-211 and M-212 come to mind)
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 03, 2020, 07:24:38 PM
US 5 would be gone if the New England states were like California.
Speaking of US 5, CT 15 north of Meriden. Granted, most people refer to the Berlin Turnpike and the South Hartford expressway as Route 15, but with the exception of the last half mile or so between Main St and I-84, it is concurrent with US 5.
And then there's US 202. What is a child route of a road in Maine doing in Delaware? You can eliminate it by expanding US 301 and rerouting it onto US 13 north of Wilmington to Morrisville, PA (via a brief concurrency with DE 1), then using US 13 for US 202 up to Haverstraw, NY (you'd need to eliminate the 1/2 mile NJ 13, and yes you'd be breaking a US/state route rule in NY, but NY 13 is far enough away). In NY, all you'd need to do is extend NY 116 and NY 100 briefly. In CT, extend CT 53 to Brookfield and re-extend CT 25 to Canton. In MA, just create a new state route from Westfield to Belchetown, then extend MA 21 north of there and you can even use NH 21 to Concord (would work great with my proposed CT/MA 21). Other than extending NH 43, you're pretty much done.
And no one has mentioned MA 128 yet? <ducks and runs for cover>
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on June 05, 2020, 10:12:44 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 03, 2020, 07:24:38 PM
US 5 would be gone if the New England states were like California.
Speaking of US 5, CT 15 north of Meriden. Granted, most people refer to the Berlin Turnpike and the South Hartford expressway as Route 15, but with the exception of the last half mile or so between Main St and I-84, it is concurrent with US 5.
And then there's US 202. What is a child route of a road in Maine doing in Delaware? You can eliminate it by expanding US 301 and rerouting it onto US 13 north of Wilmington to Morrisville, PA (via a brief concurrency with DE 1), then using US 13 for US 202 up to Haverstraw, NY (you'd need to eliminate the 1/2 mile NJ 13, and yes you'd be breaking a US/state route rule in NY, but NY 13 is far enough away). In NY, all you'd need to do is extend NY 116 and NY 100 briefly. In CT, extend CT 53 to Brookfield and re-extend CT 25 to Canton. In MA, just create a new state route from Westfield to Belchetown, then extend MA 21 north of there and you can even use NH 21 to Concord (would work great with my proposed CT/MA 21). Other than extending NH 43, you're pretty much done.
And no one has mentioned MA 128 yet? <ducks and runs for cover>
And with that - I'll add MA 128. Should not exist south / west of the I-95 interchange in Peabody
Quote from: ftballfan on June 05, 2020, 09:27:40 AM
Any of the remaining spurs in Michigan that serve state parks (M-211 and M-212 come to mind)
See I've always been cool with that. At least it's a state facility reaching another state facility.
Quote from: Ben114 on June 05, 2020, 10:28:05 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on June 05, 2020, 10:12:44 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 03, 2020, 07:24:38 PM
US 5 would be gone if the New England states were like California.
Speaking of US 5, CT 15 north of Meriden. Granted, most people refer to the Berlin Turnpike and the South Hartford expressway as Route 15, but with the exception of the last half mile or so between Main St and I-84, it is concurrent with US 5.
And then there's US 202. What is a child route of a road in Maine doing in Delaware? You can eliminate it by expanding US 301 and rerouting it onto US 13 north of Wilmington to Morrisville, PA (via a brief concurrency with DE 1), then using US 13 for US 202 up to Haverstraw, NY (you'd need to eliminate the 1/2 mile NJ 13, and yes you'd be breaking a US/state route rule in NY, but NY 13 is far enough away). In NY, all you'd need to do is extend NY 116 and NY 100 briefly. In CT, extend CT 53 to Brookfield and re-extend CT 25 to Canton. In MA, just create a new state route from Westfield to Belchetown, then extend MA 21 north of there and you can even use NH 21 to Concord (would work great with my proposed CT/MA 21). Other than extending NH 43, you're pretty much done.
And no one has mentioned MA 128 yet? <ducks and runs for cover>
And with that - I'll add MA 128. Should not exist south / west of the I-95 interchange in Peabody
na I love MA 128.
Quote from: ftballfan on June 05, 2020, 09:27:40 AM
Any of the remaining spurs in Michigan that serve state parks (M-211 and M-212 come to mind)
M-185?
Quote from: texaskdog on June 05, 2020, 11:03:10 AM
Quote from: ftballfan on June 05, 2020, 09:27:40 AM
Any of the remaining spurs in Michigan that serve state parks (M-211 and M-212 come to mind)
M-185?
M-185 is also the main highway on the island. Most of the start Park stuff is on adjoining roadways.
Two US highways here in Wisconsin:
- US 18 east of its US 151 split by Dodgeville, WI
- US 141 south of its US 41 split ('Abrams Interchange') north of Green Bay, WI
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on June 05, 2020, 11:20:23 AM
- US 141 south of its US 41 split ('Abrams Interchange') north of Green Bay, WI
BR I-41 anyone? (The portion going thru Green Bay.) The problem is it connects to I-41 at one end and I-43 at the other.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 05, 2020, 11:06:11 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on June 05, 2020, 11:03:10 AM
Quote from: ftballfan on June 05, 2020, 09:27:40 AM
Any of the remaining spurs in Michigan that serve state parks (M-211 and M-212 come to mind)
M-185?
M-185 is also the main highway on the island. Most of the start Park stuff is on adjoining roadways.
If cars can't drive on it, should it really have a state route number? Demote it to a state bike route.
Quote from: vdeane on June 05, 2020, 12:49:26 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 05, 2020, 11:06:11 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on June 05, 2020, 11:03:10 AM
Quote from: ftballfan on June 05, 2020, 09:27:40 AM
Any of the remaining spurs in Michigan that serve state parks (M-211 and M-212 come to mind)
M-185?
M-185 is also the main highway on the island. Most of the start Park stuff is on adjoining roadways.
If cars can't drive on it, should it really have a state route number? Demote it to a state bike route.
Cars do drive on it in the form emergency vehicles. More so things like snowmobiles and horse drawn carriages are allowed on M-185. Its definitely isn't "motor free" or "vehicle free" as people think.
You could make a case for MD 2 south of Sunderland (where it begins overlapping with MD 4). It's a bit of a pointless overlap since at the other end in Solomons, 2 turns off 4 and simply runs parallel, ending here (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Solomons+Island+Rd+S+%26+Lore+Rd,+Solomons,+MD+20688/@38.3325042,-76.4651525,453m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x89b76285b74c093d:0x128f49fe555646a9!8m2!3d38.3320713!4d-76.4656618!5m1!1e1?hl=en) less than a quarter mile later (side question: was the end of state maintenance always here, or did 2 used to extend all the way into Solomons?). I'm guessing it remains because 2 existed thru Calvert County before 4, and many are now familiar with that stretch as "2-4".
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 05, 2020, 12:51:44 PM
Quote from: vdeane on June 05, 2020, 12:49:26 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 05, 2020, 11:06:11 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on June 05, 2020, 11:03:10 AM
Quote from: ftballfan on June 05, 2020, 09:27:40 AM
Any of the remaining spurs in Michigan that serve state parks (M-211 and M-212 come to mind)
M-185?
M-185 is also the main highway on the island. Most of the start Park stuff is on adjoining roadways.
If cars can't drive on it, should it really have a state route number? Demote it to a state bike route.
Cars do drive on it in the form emergency vehicles. More so things like snowmobiles and horse drawn carriages are allowed on M-185. Its definitely isn't "motor free" or "vehicle free" as people think.
I'd hardly consider emergency vehicles, snowmobiles, and horse drawn carriages to be in the same league as personal automobiles. By all means, give the road a name or invent some other designation, but a signed number that's no different from the rest of the state route system is probably not appropriate. The fact of the matter is, its very existence makes it very difficult for roadgeeks to clinch the Michigan state highway system.
Quote from: vdeane on June 05, 2020, 01:37:20 PM
The fact of the matter is, its very existence makes it very difficult for roadgeeks to clinch the Michigan state highway system.
That... might not be the most convincing sentence in a letter to the DOT.
Quote from: vdeane on June 05, 2020, 01:37:20 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 05, 2020, 12:51:44 PM
Quote from: vdeane on June 05, 2020, 12:49:26 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 05, 2020, 11:06:11 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on June 05, 2020, 11:03:10 AM
Quote from: ftballfan on June 05, 2020, 09:27:40 AM
Any of the remaining spurs in Michigan that serve state parks (M-211 and M-212 come to mind)
M-185?
M-185 is also the main highway on the island. Most of the start Park stuff is on adjoining roadways.
If cars can't drive on it, should it really have a state route number? Demote it to a state bike route.
Cars do drive on it in the form emergency vehicles. More so things like snowmobiles and horse drawn carriages are allowed on M-185. Its definitely isn't "motor free" or "vehicle free" as people think.
I'd hardly consider emergency vehicles, snowmobiles, and horse drawn carriages to be in the same league as personal automobiles. By all means, give the road a name or invent some other designation, but a signed number that's no different from the rest of the state route system is probably not appropriate. The fact of the matter is, its very existence makes it very difficult for roadgeeks to clinch the Michigan state highway system.
It's actually incredibly easy, there are a ton of bike shops right off the dock as soon as you land on Mackinac Island. I've actually found M-185 is a huge attraction on the road community, it frequently pops up on road websites. M-185 definitely gets the same treatment in terms of maintenance as the rest of the State Trunklines whereas the rest of the roads on the island do not. Lest we forget beyond being a State Park there is a living community on Mackinac Island as well that M-185 serves.
Truncate US 412 West at Woodward, Oklahoma. It is overlapped for the rest of its route to Springer, NM. Routes include OK 3, OK 95, OK 136, US 56, US 64, US 183, US 270, US 385.
MN 120. They were able to offload the part south of I-94 around 20 years ago, but the rest remains despite MnDOT's active efforts to turn back as much metro surface mileage as possible. MN 5 and US 61 are going to be bigger projects than 120.
The short section of MN 27 east of Moose Lake
MN 123
Quote from: kphoger on June 05, 2020, 01:43:18 PM
Quote from: vdeane on June 05, 2020, 01:37:20 PM
The fact of the matter is, its very existence makes it very difficult for roadgeeks to clinch the Michigan state highway system.
That... might not be the most convincing sentence in a letter to the DOT.
Hey I've taken a bicycle around the island, only 9 miles
Quote from: rarnold on June 05, 2020, 01:47:47 PM
Truncate US 412 West at Woodward, Oklahoma. It is overlapped for the rest of its route to Springer, NM. Routes include OK 3, OK 95, OK 136, US 56, US 64, US 183, US 270, US 385.
I'd rather truncate US-412 at US-56 (near Boise City) and truncate OK-3 at US-81 (near Okarche).
Quote from: texaskdog on June 05, 2020, 01:59:49 PM
Quote from: kphoger on June 05, 2020, 01:43:18 PM
Quote from: vdeane on June 05, 2020, 01:37:20 PM
The fact of the matter is, its very existence makes it very difficult for roadgeeks to clinch the Michigan state highway system.
That... might not be the most convincing sentence in a letter to the DOT.
Hey I've taken a bicycle around the island, only 9 miles
8.2 to be exact. I've even run it a couple times, definitely gives the bike shop sticker I have more prestige.
Quote from: kphoger on June 05, 2020, 01:43:18 PM
Quote from: vdeane on June 05, 2020, 01:37:20 PM
The fact of the matter is, its very existence makes it very difficult for roadgeeks to clinch the Michigan state highway system.
That... might not be the most convincing sentence in a letter to the DOT.
True, although as Max mentions, it's not that hard to take the ferry over to the island. I've done it twice, and not even with the goal of clinching M 185. It's definitely worth a visit with or without the state highway.
Quote from: webny99 on June 05, 2020, 03:57:22 PM
Quote from: kphoger on June 05, 2020, 01:43:18 PM
Quote from: vdeane on June 05, 2020, 01:37:20 PM
The fact of the matter is, its very existence makes it very difficult for roadgeeks to clinch the Michigan state highway system.
That... might not be the most convincing sentence in a letter to the DOT.
True, although as Max mentions, it's not that hard to take the ferry over to the island. I've done it twice, and not even with the goal of clinching M 185. It's definitely worth a visit with or without the state highway.
Speaking of ferries, there are several in the State Trunkline System that would rank as more difficult clinches. M-154 on Harsens Island and M-134 on Drummond Island come to mind. The latter IMO is the most difficult Trunkline clinch in Michigan given how remote it is.
If we're talking about state routes, WV 55 is the most obvious choice I can think of. It's concurrent with another route (WV 20, WV 39, US 219, US 33, WV 28, US 220 and US 48) for most of its route, except for the westernmost few miles between US 19 and WV 41.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 05, 2020, 01:44:37 PM
It's actually incredibly easy, there are a ton of bike shops right off the dock as soon as you land on Mackinac Island. I've actually found M-185 is a huge attraction on the road community, it frequently pops up on road websites. M-185 definitely gets the same treatment in terms of maintenance as the rest of the State Trunklines whereas the rest of the roads on the island do not. Lest we forget beyond being a State Park there is a living community on Mackinac Island as well that M-185 serves.
Yeah, that doesn't help those who don't know how to ride a bike. Sure, it's a state highway, but that doesn't mean it needs to be signed. Doesn't MI have unsigned routes like many other states? If this were NY I'd say make it a reference route.
I was just thinking about Illinois 129 the other day, wondering why it still exists. The interchange to it from I-55 has been reduced to a useless right-in, right-out, and it's a stub that ends just a few miles south in Braidwood, where IL-53 and IL-113 serve the town just fine.
Quote from: vdeane on June 05, 2020, 08:38:42 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 05, 2020, 01:44:37 PM
It's actually incredibly easy, there are a ton of bike shops right off the dock as soon as you land on Mackinac Island. I've actually found M-185 is a huge attraction on the road community, it frequently pops up on road websites. M-185 definitely gets the same treatment in terms of maintenance as the rest of the State Trunklines whereas the rest of the roads on the island do not. Lest we forget beyond being a State Park there is a living community on Mackinac Island as well that M-185 serves.
Yeah, that doesn't help those who don't know how to ride a bike. Sure, it's a state highway, but that doesn't mean it needs to be signed. Doesn't MI have unsigned routes like many other states? If this were NY I'd say make it a reference route.
I don't believe so, or at least I've never run into one that wasn't signed. For reference with M-185 it has only one reassurance shield and just mile markers. Regarding Mackinac the mileage markers are certainly a helpful reference as to where you on the island. Just because a highway isn't oriented towards car I wouldn't say it doesn't mean it is disqualified from being one so long as it has a viable transportation purpose.
Speaking for myself if a route isn't signed or has some weird element to it, then it's more of a draw. We have a ton of State Routes in California that aren't signed. Most of them have an interesting story to them which explains their oddness.
Regarding M-185 the only reassurance shields are used as the double sided Mile Mark 0 reference at Marquette Place:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/4403/36530538462_423e8245a5_4k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/XE5yo3)IMG_4445 (https://flic.kr/p/XE5yo3) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
The Mackinac State Park boundary is well marked from M-185:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/4363/36653827086_4a897c5e4a_4k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/XQYrMY)IMG_4450 (https://flic.kr/p/XQYrMY) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
The typical mile marker on M-185 is double sided as well:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/4348/36530187012_b39dcaad3f_4k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/XE3KUy)IMG_4461 (https://flic.kr/p/XE3KUy) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
So in a sense the way the signage is configured on M-185 is completely oriented for non-motorized traffic. It resembles far more what you would see on a typical recreational trail over what one would see on any other State Trunkline. That said, it does meet the criteria as a corridor of transportation that would typically would be subject to State Level maintenance.
Regarding Highways that really don't serve a transportation purpose, UT 900 and UT 901 certainly fit the bill. Both routes were adoptions of primitive BLM roads that were intended to block the path a hazardous waste railroad line oriented for a nuclear waste facility that was planned for Skull Valley. UT 196 was similarly added for the same purpose but at the very least that is an actual highway that serves the Dugway Proving Ground.
Utah also has a ton of State Park Highways, many which aren't actually even signed. Usually if there is a gap in State Maintenance I've noticed that Utah tends not to sign the State Route in whatever park it is attached to. Below is a reference list for Utah State Highways serving State Parks and other State Facilities:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_state_highways_serving_Utah_state_parks_and_institutions#309
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 05, 2020, 08:55:03 PM
Quote from: vdeane on June 05, 2020, 08:38:42 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 05, 2020, 01:44:37 PM
It's actually incredibly easy, there are a ton of bike shops right off the dock as soon as you land on Mackinac Island. I've actually found M-185 is a huge attraction on the road community, it frequently pops up on road websites. M-185 definitely gets the same treatment in terms of maintenance as the rest of the State Trunklines whereas the rest of the roads on the island do not. Lest we forget beyond being a State Park there is a living community on Mackinac Island as well that M-185 serves.
Yeah, that doesn't help those who don't know how to ride a bike. Sure, it's a state highway, but that doesn't mean it needs to be signed. Doesn't MI have unsigned routes like many other states? If this were NY I'd say make it a reference route.
I don't believe so, or at least I've never run into one that wasn't signed.
Quite a few, actually: http://michiganhighways.org/other/unsigned.html
Quote from: GaryV on June 06, 2020, 08:02:42 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 05, 2020, 08:55:03 PM
Quote from: vdeane on June 05, 2020, 08:38:42 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 05, 2020, 01:44:37 PM
It's actually incredibly easy, there are a ton of bike shops right off the dock as soon as you land on Mackinac Island. I've actually found M-185 is a huge attraction on the road community, it frequently pops up on road websites. M-185 definitely gets the same treatment in terms of maintenance as the rest of the State Trunklines whereas the rest of the roads on the island do not. Lest we forget beyond being a State Park there is a living community on Mackinac Island as well that M-185 serves.
Yeah, that doesn't help those who don't know how to ride a bike. Sure, it's a state highway, but that doesn't mean it needs to be signed. Doesn't MI have unsigned routes like many other states? If this were NY I'd say make it a reference route.
I don't believe so, or at least I've never run into one that wasn't signed.
Quite a few, actually: http://michiganhighways.org/other/unsigned.html
Most of those are akin to X Routes in Arizona and U Post Mile Routes in California. Both are essentially internal designations for an unrelinquished part of a highway that is up for being given back to a local authority. US 60 X on Main in Mesa would be an example in Arizona. The most famous example in California is CA 14U on Sierra Highway which oddly even has some reassurance shields.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 06, 2020, 08:16:51 AM
Quote from: GaryV on June 06, 2020, 08:02:42 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 05, 2020, 08:55:03 PM
Quote from: vdeane on June 05, 2020, 08:38:42 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 05, 2020, 01:44:37 PM
It's actually incredibly easy, there are a ton of bike shops right off the dock as soon as you land on Mackinac Island. I've actually found M-185 is a huge attraction on the road community, it frequently pops up on road websites. M-185 definitely gets the same treatment in terms of maintenance as the rest of the State Trunklines whereas the rest of the roads on the island do not. Lest we forget beyond being a State Park there is a living community on Mackinac Island as well that M-185 serves.
Yeah, that doesn't help those who don't know how to ride a bike. Sure, it's a state highway, but that doesn't mean it needs to be signed. Doesn't MI have unsigned routes like many other states? If this were NY I'd say make it a reference route.
I don't believe so, or at least I've never run into one that wasn't signed.
Quite a few, actually: http://michiganhighways.org/other/unsigned.html
Most of those are akin to X Routes in Arizona and U Post Mile Routes in California. Both are essentially internal designations for an unrelinquished part of a highway that is up for being given back to a local authority. US 60 X on Main in Mesa would be an example in Arizona. The most famous example in California is CA 14U on Sierra Highway which oddly even has some reassurance shields.
The history of unrelinquished CA state highways has been just plain weird at times. From what I've been able to gather, 14U is still under state maintenance as a result of the cancellation of the CA 126 freeway, the terminating ramps to CA 14 already having been partially built and now serving as the Via Princessa interchange. D7 decided that a temporary CA 126 route was needed between that facility and the original routing on San Fernando Road in Newhall, so it kept old Sierra Highway in its inventory (this action circa 1976 or so); since then Santa Clarita has taken back much of the facility except a section that has had historic problems with slope slippage; since the original work was done under Caltrans auspices, the city has declined to accept transfer of ownership until such time as the problem is resolved -- but for one reason or another, such has never been budgeted. So 14U actually exists; the signage was due to a bit of literalism within D7 a few decades back (we own it, we sign it), about the time CA 187 and CA 213, on city streets in metro L.A., were being signed as well (much of which is now gone). But the grand prize has to go to CA 221 -- D4 had been trying to get rid of Soquel Ave. between CA 29 and CA 121 since CA 29/12 was rerouted over the new Napa River bridge circa 1980, but neither the City or County of Napa wanted to assume maintenance, so it sat on the books as "29U" until someone in Sacramento realized that there was an unbuilt CA 221 originally planned to cross E-W between CA 29 and 121 north of Napa itself -- and the route definition simply stated "a route between 29 and 121 near Napa"; since that was simply an unadopted corridor, the definition was transferred to the "29U" alignment, which was then postmiled as CA 221. Nevertheless, signage for CA 221 has been decidedly minimalist, with only trailblazers from each end (at least the last time I was on it circa 2014).
Given how mercilessly it was cut down from its original length, I'm surprised that the portion of VA-10 east of US-258 at Smithfield still exists, given that it's entirely multiplexed with other routes.
VA-162 used to run all the way through Williamsburg to meet US-60 at Lafayette St, but got deleted from the city in 1993, leaving only a tiny 0.17-mile stub in York County that inexplicably still exists as a signed route to this day.
Not sure why US-17 needs to exist north of I-66, since most of it is multiplexed with US-50 and trucks are prohibited from using the two-lane portion south of there.
Very unclear as to why the portion of VA-91 from VA-42 to US-19/460 BUS in Tazewell is still in the state primary system. It includes the only unpaved piece of primary highway in the entire state (about 5.3 miles) and the majority of the remainder has no striping of any kind. Only reason that I can think of is that it's probably (?) the fastest route from Chillhowie or Broadford to Tazewell (VA-16 is fully paved but very twisty), but it's totally unsuitable for larger vehicles and looks like a low-quality secondary road.
Quote from: kphoger on June 05, 2020, 02:01:02 PM
Quote from: rarnold on June 05, 2020, 01:47:47 PM
Truncate US 412 West at Woodward, Oklahoma. It is overlapped for the rest of its route to Springer, NM. Routes include OK 3, OK 95, OK 136, US 56, US 64, US 183, US 270, US 385.
I'd rather truncate US-412 at US-56 (near Boise City) and truncate OK-3 at US-81 (near Okarche).
That is also a good option. Oklahoma must spend a lot of money on shields and auxiliary plates.
Quote from: kphoger on June 05, 2020, 02:01:02 PM
Quote from: rarnold on June 05, 2020, 01:47:47 PM
Truncate US 412 West at Woodward, Oklahoma. It is overlapped for the rest of its route to Springer, NM. Routes include OK 3, OK 95, OK 136, US 56, US 64, US 183, US 270, US 385.
I'd rather truncate US-412 at US-56 (near Boise City) and truncate OK-3 at US-81 (near Okarche).
There, frankly, should be no reason why either US56 or US412 should be in New Mexico. Especially when it is 13 miles shorter to run US64 down NM58, I-25 to Springer, and use the current US56/412 to Clayton.
Truncate US56 to near Boise City, run US64 on the current US412 routing from Boise City to Enid, and truncate US412 to I-35.
Quote from: GaryV on June 05, 2020, 12:08:43 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on June 05, 2020, 11:20:23 AM
- US 141 south of its US 41 split ('Abrams Interchange') north of Green Bay, WI
BR I-41 anyone? (The portion going thru Green Bay.) The problem is it connects to I-41 at one end and I-43 at the other.
Business Route US 41 in Green Bay was decommissioned over 10 years ago. Wisconsin doesn't use Interstate business routes.
Quote from: Big John on June 06, 2020, 10:13:39 PM
Quote from: GaryV on June 05, 2020, 12:08:43 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on June 05, 2020, 11:20:23 AM
- US 141 south of its US 41 split ('Abrams Interchange') north of Green Bay, WI
BR I-41 anyone? (The portion going thru Green Bay.) The problem is it connects to I-41 at one end and I-43 at the other.
Business Route US 41 in Green Bay was decommissioned over 10 years ago. Wisconsin doesn't use Interstate business routes.
Also, BR US 41 in the Green Bay, WI area went nowhere near downtown - it followed (from south to north) Ashland Ave, Lombardi Ave (Highland Ave), Military Ave and Velp Ave, the route that the current I-41 freeway supplanted.
Mike
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 05, 2020, 09:29:29 PM
Regarding Highways that really don't serve a transportation purpose, UT 900 and UT 901 certainly fit the bill. Both routes were adoptions of primitive BLM roads that were intended to block the path a hazardous waste railroad line oriented for a nuclear waste facility that was planned for Skull Valley. UT 196 was similarly added for the same purpose but at the very least that is an actual highway that serves the Dugway Proving Ground.
The weird part about 900 and 901 is at this point, there is no reason for either of them to still exist - the Skull Valley proposal was abandoned in 2012. I actually wrote up a blog post (https://uthighways.blogspot.com/2020/04/skull-valley-sr-196-900-and-901.html) on the routes on that area a couple months ago.
DE 2 past its intersection with DE 72 ends in a multiplex, and it should be cut back to there.
When I-99 is completed to Williamsport, US-220 can be decommissioned north of Bedford, PA - the Bedford-Altoona-State College-Lock Haven-Williamsport portion will be I-99, and the rest can really be downgraded to state route.
Quote from: Ketchup99 on June 08, 2020, 10:56:01 PM
When I-99 is completed to Williamsport, US-220 can be decommissioned north of Bedford, PA - the Bedford-Altoona-State College-Lock Haven-Williamsport portion will be I-99, and the rest can really be downgraded to state route.
I think US 220 north of Williamsport could be a relocated US 15 since current US 15 will be supplanted by I-99 north of Williamsport.
Quote from: zzcarp on June 09, 2020, 12:59:37 AM
Quote from: Ketchup99 on June 08, 2020, 10:56:01 PM
When I-99 is completed to Williamsport, US-220 can be decommissioned north of Bedford, PA - the Bedford-Altoona-State College-Lock Haven-Williamsport portion will be I-99, and the rest can really be downgraded to state route.
I think US 220 north of Williamsport could be a relocated US 15 since current US 15 will be supplanted by I-99 north of Williamsport.
No purpose is served by having US 220 extending north of Williamsport. It's a terrible road and is not a major through interregional corridor.
Quote from: hbelkins on June 09, 2020, 03:51:59 PM
No purpose is served by having US 220 extending north of Williamsport. It's a terrible road and is not a major through interregional corridor.
Terrible even by rural PA standards?
I agree it doesn't make much sense with its current endpoint. However, NY 14 might make sense as a possible extension. NY 14 would almost certainly be a US route if it was in any other state.
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned US 6. Short of its importance to Cape Cod, it's so famously off the beaten track that Wikipedia lists two pop culture references shaming it for its uselessness - the "On the Road" quote about "there's no traffic passes through 6" and the author of "Route 40" saying "Route 6 runs uncertainly from nowhere to nowhere" .
Quote from: J3ebrules on June 09, 2020, 11:36:38 PM
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned US 6. Short of its importance to Cape Cod, it's so famously off the beaten track that Wikipedia lists two pop culture references shaming it for its uselessness - the "On the Road" quote about "there's no traffic passes through 6" and the author of "Route 40" saying "Route 6 runs uncertainly from nowhere to nowhere" .
And yet, it doesn't lack utility (especially out west) as a transportation corridor. Bishop is a solid endpoint in my view and I've had a lot of use for the Highway all the way eastward into Utah over the years. Within Colorado it branches of I-70 to justify it's existence...I wish US 85 had the same treatment.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 09, 2020, 11:51:49 PM
Quote from: J3ebrules on June 09, 2020, 11:36:38 PM
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned US 6. Short of its importance to Cape Cod, it's so famously off the beaten track that Wikipedia lists two pop culture references shaming it for its uselessness - the "On the Road" quote about "there's no traffic passes through 6" and the author of "Route 40" saying "Route 6 runs uncertainly from nowhere to nowhere" .
And yet, it doesn't lack utility (especially out west) as a transportation corridor. Bishop is a solid endpoint in my view and I've had a lot of use for the Highway all the way eastward into Utah over the years. Within Colorado it branches of I-70 to justify it's existence...I wish US 85 had the same treatment.
And it used to end in Long Beach...
come on people we should hate US 6 for being a bad numbering violation. it runs with 50, which is smack in the middle, and originally turned south to the SW corner. bad!!!
Quote from: texaskdog on June 10, 2020, 12:20:24 AM
come on people we should hate US 6 for being a bad numbering violation. it runs with 50, which is smack in the middle, and originally turned south to the SW corner. bad!!!
By that logic, Route 66 and Interstates 11 and 99 are just as evil.
Quote from: texaskdog on June 10, 2020, 12:20:24 AM
come on people we should hate US 6 for being a bad numbering violation. it runs with 50, which is smack in the middle, and originally turned south to the SW corner. bad!!!
It still has an Eastern Terminus close to correct grid position. US 6 did take over some corridors like Loveland Pass that didn't have a US Route previously and was part of the solution for the nonsensical US 40S.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 10, 2020, 12:28:32 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on June 10, 2020, 12:20:24 AM
come on people we should hate US 6 for being a bad numbering violation. it runs with 50, which is smack in the middle, and originally turned south to the SW corner. bad!!!
It still has an Eastern Terminus close to correct grid position. US 6 did take over some corridors like Loveland Pass that didn't have a US Route previously and was part of the solution for the nonsensical US 40S.
And plus, US 6 used to be along US 6N to near Erie, so it used to fit into the grid.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 10, 2020, 12:28:32 AM
It still has an Eastern Terminus close to correct grid position. US 6 did take over some corridors like Loveland Pass that didn't have a US Route previously and was part of the solution for the nonsensical US 40S.
IIRC the solution for the nonsensical US 40S was extending US 24 to Grand Junction. US 6 came soon after that, but wasn't part of the solution. Anyway Colorado has truncated US 24 to Minturn since, so it no longer qualifies for this thread.
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on June 10, 2020, 07:34:53 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 10, 2020, 12:28:32 AM
It still has an Eastern Terminus close to correct grid position. US 6 did take over some corridors like Loveland Pass that didn't have a US Route previously and was part of the solution for the nonsensical US 40S.
IIRC the solution for the nonsensical US 40S was extending US 24 to Grand Junction. US 6 came soon after that, but wasn't part of the solution. Anyway Colorado has truncated US 24 to Minturn since, so it no longer qualifies for this thread.
US 24 was extended to Grand Junction circa 1936 whereas US 6 was extended circa 1937 to Long Beach. Initially US 6 multiplexed US 24 from Leadville all the way to Grand Junction when it was aligned over Fremont Pass. US 6 was realigned over Vail Pass and CO 91 was restored over Fremont Pass. For some reason US 24 persisted all the way to Grand Junction until 1975. Effectively both US 6 and US 24 were a solution for US 40S.
One could say that US 6 having a terminus at US 24 would have been logical. A cleaner US Route grid might have included something like a new US 48 (which was available in 1937) west of US 91 in Utah to Bishop or Long Beach. In retrospect the corridor of the first CA 7 (current CA 14) over Sierra Highway was always fated to get a US Route of some kind given it was a major transportation corridor. Personally I would have US 6 stay on CA 7 all the way down Sepulveda Boulevard (the CA 7 segment that became I-405) and end at US 101A (current CA 1) in Torrance over the Long Beach multiplex with CA 11.
Business 80 Sacramento should have been decommissioned because the Elvas Freeway should have been renamed CA-51 and signed.
I understand the I-305/US-50 portion aka WX Freeway stopped being Business 80 in 2016 though.
I-238 should be renamed I-480 in Hayward area but there's a debate over the southern crossing in that area though between I-238 to I-380 in San Bruno though.
Quote from: webny99 on June 09, 2020, 08:57:56 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 09, 2020, 03:51:59 PM
No purpose is served by having US 220 extending north of Williamsport. It's a terrible road and is not a major through interregional corridor.
Terrible even by rural PA standards?
Terrible by "major through corridor" standards. It's not dissimilar to a lot of roads linking county seats in Kentucky and West Virginia, but Williamsport-to-Waverly/Sayre isn't exactly a route that a lot of through long-distance traffic is going to take.
Quote from: Hwy 61 Revisited on June 10, 2020, 12:22:29 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on June 10, 2020, 12:20:24 AM
come on people we should hate US 6 for being a bad numbering violation. it runs with 50, which is smack in the middle, and originally turned south to the SW corner. bad!!!
By that logic, Route 66 and Interstates 11 and 99 are just as evil.
66 & 99 have met their punishments
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on June 10, 2020, 07:34:53 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 10, 2020, 12:28:32 AM
It still has an Eastern Terminus close to correct grid position. US 6 did take over some corridors like Loveland Pass that didn’t have a US Route previously and was part of the solution for the nonsensical US 40S.
IIRC the solution for the nonsensical US 40S was extending US 24 to Grand Junction. US 6 came soon after that, but wasn't part of the solution. Anyway Colorado has truncated US 24 to Minturn since, so it no longer qualifies for this thread.
soooo..it could have been 24 instead of 6. not great but better. Heck 38 could have been extended instead of 6
Quote from: hbelkins on June 10, 2020, 01:32:39 PM
Quote from: webny99 on June 09, 2020, 08:57:56 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 09, 2020, 03:51:59 PM
No purpose is served by having US 220 extending north of Williamsport. It's a terrible road and is not a major through interregional corridor.
Terrible even by rural PA standards?
Terrible by "major through corridor" standards. It's not dissimilar to a lot of roads linking county seats in Kentucky and West Virginia, but Williamsport-to-Waverly/Sayre isn't exactly a route that a lot of through long-distance traffic is going to take.
Yeah, I guess from that standpoint, it is a good candidate. It's just over-designated, not really in poor condition considering the purpose it serves.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 10, 2020, 08:01:24 AM
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on June 10, 2020, 07:34:53 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 10, 2020, 12:28:32 AM
It still has an Eastern Terminus close to correct grid position. US 6 did take over some corridors like Loveland Pass that didn't have a US Route previously and was part of the solution for the nonsensical US 40S.
IIRC the solution for the nonsensical US 40S was extending US 24 to Grand Junction. US 6 came soon after that, but wasn't part of the solution. Anyway Colorado has truncated US 24 to Minturn since, so it no longer qualifies for this thread.
US 24 was extended to Grand Junction circa 1936 whereas US 6 was extended circa 1937 to Long Beach. Initially US 6 multiplexed US 24 from Leadville all the way to Grand Junction when it was aligned over Fremont Pass. US 6 was realigned over Vail Pass and CO 91 was restored over Fremont Pass. For some reason US 24 persisted all the way to Grand Junction until 1975. Effectively both US 6 and US 24 were a solution for US 40S.
One could say that US 6 having a terminus at US 24 would have been logical. A cleaner US Route grid might have included something like a new US 48 (which was available in 1937) west of US 91 in Utah to Bishop or Long Beach. In retrospect the corridor of the first CA 7 (current CA 14) over Sierra Highway was always fated to get a US Route of some kind given it was a major transportation corridor. Personally I would have US 6 stay on CA 7 all the way down Sepulveda Boulevard (the CA 7 segment that became I-405) and end at US 101A (current CA 1) in Torrance over the Long Beach multiplex with CA 11.
The city of Los Angeles had a standing request with the Division of Highways (D7 specifically) that if a US highway were to be extended into Southern California, it should converge on downtown L.A. in some fashion. Pre-parkway/freeway, in the late '30's, when these extensions were happening regularly (US 6, US 70), this request was regularly granted; once US 101 was relocated to Macy/Sunset north of the Civic Center, it was relatively easy to simply direct the new designations to it on intersecting streets: US 66, first on Broadway, then moved west to Figueroa post-tunnel construction; US 60, first on North Main, then over to the Ramona Parkway (shunted up to Macy on Mission; with US 70 simply overlaying 60 when it was extended); and US 6, which "piggybacked" on US 99 down to US 66; the tunnels were completed prior to US6's extension, so it was never on the Broadway alignment. SSR 11/LRN 165 was simply a convenient way to get US 6 down to the harbor area; Alternate US 101 had superseded SSR 3 by that point, so it became a very convenient "ending point" for, eventually, US 6 and US 66. Curiously, no plans were forwarded to extend US 60/70 to the coast (although the ever-extending Olympic Blvd., SSR 26, would have been a logical extension choice, as its western terminus was the same as with US 66 in Santa Monica). US 91's extension south of Barstow was postwar ('47); by that time, the urge to concentrate US routes in central L.A. had passed, and it bypassed most of L.A. via Corona and Orange County by overlaying SSR 18 to Long Beach. Its common terminus with US 6 at the corner of PCH and Atlantic Ave. (SSR 15) in Long Beach was a bit weird -- but it persisted (with the terminus moved west to the Long Beach Freeway) until the '64 renumbering.
CA-77 in Oakland is not decommissioned even though its a tiny segment of a city street
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_185 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_185)
CA-185 is not decommissioned too, CA-123, CA-238, CA-262, CA-61, CA-112, CA-260 and CA-114 should be handed over to the Cities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_114 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_114)
CA-2 Santa Monica BLVD should truncated due to the fact that its unlikely that the Beverly Hills Freeway would be constructed and one of the most gentrified areas of Los Angeles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Monica_Boulevard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Monica_Boulevard)
Quote from: bing101 on June 11, 2020, 11:10:53 AM
CA-77 in Oakland is not decommissioned even though its a tiny segment of a city street
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_185 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_185)
CA-185 is not decommissioned too, CA-123, CA-238, CA-262, CA-61, CA-112, CA-260 and CA-114 should be handed over to the Cities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_114 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_114)
CA-2 Santa Monica BLVD should truncated due to the fact that its unlikely that the Beverly Hills Freeway would be constructed and one of the most gentrified areas of Los Angeles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Monica_Boulevard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Monica_Boulevard)
CA 77 for what is built is actually a freeway. The Posey Tubes aren't getting relinquished to Alamdea and Oakland. CA 262 is a major connector route between I-880 and I-680 that keeps getting state upgrades. CA 185, CA 2, and CA 238 have been gradually relinquished just not completely. Considering how much traffic used CA 114 and CA 119 to get to the Dumbarton Bridge there is no way the State will be able to get rid of those two. CA 123, CA 61, and CA 112 can probably be handled locally.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 11, 2020, 11:26:45 AM
Quote from: bing101 on June 11, 2020, 11:10:53 AM
CA-77 in Oakland is not decommissioned even though its a tiny segment of a city street
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_185 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_185)
CA-185 is not decommissioned too, CA-123, CA-238, CA-262, CA-61, CA-112, CA-260 and CA-114 should be handed over to the Cities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_114 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_114)
CA-2 Santa Monica BLVD should truncated due to the fact that its unlikely that the Beverly Hills Freeway would be constructed and one of the most gentrified areas of Los Angeles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Monica_Boulevard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Monica_Boulevard)
CA 77 for what is built is actually a freeway. The Posey Tubes aren't getting relinquished to Alamdea and Oakland. CA 262 is a major connector route between I-880 and I-680 that keeps getting state upgrades. CA 185, CA 2, and CA 238 have been gradually relinquished just not completely. Considering how much traffic used CA 114 and CA 119 to get to the Dumbarton Bridge there is no way the State will be able to get rid of those two. CA 123, CA 61, and CA 112 can probably be handled locally.
There's a high-maintenance drawbridge on 61 in Alameda between the main island and Bay Farms; that city isn't terribly keen on assuming the upkeep. And San Mateo County would rather not deal with the state-owned portion of 109 or 114; the former is built on fill land and tends to occasionally settle, requiring sporadic rebuilding, while the latter is actually
overused now that Facebook's HQ is adjacent to it. But former through routes like 185, 77, and 112 east of I-880 are no longer vital connectors -- it's just that cities are generally in worse fiscal shape than the state in general, so assuming any more road maintenance that they currently have isn't in the cards -- they just don't sign the relinquishment agreements. But Caltrans is persistent -- eventually they'll prevail -- or, in the case of the surface CA 238 -- simply let signage go to hell. Kind of a sad and ignominious end for what in days of yore was US 101E!
I do wonder why 99 isn't signed down to 180, and 15 pretty much decommissioned up to Williamsport.
US 150 and 136 serve 0 purpose in Indiana
I-80 is nothing in Indiana; it could easily be split up into pre-Chicago and post-Cleveland segments.
Quote from: silverback1065 on June 11, 2020, 07:36:20 PM
US 150 and 136 serve 0 purpose in Indiana
Actually, US 150 serves absolutely no purpose in Illinois. Truncate it west of its junction with US 50 in Indiana. Agree on US 136, especially since it no longer runs on 16th Street past the Speedway. End it in Rantoul? Danville?
Quote from: Hwy 61 Revisited on June 11, 2020, 07:31:57 PM
I do wonder why 99 isn't signed down to 180, and 15 pretty much decommissioned up to Williamsport.
The authorizing language of I-99, citing ARC corridor "O", specifically places the corridor on US 220 south of Williamsport, and I-180 has been signed as such for over 50 years; that won't change but overall US 220 from I-80 to US 15 will likely remain an unfinished gap in I-99 for some time to come for any number of reasons. If and when I-99 receives signage north of Williamsport, Penn DOT's previous history suggests that US 15 will be cut back to that city.
Quote from: sparker on June 11, 2020, 07:56:42 PM
Quote from: Hwy 61 Revisited on June 11, 2020, 07:31:57 PM
I do wonder why 99 isn't signed down to 180, and 15 pretty much decommissioned up to Williamsport.
The authorizing language of I-99, citing ARC corridor "O", specifically places the corridor on US 220 south of Williamsport, and I-180 has been signed as such for over 50 years; that won't change but overall US 220 from I-80 to US 15 will likely remain an unfinished gap in I-99 for some time to come for any number of reasons. If and when I-99 receives signage north of Williamsport, Penn DOT's previous history suggests that US 15 will be cut back to that city.
Basically what I was trying to say.
Quote from: Hwy 61 Revisited on June 11, 2020, 08:00:40 PM
Quote from: sparker on June 11, 2020, 07:56:42 PM
Quote from: Hwy 61 Revisited on June 11, 2020, 07:31:57 PM
I do wonder why 99 isn't signed down to 180, and 15 pretty much decommissioned up to Williamsport.
The authorizing language of I-99, citing ARC corridor "O", specifically places the corridor on US 220 south of Williamsport, and I-180 has been signed as such for over 50 years; that won't change but overall US 220 from I-80 to US 15 will likely remain an unfinished gap in I-99 for some time to come for any number of reasons. If and when I-99 receives signage north of Williamsport, Penn DOT's previous history suggests that US 15 will be cut back to that city.
Basically what I was trying to say.
Sorry, misread your previous statement as suggesting I-99 be rerouted over I-180 in the interim. Reading things a bit weird these days; my cataract surgery having been postponed until after the COVID situation is more settled, so I'm basically blind in my right eye for close-up purposes. But to address your actual premise, AFAIK there's some technical issues with one or more private-access roads on US 15 between Williamsport and the NY state line that have prevented it from being eligible for actual I-99 signage -- and thus potential truncation of US 15. But I'm also unaware of any current activities to remedy the problems -- so a change in designation may not be happening in the very near term.
Quote from: ftballfan on June 05, 2020, 09:27:40 AM
Any of the remaining spurs in Michigan that serve state parks (M-211 and M-212 come to mind)
M-247 to the Bay City State Park. Former northern end of M-47 so it got the 247 number. I clinched that last night in fact and I think they exist just so that MDOT can maintain them to the state park entrances. M-116 in Ludington is another one I'm surprised you didn mention it since it's in an area that you mention a lot. But that's my take on it.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 04, 2020, 04:50:23 PM
Quote from: GaryV on June 04, 2020, 03:53:52 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on June 04, 2020, 02:34:29 PM
...
US 10, especially in Michigan. Just run M-10 to "The Beaver" and call it good.
You realize that M-10 and US-10 are over 80 miles apart, right?
I have the opposite take that US 10 still should end in Detroit. If anything US 24 ending at the Lodge Freeway would be just as an appropriate terminus.
Well obviously the reason it doesn't is because I-75 serves the route. I think MDOT has some thing against running a state or US highway pretty much next to an Interstate except in some cases. I don't understand why M-35 south of Escanaba isn't US-41 and why M-13 north of its connector isn't US-23. The connector near Standish could became Connector US-23. I feel US-10 should still go on it's old course through Saginaw, Flint and Pontiac and straight down Woodward. The US-10 freeway between Midland and Bay City should be an extension of M-20 while US-10 would take M-47's route (Old US-10) to Saginaw and onto Detroit.
If you looked at Google Maps the intersection of M-58 and M-47 are just a continuous route, M-47 has to make a turn to go to its southern terminus while through traffic would go onto M-58 and M-58 traffic merging onto M-47. To stay on State Street you have to make a turn like M-47 takes like I mentioned earlier. That's all because it use to be US-10 curving there and M-47 being a former longer highway turned there and ran on a multiplex with US-10. After US-10 went to the freeway north of town M-47 was rerouted to its current routing and part of M-84, part of M-13 and all of M-247 were switched to their current routes. On the M-13 part it was a multiplex and was just removed be coming only M-13.
Quote from: TEG24601 on June 04, 2020, 02:34:29 PM
US 10, especially in Michigan. Just run M-10 to "The Beaver" and call it good.
It wouldn't be M-10 that got extended it'd most likely be M-25 if that happened.
Quote from: texaskdog on June 05, 2020, 11:03:10 AM
Quote from: ftballfan on June 05, 2020, 09:27:40 AM
Any of the remaining spurs in Michigan that serve state parks (M-211 and M-212 come to mind)
M-185?
There is no connection to that highway. So it doesnt serve a state park like he is talking about. He's talking about short state highways that connect between a longer state highway and a state park.
Quote from: vdeane on June 05, 2020, 12:49:26 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 05, 2020, 11:06:11 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on June 05, 2020, 11:03:10 AM
Quote from: ftballfan on June 05, 2020, 09:27:40 AM
Any of the remaining spurs in Michigan that serve state parks (M-211 and M-212 come to mind)
M-185?
M-185 is also the main highway on the island. Most of the start Park stuff is on adjoining roadways.
If cars can't drive on it, should it really have a state route number? Demote it to a state bike route.
Just make it an unsigned highway. I can't believe that MDOT maintains M-185.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 05, 2020, 02:13:18 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on June 05, 2020, 01:59:49 PM
Quote from: kphoger on June 05, 2020, 01:43:18 PM
Quote from: vdeane on June 05, 2020, 01:37:20 PM
The fact of the matter is, its very existence makes it very difficult for roadgeeks to clinch the Michigan state highway system.
That... might not be the most convincing sentence in a letter to the DOT.
Hey I've taken a bicycle around the island, only 9 miles
8.2 to be exact. I've even run it a couple times, definitely gives the bike shop sticker I have more prestige.
I walked it one time I think it took about 3 or 4 hours to do but that includes stopping for some breaks and stuff too.
The one highway I've always thought insignificant was US-68. What is its' purpose?
Quote from: JCinSummerfield on June 12, 2020, 02:40:39 PM
The one highway I've always thought insignificant was US-68. What is its' purpose?
To facilitate traffic between Toledo, Springfield, Lexington, Bowling Green, Hopkinsville, and Paducah.
Quote from: JCinSummerfield on June 12, 2020, 02:40:39 PM
The one highway I've always thought insignificant was US-68. What is its' purpose?
It makes at least some sense in Kentucky. But in Ohio it runs due north/south. WTF?
There are so many in WI, but perhaps none more so than WI-127. 14 miles long, both ends are at WI-16, is the third most direct route between the two cities it connects (after WI-16 and CTH-X to WI-23), and it does not pass through a community, incorporated or otherwise. Just makes you wonder what WISDOT is thinking. I'll bet it gets decommissioned the next time it needs an overhaul, which will be quite a while from now considering how little traffic is on it.
Quote from: Konza on June 12, 2020, 02:51:51 PM
Quote from: JCinSummerfield on June 12, 2020, 02:40:39 PM
The one highway I've always thought insignificant was US-68. What is its' purpose?
It makes at least some sense in Kentucky. But in Ohio it runs due north/south. WTF?
It makes some sense as a north-south route (and is signed as such) in Ohio and really maintains a general N-S orientation at least until Lexington, KY (and one could argue until where it begins its multiplex with KY 80 in Edmonton). US 42 is also signed N-S in Ohio and E-W in Kentucky so it's not unique there.
And, US 68 in Ohio connects small and medium sized cities (many of which are college towns) away from an interstate corridor and certainly meets that definition of a US route. And, including the Kentucky portion, it forms kind of an elongated j-route.
I've not traveled on it west of Bowling Green, KY and can't speak to its utility there. I'd be hard-pressed to truncate any of the Ohio/Northern Kentucky portions of the route though.
Quote from: Konza on June 12, 2020, 02:51:51 PM
Quote from: JCinSummerfield on June 12, 2020, 02:40:39 PM
The one highway I've always thought insignificant was US-68. What is its' purpose?
It makes at least some sense in Kentucky. But in Ohio it runs due north/south. WTF?
US-24 runs north and south in Michigan. Why not end it in Toledo?
Quote from: Flint1979 on June 13, 2020, 12:20:59 AM
Quote from: Konza on June 12, 2020, 02:51:51 PM
Quote from: JCinSummerfield on June 12, 2020, 02:40:39 PM
The one highway I've always thought insignificant was US-68. What is its' purpose?
It makes at least some sense in Kentucky. But in Ohio it runs due north/south. WTF?
US-24 runs north and south in Michigan. Why not end it in Toledo?
Better yet -- swap out US 24 and US 224 east of Huntington, IN. Keeps 24 on its basic east-of-Peoria trajectory, and a 3dus can pretty much assume any configuration its planners want. Seems like when US 24 was commissioned 80-odd years ago, the concept was to take it to Detroit --
but not exactly! With I-75 taking over the major Toledo-Detroit task, the western bypass of Detroit that is the east/north end of US 24 can simply revert to M-24 without serious issue, with US 224 ending in Toledo.
One US Route I question the existence of is US 275 and I mean more than just its multiplex with US 20 eastward out of O'Neill NE. It is essentially two different highways with a long chain of multiplexes in the middle. The Missouri section going north out of Rock Port to the Iowa border was entirely replaced by I-29 and could be replaced with either MO 111 or a Missouri secondary route. The Iowa section south of US 34 is a minor state highway also generally replaced by I-29, but at least connects the cities on its route. It then becomes a series of multiplexes (US 34, I-29, IA 92) until it enters Nebraska with NE 92 in Omaha. It finally gets its own route again west of Omaha, and eventually makes its way northwest to O'Neill, but it bears no relationship with the Iowa/Missouri section of the route. The Iowa section can be IA 275 and the NE section NE 275.
Quote from: sparker on June 13, 2020, 01:45:39 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on June 13, 2020, 12:20:59 AM
Quote from: Konza on June 12, 2020, 02:51:51 PM
Quote from: JCinSummerfield on June 12, 2020, 02:40:39 PM
The one highway I've always thought insignificant was US-68. What is its' purpose?
It makes at least some sense in Kentucky. But in Ohio it runs due north/south. WTF?
US-24 runs north and south in Michigan. Why not end it in Toledo?
Better yet -- swap out US 24 and US 224 east of Huntington, IN. Keeps 24 on its basic east-of-Peoria trajectory, and a 3dus can pretty much assume any configuration its planners want. Seems like when US 24 was commissioned 80-odd years ago, the concept was to take it to Detroit -- but not exactly! With I-75 taking over the major Toledo-Detroit task, the western bypass of Detroit that is the east/north end of US 24 can simply revert to M-24 without serious issue, with US 224 ending in Toledo.
The only issue I have is that Telegraph really is a high quality roadway that should be at least of some US Route. Within Metro Detroit US 24 is different enough than I-75 to justify it still existing IMO. Interestingly US 24 does a similar northward jog at it's western terminus in Colorado.
Speaking of M-185 maintenance it is currently closed and being rebuilt due to erosion and part of the highway being washed away. It was kind of funny to read that they have a detour for pedestrians, bikes and horses.
Quote from: sparker on June 13, 2020, 01:45:39 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on June 13, 2020, 12:20:59 AM
Quote from: Konza on June 12, 2020, 02:51:51 PM
Quote from: JCinSummerfield on June 12, 2020, 02:40:39 PM
The one highway I've always thought insignificant was US-68. What is its' purpose?
It makes at least some sense in Kentucky. But in Ohio it runs due north/south. WTF?
US-24 runs north and south in Michigan. Why not end it in Toledo?
Better yet -- swap out US 24 and US 224 east of Huntington, IN. Keeps 24 on its basic east-of-Peoria trajectory, and a 3dus can pretty much assume any configuration its planners want. Seems like when US 24 was commissioned 80-odd years ago, the concept was to take it to Detroit -- but not exactly! With I-75 taking over the major Toledo-Detroit task, the western bypass of Detroit that is the east/north end of US 24 can simply revert to M-24 without serious issue, with US 224 ending in Toledo.
I was thinking it could be an extension of M-24 and I see where Max posted since you did saying that Telegraph is a high quality road that deserves a US highway I don't disagree with that but don't think it really matters. It's one of only two US highways to enter the city of Detroit currently when there use to be 5. Don't forget that I-75 between Toledo and Detroit was already part of scaling back a US highway with US-25 as well. Even though it's a bit further west it follows another US highway in US-23 as well. US-24 somehow survived being a route between Toledo and Clarkston.
I don't see why the US highways couldn't run next to the interstates serving more local traffic like US-41 and I-75 in Georgia.
I also believe that Telegraph is the busiest surface street in Metro Detroit. Even busier than Woodward.
Quote from: Flint1979 on June 13, 2020, 12:22:55 PM
I also believe that Telegraph is the busiest surface street in Metro Detroit. Even busier than Woodward.
Not only that but Telegraph has some of the best traffic light flow of any major urban surface road you'll likely encounter. Every once in awhile you can hit a full run through Detroit where you don't even stop once because the lights are managed so well. It's one of the few surface expressways that can legitimately stand up to a freeway as an urban commuter route IMO. Grand River/M-5 and Eight Mile/M-102 are very similar to how Telegraph is set up.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 13, 2020, 10:57:56 AM
Quote from: sparker on June 13, 2020, 01:45:39 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on June 13, 2020, 12:20:59 AM
Quote from: Konza on June 12, 2020, 02:51:51 PM
Quote from: JCinSummerfield on June 12, 2020, 02:40:39 PM
The one highway I've always thought insignificant was US-68. What is its' purpose?
It makes at least some sense in Kentucky. But in Ohio it runs due north/south. WTF?
US-24 runs north and south in Michigan. Why not end it in Toledo?
Better yet -- swap out US 24 and US 224 east of Huntington, IN. Keeps 24 on its basic east-of-Peoria trajectory, and a 3dus can pretty much assume any configuration its planners want. Seems like when US 24 was commissioned 80-odd years ago, the concept was to take it to Detroit -- but not exactly! With I-75 taking over the major Toledo-Detroit task, the western bypass of Detroit that is the east/north end of US 24 can simply revert to M-24 without serious issue, with US 224 ending in Toledo.
The only issue I have is that Telegraph really is a high quality roadway that should be at least of some US Route. Within Metro Detroit US 24 is different enough than I-75 to justify it still existing IMO. Interestingly US 24 does a similar northward jog at it's western terminus in Colorado.
Then just deploy US 224 over existing US 24 from Toledo to Pontiac over Telegraph, which I agree is a main artery; whether its function deserves retention of US status in light of parallel I-275 is arguable. But either a Toledo or Pontiac terminus would work; one or another is certainly not a dealbreaker.
Quote from: sparker on June 13, 2020, 04:36:46 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 13, 2020, 10:57:56 AM
Quote from: sparker on June 13, 2020, 01:45:39 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on June 13, 2020, 12:20:59 AM
Quote from: Konza on June 12, 2020, 02:51:51 PM
Quote from: JCinSummerfield on June 12, 2020, 02:40:39 PM
The one highway I've always thought insignificant was US-68. What is its' purpose?
It makes at least some sense in Kentucky. But in Ohio it runs due north/south. WTF?
US-24 runs north and south in Michigan. Why not end it in Toledo?
Better yet -- swap out US 24 and US 224 east of Huntington, IN. Keeps 24 on its basic east-of-Peoria trajectory, and a 3dus can pretty much assume any configuration its planners want. Seems like when US 24 was commissioned 80-odd years ago, the concept was to take it to Detroit -- but not exactly! With I-75 taking over the major Toledo-Detroit task, the western bypass of Detroit that is the east/north end of US 24 can simply revert to M-24 without serious issue, with US 224 ending in Toledo.
The only issue I have is that Telegraph really is a high quality roadway that should be at least of some US Route. Within Metro Detroit US 24 is different enough than I-75 to justify it still existing IMO. Interestingly US 24 does a similar northward jog at it's western terminus in Colorado.
Then just deploy US 224 over existing US 24 from Toledo to Pontiac over Telegraph, which I agree is a main artery; whether its function deserves retention of US status in light of parallel I-275 is arguable. But either a Toledo or Pontiac terminus would work; one or another is certainly not a dealbreaker.
Considering how infamously bad I-275 has been, in particular when was partially shut down for reconstruction I would say the corridor of Telegraph has plenty of redundant utility. It certainly was my favored route out of West Bloomfield coupled with the Northwest Highway (current M-10) over I-275. I-275 has the misfortune of carrying a ton of traffic tied to I-96 going to downtown Detroit in addition to the Metro Airport traffic.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 13, 2020, 12:44:17 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on June 13, 2020, 12:22:55 PM
I also believe that Telegraph is the busiest surface street in Metro Detroit. Even busier than Woodward.
Not only that but Telegraph has some of the best traffic light flow of any major urban surface road you'll likely encounter. Every once in awhile you can hit a full run through Detroit where you don't even stop once because the lights are managed so well. It's one of the few surface expressways that can legitimately stand up to a freeway as an urban commuter route IMO. Grand River/M-5 and Eight Mile/M-102 are very similar to how Telegraph is set up.
Woodward is setup like that for a little while too where it's at it's busiest in Oakland County. I agree about Telegraph. I've taken that from the Ohio line to the end of US-24 instead of I-75 and the Telegraph stretch was great. Honestly it seemed like no time making it from Flat Rock to Pontiac.
Quote from: sparker on June 13, 2020, 04:36:46 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 13, 2020, 10:57:56 AM
Quote from: sparker on June 13, 2020, 01:45:39 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on June 13, 2020, 12:20:59 AM
Quote from: Konza on June 12, 2020, 02:51:51 PM
Quote from: JCinSummerfield on June 12, 2020, 02:40:39 PM
The one highway I've always thought insignificant was US-68. What is its' purpose?
It makes at least some sense in Kentucky. But in Ohio it runs due north/south. WTF?
US-24 runs north and south in Michigan. Why not end it in Toledo?
Better yet -- swap out US 24 and US 224 east of Huntington, IN. Keeps 24 on its basic east-of-Peoria trajectory, and a 3dus can pretty much assume any configuration its planners want. Seems like when US 24 was commissioned 80-odd years ago, the concept was to take it to Detroit -- but not exactly! With I-75 taking over the major Toledo-Detroit task, the western bypass of Detroit that is the east/north end of US 24 can simply revert to M-24 without serious issue, with US 224 ending in Toledo.
The only issue I have is that Telegraph really is a high quality roadway that should be at least of some US Route. Within Metro Detroit US 24 is different enough than I-75 to justify it still existing IMO. Interestingly US 24 does a similar northward jog at it's western terminus in Colorado.
Then just deploy US 224 over existing US 24 from Toledo to Pontiac over Telegraph, which I agree is a main artery; whether its function deserves retention of US status in light of parallel I-275 is arguable. But either a Toledo or Pontiac terminus would work; one or another is certainly not a dealbreaker.
Telegraph and the Southfield Freeway both are good alternates to I-275 which gets very congested especially along the multiplex with I-96.
Another good parrellel street to take there is the Middlebelt/Orchard Lake combo. It's not setup as good as Telegraph but it's a good route to take.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 13, 2020, 05:49:20 PM
Quote from: sparker on June 13, 2020, 04:36:46 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 13, 2020, 10:57:56 AM
Quote from: sparker on June 13, 2020, 01:45:39 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on June 13, 2020, 12:20:59 AM
Quote from: Konza on June 12, 2020, 02:51:51 PM
Quote from: JCinSummerfield on June 12, 2020, 02:40:39 PM
The one highway I've always thought insignificant was US-68. What is its' purpose?
It makes at least some sense in Kentucky. But in Ohio it runs due north/south. WTF?
US-24 runs north and south in Michigan. Why not end it in Toledo?
Better yet -- swap out US 24 and US 224 east of Huntington, IN. Keeps 24 on its basic east-of-Peoria trajectory, and a 3dus can pretty much assume any configuration its planners want. Seems like when US 24 was commissioned 80-odd years ago, the concept was to take it to Detroit -- but not exactly! With I-75 taking over the major Toledo-Detroit task, the western bypass of Detroit that is the east/north end of US 24 can simply revert to M-24 without serious issue, with US 224 ending in Toledo.
The only issue I have is that Telegraph really is a high quality roadway that should be at least of some US Route. Within Metro Detroit US 24 is different enough than I-75 to justify it still existing IMO. Interestingly US 24 does a similar northward jog at it's western terminus in Colorado.
Then just deploy US 224 over existing US 24 from Toledo to Pontiac over Telegraph, which I agree is a main artery; whether its function deserves retention of US status in light of parallel I-275 is arguable. But either a Toledo or Pontiac terminus would work; one or another is certainly not a dealbreaker.
Considering how infamously bad I-275 has been, in particular when was partially shut down for reconstruction I would say the corridor of Telegraph has plenty of redundant utility. It certainly was my favored route out of West Bloomfield coupled with the Northwest Highway (current M-10) over I-275. I-275 has the misfortune of carrying a ton of traffic tied to I-96 going to downtown Detroit in addition to the Metro Airport traffic.
I remember that they wanted to route I-96 down the Grand River corridor but went with Schoolcraft Road instead. The traffic probably would have funneled better through there if they would have been able to complete I-275.
The US 319 concurrency with US 98 is useless. End US 319 at Medart which will fix that.
US 25 should be relocatedbto GA 57 south of Ludwici GA as its overlap with US 84 and 341 are ignored by locals.
An idea for US-24 would be to switch that highway and US-224 at Huntington, Indiana and have 224 go to Toledo and Detroit and 24 go to New Castle, Pennsylvania. It would be kind of pointless to do because it's just a route number but routes have been switched before. Just like my idea of switching US-27 and US-127 in Cincinnati just so 27 could still enter Michigan.
SR 340 in indiana, it serves no purpose and is literally a few hundred feet from US 40 it's entire route.
Quote from: silverback1065 on June 14, 2020, 03:00:23 PM
SR 340 in indiana, it serves no purpose and is literally a few hundred feet from US 40 it's entire route.
Wow I don't think I've seen a highway in that nature before. What really is the purpose of it? I've been clinching counties in Indiana lately and haven't come across this highway yet.
Quote from: Flint1979 on June 15, 2020, 09:55:40 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on June 14, 2020, 03:00:23 PM
SR 340 in indiana, it serves no purpose and is literally a few hundred feet from US 40 it's entire route.
Wow I don't think I've seen a highway in that nature before. What really is the purpose of it? I've been clinching counties in Indiana lately and haven't come across this highway yet.
It's a former alignment of US 40. In, Indiana, for INDOT to decommission a highway, a local jurisdiction has to agree to take over the road, and apparently Clay County didn't want to do it.
Quote from: sparker on June 11, 2020, 06:55:36 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on June 11, 2020, 11:26:45 AMQuote from: bing101 on June 11, 2020, 11:10:53 AM
CA-77 in Oakland is not decommissioned even though its a tiny segment of a city street
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_185
CA-185 is not decommissioned too, CA-123, CA-238, CA-262, CA-61, CA-112, CA-260 and CA-114 should be handed over to the Cities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_114 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_114)
CA-2 Santa Monica BLVD should truncated due to the fact that its unlikely that the Beverly Hills Freeway would be constructed and one of the most gentrified areas of Los Angeles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Monica_Boulevard
CA 77 for what is built is actually a freeway. The Posey Tubes aren't getting relinquished to Alamdea and Oakland. CA 262 is a major connector route between I-880 and I-680 that keeps getting state upgrades. CA 185, CA 2, and CA 238 have been gradually relinquished just not completely. Considering how much traffic used CA 114 and CA 119 to get to the Dumbarton Bridge there is no way the State will be able to get rid of those two. CA 123, CA 61, and CA 112 can probably be handled locally.
There's a high-maintenance drawbridge on 61 in Alameda between the main island and Bay Farms; that city isn't terribly keen on assuming the upkeep. And San Mateo County would rather not deal with the state-owned portion of 109 or 114; the former is built on fill land and tends to occasionally settle, requiring sporadic rebuilding, while the latter is actually overused now that Facebook's HQ is adjacent to it. But former through routes like 185, 77, and 112 east of I-880 are no longer vital connectors -- it's just that cities are generally in worse fiscal shape than the state in general, so assuming any more road maintenance that they currently have isn't in the cards -- they just don't sign the relinquishment agreements. But Caltrans is persistent -- eventually they'll prevail -- or, in the case of the surface CA 238 -- simply let signage go to hell. Kind of a sad and ignominious end for what in days of yore was US 101E!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasco_Road (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasco_Road)
But its also crazy that Caltrans never took over Vasco Road though given that it is a major commuter road in recent years from Brentwood to Livermore and its used as a bypass to I-680.
Quote from: bing101 on June 15, 2020, 11:04:34 AM
Quote from: sparker on June 11, 2020, 06:55:36 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on June 11, 2020, 11:26:45 AMQuote from: bing101 on June 11, 2020, 11:10:53 AM
CA-77 in Oakland is not decommissioned even though its a tiny segment of a city street
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_185
CA-185 is not decommissioned too, CA-123, CA-238, CA-262, CA-61, CA-112, CA-260 and CA-114 should be handed over to the Cities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_114 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_114)
CA-2 Santa Monica BLVD should truncated due to the fact that its unlikely that the Beverly Hills Freeway would be constructed and one of the most gentrified areas of Los Angeles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Monica_Boulevard
CA 77 for what is built is actually a freeway. The Posey Tubes aren't getting relinquished to Alamdea and Oakland. CA 262 is a major connector route between I-880 and I-680 that keeps getting state upgrades. CA 185, CA 2, and CA 238 have been gradually relinquished just not completely. Considering how much traffic used CA 114 and CA 119 to get to the Dumbarton Bridge there is no way the State will be able to get rid of those two. CA 123, CA 61, and CA 112 can probably be handled locally.
There's a high-maintenance drawbridge on 61 in Alameda between the main island and Bay Farms; that city isn't terribly keen on assuming the upkeep. And San Mateo County would rather not deal with the state-owned portion of 109 or 114; the former is built on fill land and tends to occasionally settle, requiring sporadic rebuilding, while the latter is actually overused now that Facebook's HQ is adjacent to it. But former through routes like 185, 77, and 112 east of I-880 are no longer vital connectors -- it's just that cities are generally in worse fiscal shape than the state in general, so assuming any more road maintenance that they currently have isn't in the cards -- they just don't sign the relinquishment agreements. But Caltrans is persistent -- eventually they'll prevail -- or, in the case of the surface CA 238 -- simply let signage go to hell. Kind of a sad and ignominious end for what in days of yore was US 101E!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasco_Road (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasco_Road)
But its also crazy that Caltrans never took over Vasco Road though given that it is a major commuter road in recent years from Brentwood to Livermore and its used as a bypass to I-680.
Not really, it really has never been Caltrans MO to adopt roadways they weren't pressured into assuming control of. The last real run of new highway mileage additions in the 1970s generally had the stipulation that they had to be built to state standards first. Since then State standards haven't really aligned with what local authorities want hence why you get stuff like Vasco Road.
Almost all of US 41 south of Evansville parallels an interstate and should be axed.
Not only is US 46 a short intrastate route, it also parallels an interstate as well.
US 70 could also easily be cut back on the East Coast.
Quote from: cabiness42 on June 15, 2020, 10:00:29 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on June 15, 2020, 09:55:40 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on June 14, 2020, 03:00:23 PM
SR 340 in indiana, it serves no purpose and is literally a few hundred feet from US 40 it's entire route.
Wow I don't think I've seen a highway in that nature before. What really is the purpose of it? I've been clinching counties in Indiana lately and haven't come across this highway yet.
It's a former alignment of US 40. In, Indiana, for INDOT to decommission a highway, a local jurisdiction has to agree to take over the road, and apparently Clay County didn't want to do it.
That's interesting. I've got Clay County clinched I see with I-70 going through it but this is the first time I've ever seen SR-340's existence.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 15, 2020, 12:01:38 PM
Not really, it really has never been Caltrans MO to adopt roadways they weren't pressured into assuming control of. The last real run of new highway mileage additions in the 1970s generally had the stipulation that they had to be built to state standards first. Since then State standards haven't really aligned with what local authorities want hence why you get stuff like Vasco Road.
Vasco is indeed an odd beast; the improvements -- which have brought it out to better than state 2-lane criteria but yet still inadequate for the peak traffic flow -- are solely in Contra Costa County; the last 4 miles or so from the Alameda/Contra Costa county line south to I-580 in east Livermore are either unimproved 2-lane rural highway or a multilane suburban arterial hosting both through traffic north to Brentwood and Discovery Bay
and local commuters from the subdivisions lining the road. Fortunately, that's generally 3+3 -- although the sheer number of signals makes that section a slog. It's the 2 miles of rural unimproved road on the SE slope of the Diablo range that is the "gauntlet" here. The only thing seeming to move at all SB in the morning and NB in late afternoon is the KCBS traffic drone taking pix of the mess. Alameda County doesn't seem interested in doing much about it, preferring to sit tight until such time as a new arterial from the I-580/CA 84 (Isabel Ave.) junction can be built northeast to intersect the improved Vasco at or near the county line. But such plans haven't seen the light of day re funding or study; current Alameda County politicos see little or no benefit to expediting long-distance commuting out to the far eastern Contra Costa reaches -- leaving the slog along 580 as part of the daily ordeal. Of course, the problem is that most of that commute traffic only
crosses Alameda County en route to and from San Jose and environs --
they have no political clout within that county. So expect the Vasco commute to be a major PITA for the foreseeable future.
I'm surprised that in 6 pages of this thread, no one yet has mentioned US 1 in northern Maine between Madawaska and Fort Kent. Indeed, that was the route that came to mind for me when I saw the thread title.
Anyway, having traveled the entire length of US 1 from Fort Kent to Key West, Florida in Street View, I cannot for the life of me understand why US 1 was not truncated in Madawaska. That town connects to a much more important highway in New Brunswick than Fort Kent does, and the road from Madawaska to Fort Kent goes opposite its nominal direction (i.e. US 1 "north" actually goes southwest). To me, it would make a lot more sense to extend ME 11 from Fort Kent to Madawaska, while the north end of US 1 would be at the border bridge in Madawaska, as opposed to Fort Kent where it actually is.
Unless the connection to Peoria is ever finished (something I don't see happening in this lifetime given that IDOT is many higher priorities!), Interstate 180 Illinois. Pretty much a road to nowhere!
I would have also said the Elgin-O'Hare until the tollway took over and actually started extending it to at least O'Hare and gave it a number (IL 390)! I don't hold out any similar optimism for I-180.
Quote from: ChiMilNet on June 18, 2020, 11:36:29 AM
Unless the connection to Peoria is ever finished (something I don't see happening in this lifetime given that IDOT is many higher priorities!), Interstate 180 Illinois. Pretty much a road to nowhere!
I would have also said the Elgin-O'Hare until the tollway took over and actually started extending it to at least O'Hare and gave it a number (IL 390)! I don't hold out any similar optimism for I-180.
I just drove 180 Sunday as part of a trip to clinch some IL interstate mileage. Was it designed to go to Peoria? That would make sense. The best I could figure is that it had something to do with the power plant at the end.
I think US-96, especially the Beaumont-Port Arthur section where it needlessly runs with 287 and 69, should be axed.
Make the remaining parts northward to Tenaha SH-13.
Quote from: cabiness42 on June 18, 2020, 11:39:29 AM
Quote from: ChiMilNet on June 18, 2020, 11:36:29 AM
Unless the connection to Peoria is ever finished (something I don't see happening in this lifetime given that IDOT is many higher priorities!), Interstate 180 Illinois. Pretty much a road to nowhere!
I would have also said the Elgin-O'Hare until the tollway took over and actually started extending it to at least O'Hare and gave it a number (IL 390)! I don't hold out any similar optimism for I-180.
I just drove 180 Sunday as part of a trip to clinch some IL interstate mileage. Was it designed to go to Peoria? That would make sense. The best I could figure is that it had something to do with the power plant at the end.
I think it was actually for that mill at the end, which closed almost immediately after it was opened. Had they decided to use the mileage as a route to Peoria, at least it would be salvaged as something.
Quote from: KCRoadFan on June 17, 2020, 11:50:56 PM
I'm surprised that in 6 pages of this thread, no one yet has mentioned US 1 in northern Maine between Madawaska and Fort Kent. Indeed, that was the route that came to mind for me when I saw the thread title.
Anyway, having traveled the entire length of US 1 from Fort Kent to Key West, Florida in Street View, I cannot for the life of me understand why US 1 was not truncated in Madawaska. That town connects to a much more important highway in New Brunswick than Fort Kent does, and the road from Madawaska to Fort Kent goes opposite its nominal direction (i.e. US 1 "north" actually goes southwest). To me, it would make a lot more sense to extend ME 11 from Fort Kent to Madawaska, while the north end of US 1 would be at the border bridge in Madawaska, as opposed to Fort Kent where it actually is.
That would be nice. I have rules for where I'll fudge a clinch at the border and where I won't, and the US 1 north end is a gray area that I mostly lean towards "won't". The problem is, there is basically
nothing across the river from Fort Kent, whereas Edmundston actually has things that are worth crossing over for a quick visit. Alas, with the "America's First Mile" monument in Fort Kent, I don't think they have plans to truncate it anytime soon.
Why not keep it going to Dickey?
Quote from: ChiMilNet on June 18, 2020, 11:36:29 AM
Unless the connection to Peoria is ever finished (something I don't see happening in this lifetime given that IDOT is many higher priorities!), Interstate 180 Illinois. Pretty much a road to nowhere!
I would have also said the Elgin-O'Hare until the tollway took over and actually started extending it to at least O'Hare and gave it a number (IL 390)! I don't hold out any similar optimism for I-180.
maybe when it starts deteriorating they'll close one side and make it a super 2
I'll add another highway, US 74 in Tennessee. This doesn't really bother me. Moreso, it confuses me why they extended US 74 over US 64 and I-75 to I-24. The only reason I can think of is to have a continuous route between Chattanooga and Charlotte.
There's also SH 124 in Texas, which parallels I-10 north of Winnie.
Quote from: Some one on June 18, 2020, 03:02:03 PM
I'll add another highway, US 74 in Tennessee. This doesn't really bother me. Moreso, it confuses me why they extended US 74 over US 64 and I-75 to I-24. The only reason I can think of is to have a continuous route between Chattanooga and Charlotte.
There's also SH 124 in Texas, which parallels I-10 north of Winnie.
I think it was designed so a truck route with one route number could be designated. IIRC, the original route of US 74 was designated US 74A when the four-lane was built to extend to I-26. From I-26 westward, all of US 74 is concurrent with other routes (I-26, I-40, US 23, US 441, US 19, US 64, I-75). It is not signed along I-74 and only spottily signed on the Cleveland bypass, and it ends at I-24 without any fanfare. And much of that is also signed as Truck US 64.
Quote from: texaskdog on June 18, 2020, 01:32:09 PM
Quote from: ChiMilNet on June 18, 2020, 11:36:29 AM
Unless the connection to Peoria is ever finished (something I don't see happening in this lifetime given that IDOT is many higher priorities!), Interstate 180 Illinois. Pretty much a road to nowhere!
I would have also said the Elgin-O'Hare until the tollway took over and actually started extending it to at least O'Hare and gave it a number (IL 390)! I don't hold out any similar optimism for I-180.
maybe when it starts deteriorating they'll close one side and make it a super 2
With the traffic it probably gets (or better yet doesn't get, it might make sense). IDOT could save some money that way.
Maryland has a ridiculous number of these highways, many of which are unsigned frontages, original alignments, tiny stubs or otherwise unremarkable local streets. The ones I can think of include:
MD 17 (north of US 40)
MD 32 (north of MD 97)
MD 99
MD 104
MD 132
MD 334
MD 432
MD 462
MD 562
MD 662 (between MD 322 and the US 50/MD 309 intersection)
MD 763
MD 851
Quote from: epzik8 on June 04, 2020, 06:11:52 PM
MD-3 Business in Glen Burnie. It no longer connects with mainline MD-3 because I-97 replaced it in the area.
Another one near Glen Burnie is MD 169, which is little more than a city street.
Quote from: jmacswimmer on June 05, 2020, 12:57:11 PM
You could make a case for MD 2 south of Sunderland (where it begins overlapping with MD 4). It's a bit of a pointless overlap since at the other end in Solomons, 2 turns off 4 and simply runs parallel, ending here (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Solomons+Island+Rd+S+%26+Lore+Rd,+Solomons,+MD+20688/@38.3325042,-76.4651525,453m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x89b76285b74c093d:0x128f49fe555646a9!8m2!3d38.3320713!4d-76.4656618!5m1!1e1?hl=en) less than a quarter mile later (side question: was the end of state maintenance always here, or did 2 used to extend all the way into Solomons?). I'm guessing it remains because 2 existed thru Calvert County before 4, and many are now familiar with that stretch as "2-4".
At one time I believe MD 2 did indeed extend onto Solomon's Island. The concurrency today is probably retained due to the fact that MD 2 was already there and MD 4 came much later, and replaced the designation of MD 416. Before the Governor Johnson Bridge was built I believe both highways ended at Solomon's.
US 60 from I-10, La Paz County To I-10 at Superstition Freeway, Tempe
Thomas Road @ I-17 to Wickenberg Traffic Circle could be US 93/AZ 93 (After I-11)
Wickenberg Traffic Circle To Hope AZ 72, I-10 To Aguila AZ 71 With overlap of 71 and 72 between Hope and Aguila.
Quote from: mapman1071 on June 18, 2020, 11:32:05 PM
US 60 from I-10, La Paz County To I-10 at Superstition Freeway, Tempe
Thomas Road @ I-17 to Wickenberg Traffic Circle could be US 93/AZ 93 (After I-11)
Wickenberg Traffic Circle To Hope AZ 72, I-10 To Aguila AZ 71 With overlap of 71 and 72 between Hope and Aguila.
Why do so many people seem to be okay with US 93 being carried on a massive multiplex of I-11? That's a long haul through a lot of empty desert just to carry two route designations. Just truncate US 93 back to I-15 in Nevada and leave US 60 alone.
I-11 in Arizona does not yet exist. When it does, US 93 can cease to exist south of Las Vegas. Until it does, it makes sense for the route from Phoenix to Las Vegas to have one route number.
Quote from: Konza on June 19, 2020, 01:30:02 AM
I-11 in Arizona does not yet exist. When it does, US 93 can cease to exist south of Las Vegas.
What about 95 to Reno?
Quote from: Hwy 61 Revisited on June 19, 2020, 01:41:52 AM
Quote from: Konza on June 19, 2020, 01:30:02 AM
I-11 in Arizona does not yet exist. When it does, US 93 can cease to exist south of Las Vegas.
What about 95 to Reno?
I-11 north of Las Vegas is certainly a longer term proposition than is I-11 south. US 95 south of Las Vegas is apparently not a potential Interstate corridor and runs through two states. If Arizona no longer sees the need for the US route designation, then it would be up to California and Nevada to determine whether or not it is worth signing US 95 south of Reno.
Quote from: Hwy 61 Revisited on June 19, 2020, 01:41:52 AM
Quote from: Konza on June 19, 2020, 01:30:02 AM
I-11 in Arizona does not yet exist. When it does, US 93 can cease to exist south of Las Vegas.
What about 95 to Reno?
Is I-11 even officially going to extend to Reno in the future? I thought that was just something that we discuss on here, not something that could actually happen.
Quote from: thspfc on June 19, 2020, 07:43:19 AM
Quote from: Hwy 61 Revisited on June 19, 2020, 01:41:52 AM
Quote from: Konza on June 19, 2020, 01:30:02 AM
I-11 in Arizona does not yet exist. When it does, US 93 can cease to exist south of Las Vegas.
What about 95 to Reno?
Is I-11 even officially going to extend to Reno in the future? I thought that was just something that we discuss on here, not something that could actually happen.
The government actually approved an extension from Vegas to Reno, but no further north.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_19 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_19)
Im Surprised that CA-164 was never decommissioned because its mainly a hidden route within CA-19. Some of this is due to when I-605 in the planning stages and the proposed Rio Hondo Fwy was in debate as an alternative to I-710.
Quote from: TheOneKEA on June 18, 2020, 10:22:50 PM
Maryland has a ridiculous number of these highways, many of which are unsigned frontages, original alignments, tiny stubs or otherwise unremarkable local streets. The ones I can think of include...(snipped)
To add another big one to your list: US 40 ALT/US 40 Scenic/MD 144. At least be consistent with the designation :-D
MD 765 also comes to mind, since MD 2-4 is already being discussed.
Quote from: TheOneKEA on June 18, 2020, 10:22:50 PM
At one time I believe MD 2 did indeed extend onto Solomon's Island. The concurrency today is probably retained due to the fact that MD 2 was already there and MD 4 came much later, and replaced the designation of MD 416. Before the Governor Johnson Bridge was built I believe both highways ended at Solomon's.
IMHO, it would make more sense if 2 still went all the way into Solomons, but I guess MDOT SHA probably wanted to get it off their hands. It just seems so silly the way 2 ends almost immediately after departing the overlap with 4.
Quote from: bing101 on June 19, 2020, 11:48:39 AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_19 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_19)
Im Surprised that CA-164 was never decommissioned because its mainly a hidden route within CA-19. Some of this is due to when I-605 in the planning stages and the proposed Rio Hondo Fwy was in debate as an alternative to I-710.
Seeing as how much of the surface Rosemead Blvd. (CA 164/originally retaining CA 19 signage) has been relinquished to the cities it traverses, the point may be rendered moot. With the exception of the singular 1970-71 actual CA 164 signage placed on the I-10 C/D roads at the Rosemead Blvd. interchange, the facility continued to be field-signed as CA 19, its historical number since 1934. But the relinquishments, like others in D7, have made the point moot; while the relinquishment agreements specify that signage of the through route should be maintained, that's often honored in the breach more than the observance, particularly if the street(s) are modified in any fashion. The last time I was through the area (2018) CA 19 still appeared on freeway BGS's; didn't have the opportunity to check out surface signage, though. If typical D7 care is applied, if the street is altered, the signage comes down and isn't replaced; if not, existing signage tends to remain until it ages out.
The Rio Hondo/CA 164 freeway, which would have been the optimal way to access Pasadena from I-605, was NIMBY'd to death before an actual alignment could be adopted. Both San Gabriel and Temple City, the two adjacent jurisdictions through which any of several route options would have had to traverse, came out in opposition to the corridor in the early '70's at just about the time the generalized "freeway revolt" was occurring. Because no formal alignment had been adopted, Caltrans studies toward that end were simply suspended until such time as the opposition waned; that never happened, and the corridor remained the "line of circles on a map" denoting unadopted general corridor locations. But both opposing cities were "old-line" longstanding suburbs carrying a lot of clout with local legislators as well as with L.A. County, so the 164 freeway concept was, for all intents & purposes, permanently shelved.
most of ohio's state routes are superfluous, especially in cities
Quote from: silverback1065 on June 19, 2020, 10:09:28 PM
most of ohio's state routes are superfluous, especially in cities
Thank you the state that does NOT sign roads within cities.
US-266 really what is the purpose of it? It's like 40 miles long and runs close to I-40. In my state I would say WI-127 and WI-134. WI-127 is just a parallel route with WI-16 and does not serve any towns. WI-134 is a short spur to an unincorporated town that nobody cares about.
Quote from: dvferyance on June 20, 2020, 05:37:06 PM
US-266 really what is the purpose of it? It's like 40 miles long and runs close to I-40. In my state I would say WI-127 and WI-134. WI-127 is just a parallel route with WI-16 and does not serve any towns. WI-134 is a short spur to an unincorporated town that nobody cares about.
WI-127 probably continues to exist solely because the Columbia Correctional Institution (coincidentally the prison where Jeffrey Dahmer got killed at) is on the route, even though it's close to the east end.
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on June 19, 2020, 10:55:10 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on June 19, 2020, 10:09:28 PM
most of ohio's state routes are superfluous, especially in cities
Thank you the state that does NOT sign roads within cities.
there are tons of routes in every one of their cities. aren't they maintained by odot? that statement isn't relevant to the topic at hand anyway
One more for Iowa, which is the N-S section of IA 415. It is a mile west of US 69 and doesn't really go anywhere. IA 415 could then swallow up IA 160 in Ankeny and make a nice E-W road through the northern Des Moines area.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_4
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_285_(Georgia) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_285_(Georgia))
Florida Highway-400 and Georgia Highway-407 should be decommissions because they are entirely inside signed interstate routes.
Quote from: bing101 on June 22, 2020, 11:51:11 AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_4
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_285_(Georgia) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_285_(Georgia))
Florida Highway-400 and Georgia Highway-407 should be decommissions because they are entirely inside signed interstate routes.
You do realize every US Route and Interstate in Florida has a State Road designation that often isn't even field signed? If you examine the numbering convention it actually is a pretty solid grid design. FL 400 even exists as an independent highway East I-4 in Daytona.
Quote from: DandyDan on June 20, 2020, 10:37:31 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on June 20, 2020, 05:37:06 PM
US-266 really what is the purpose of it? It's like 40 miles long and runs close to I-40. In my state I would say WI-127 and WI-134. WI-127 is just a parallel route with WI-16 and does not serve any towns. WI-134 is a short spur to an unincorporated town that nobody cares about.
WI-127 probably continues to exist solely because the Columbia Correctional Institution (coincidentally the prison where Jeffrey Dahmer got killed at) is on the route, even though it's close to the east end.
WI 127 is a US 16 'old' road that Columbia County refused to take over.
In that light, I wonder why WI 152 exists, running northeastward from WI 21 in Wautoma to unincorporated Mount Morris. It barely makes the grade as a county highway.
Mike
I don't think anyone has mentioned the easternmost few miles of US 46 yet. What is the point of having it continue past where it begins overlapping with US 1-9, just so it can end in the middle of the GW Bridge?
Based on this sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.857289,-73.9732436,3a,43.2y,324.46h,90.56t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1svYiJuwtZDs3QaXkgpRHUXQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DvYiJuwtZDs3QaXkgpRHUXQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D261.90384%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?hl=en), the NJTA seems to agree with me :D
Quote from: mgk920 on June 22, 2020, 02:18:09 PM
Quote from: DandyDan on June 20, 2020, 10:37:31 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on June 20, 2020, 05:37:06 PM
US-266 really what is the purpose of it? It's like 40 miles long and runs close to I-40. In my state I would say WI-127 and WI-134. WI-127 is just a parallel route with WI-16 and does not serve any towns. WI-134 is a short spur to an unincorporated town that nobody cares about.
WI-127 probably continues to exist solely because the Columbia Correctional Institution (coincidentally the prison where Jeffrey Dahmer got killed at) is on the route, even though it's close to the east end.
WI 127 is a US 16 'old' road that Columbia County refused to take over.
In that light, I wonder why WI 152 exists, running northeastward from WI 21 in Wautoma to unincorporated Mount Morris. It barely makes the grade as a county highway.
Mike
Did WI 152 ever run farther, such as to WI 49?
Quote from: silverback1065 on June 20, 2020, 10:39:56 PM
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on June 19, 2020, 10:55:10 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on June 19, 2020, 10:09:28 PM
most of ohio's state routes are superfluous, especially in cities
Thank you the state that does NOT sign roads within cities.
there are tons of routes in every one of their cities. aren't they maintained by odot? that statement isn't relevant to the topic at hand anyway
Cities and villages are responsible for maintaining state and US routes within their boundaries in Ohio. ODOT maintains them in townships.
Some have been mentioned, but off my head, US 46, US 9 in Delaware, US 60 west of I-10 in the Phoenix area.
Quote from: bing101 on June 22, 2020, 11:51:11 AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_4
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_285_(Georgia) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_285_(Georgia))
Florida Highway-400 and Georgia Highway-407 should be decommissions because they are entirely inside signed interstate routes.
And all Georgia Interstates have a hidden 400 series state route attached to it.
Quote from: Big John on June 24, 2020, 11:09:18 PM
Quote from: bing101 on June 22, 2020, 11:51:11 AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_4
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_285_(Georgia) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_285_(Georgia))
Florida Highway-400 and Georgia Highway-407 should be decommissions because they are entirely inside signed interstate routes.
And all Georgia Interstates have a hidden 400 series state route attached to it.
Plus SR 10 Loop, which is also entirely hidden SR 422.
Quote from: dvferyance on June 20, 2020, 05:37:06 PM
US-266 really what is the purpose of it? It's like 40 miles long and runs close to I-40.
US-266 was there first and I-40 took over the corridor. The parts that were entirely redundant to I-40 were decommissioned, and what's still around is what was left over.
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 25, 2020, 06:28:14 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on June 20, 2020, 05:37:06 PM
US-266 really what is the purpose of it? It's like 40 miles long and runs close to I-40.
US-266 was there first and I-40 took over the corridor. The parts that were entirely redundant to I-40 were decommissioned, and what's still around is what was left over.
Until US 62 was extended to become a border-to-border diagonal, US 266 extended west from Henryetta to US 66 in OKC. It just happened to be the "straightline" route to the Arkansas River Valley between the Ozarks and Ouachitas, so it was the obvious place to locate I-40. But it still remains a local server; renumbering it would serve little or no purpose.
Here's a few examples I found in North Carolina:
NC 101 really has no reason to continue past the new US 70 less than a mile into Beaufort when BUS 70 does the job pretty well.
NC 213 also has a useless overlap with US 25/70 that isn't even signed. Delete it west of Marshall.
NC 136. Why was this designated in the first place? The only places of interest it serves are a post office and a boat ramp.
NC 214 is also confusing. While I can see a purpose for it when it was designated, nowadays its completely redundant with US 74/76. Just make it a Business loop.
Another highway that used to serve a purpose but now has little reason to exist is NC 610. It was a brief connector between US 311 and NC 62, but with US 311 removed from that routing (and later deleted entirely in High Point), it's just a random stub off of NC 62 that goes basically nowhere. Hell, even its numbering is outdated, as NC 610 was a branch off of NC 61, but NC 61 was superseded by NC 62 in 1940.
Quote from: hbelkins on June 05, 2020, 08:21:15 PM
If we're talking about state routes, WV 55 is the most obvious choice I can think of. It's concurrent with another route (WV 20, WV 39, US 219, US 33, WV 28, US 220 and US 48) for most of its route, except for the westernmost few miles between US 19 and WV 41.
Among WV routes, WV 92 would be another choice. The northern multiplex into Morgantown was truncated back to Reedsville, but it still follows US 250 and WV 28 for extended periods. I'd truncate the southern end at Belington, move US 33 back to its historical route through Elkins, and replace the southern end of WV 92 with an extended/realigned WV 28.
US 19 north of Sutton, WV would probably be a good candidate from truncation. It doesn't stray too far from I-79, and when it does, it's either a city street (Pittsburgh area) or a bad back road that through traffic shouldn't use (Lewis and Braxton counties in West Virginia).
One for Minnesota that I didn't see listed was MN 105. It's not the main road south of Austin, it maxes out at a 50 mph speed limit, and you have to stop 3 times en route, one for a railroad crossing I doubt gets much train traffic. Also, there's nothing of significance in Iowa once you get to the end. It's a nice drive in the country, but not worthy of state highway status.
QuoteNC 101 really has no reason to continue past the new US 70 less than a mile into Beaufort when BUS 70 does the job pretty well.
Actually that brief US 70 BUS in Beaumont has been decommissioned. (https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=3272.msg16557#msg16557)
Quote from: DandyDan on September 02, 2020, 03:32:06 AM
One for Minnesota that I didn't see listed was MN 105. It's not the main road south of Austin, it maxes out at a 50 mph speed limit, and you have to stop 3 times en route, one for a railroad crossing I doubt gets much train traffic. Also, there's nothing of significance in Iowa once you get to the end. It's a nice drive in the country, but not worthy of state highway status.
It can probably be put in with the 200-series spurs which MnDOT has seemed to make a priority of eliminating recently, usually turning back around one per year for the last 10+ years (last year they eliminated at least two, the adjacent MN 253 and 254)
Quote from: 74/171FAN on September 02, 2020, 10:55:53 AM
QuoteNC 101 really has no reason to continue past the new US 70 less than a mile into Beaufort when BUS 70 does the job pretty well.
Actually that brief US 70 BUS in Beaumont has been decommissioned. (https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=3272.msg16557#msg16557)
Well then... that was short-lived
Quote from: DandyDan on June 13, 2020, 02:51:25 AM
One US Route I question the existence of is US 275 and I mean more than just its multiplex with US 20 eastward out of O'Neill NE. It is essentially two different highways with a long chain of multiplexes in the middle. The Missouri section going north out of Rock Port to the Iowa border was entirely replaced by I-29 and could be replaced with either MO 111 or a Missouri secondary route. The Iowa section south of US 34 is a minor state highway also generally replaced by I-29, but at least connects the cities on its route. It then becomes a series of multiplexes (US 34, I-29, IA 92) until it enters Nebraska with NE 92 in Omaha. It finally gets its own route again west of Omaha, and eventually makes its way northwest to O'Neill, but it bears no relationship with the Iowa/Missouri section of the route. The Iowa section can be IA 275 and the NE section NE 275.
US 275 originally ended in St Joseph, getting there via modern US 136, MO 111 and US 59. It was intended to carry traffic between US 71 that went south to Kansas City and Omaha via Council Bluffs, connecting to US 71 in St Joseph. US 275 was commissioned in 1931, while US 59 wasn't commissioned until 1934, so for three years the highway from Craig to St Joseph was solo US 275. When US 59 was commissioned, US 275 was dual signed with US 59 until 1963, when US 275 was truncated to US 136 at Rock Port. It was once a major highway.
Quote
NC 136. Why was this designated in the first place? The only places of interest it serves are a post office and a boat ramp.
Oddly, it’s been around (as NC 3 until 2002) since the 1930s, basically unchanged except for the number. Maybe for the post office?
Quote from: Takumi on September 15, 2020, 02:43:46 PM
Quote
NC 136. Why was this designated in the first place? The only places of interest it serves are a post office and a boat ramp.
Oddly, it's been around (as NC 3 until 2002) since the 1930s, basically unchanged except for the number. Maybe for the post office?
Certainly not necessary anymore (might this go away whenever they finally build the mid-Currituck bridge?), but the 1938 Currituck County map shows Poplar Branch as easily the most built up area not directly served by NC 34 (now US 158-NC 168) or NC 30 (now NC 34)
In MN:
US-61's multiplex with US-10 and its points north. Does US-61 still need to exist as US-61 north of St. Paul? Make it CSAH-61 and be done with it. Of course, this would mean renumbering the exits around and south of I-494 with US-10 mileposts *heh* :-D
Now that MN-5 got truncated back to MN-120, it could probably stand to be truncated further back...to at least I-35E, maybe even back to MN-62.
MN-121... why does this still exist?
In MA:
MA-39 - remove the designation from the MA-124 multiplex
MA-6A in N Truro and P-town... why...is it because the easternmost mile of Commercial Street is still under state maintenance (last I knew)?
Quote from: DJ Particle on September 16, 2020, 01:37:36 AM
In MN:
US-61's multiplex with US-10 and its points north. Does US-61 still need to exist as US-61 north of St. Paul? Make it CSAH-61 and be done with it. Of course, this would mean renumbering the exits around and south of I-494 with US-10 mileposts *heh* :-D
Now that MN-5 got truncated back to MN-120, it could probably stand to be truncated further back...to at least I-35E, maybe even back to MN-62.
MN-121... why does this still exist?
I personally think they could make US 61 north of I-94 MN 561 and CSAH 61 if it ever turns over to the counties. As for MN 5 east of downtown St.Paul, isn't some of it a 2 lane residential street? If so, why is that a state highway?
Eliminating US 61 north of 94 is on MnDOT's wish list, I think by 2030 was their hope.
US 63 south of I-40 should be decommissioned for another number. Being AR won't sign it on the freeways due to their dumb rule, that particular route is really severed as US 63 going south actually disappears in Jonesboro as all signs to Turell were all replaced with I-555 shields completely. No follow ups at I-55 or at I-40 either.
So give it a new number instead.
Quote from: roadman65 on September 18, 2020, 09:56:09 AM
US 63 south of I-40 should be decommissioned for another number. Being AR won't sign it on the freeways due to their dumb rule, that particular route is really severed as US 63 going south actually disappears in Jonesboro as all signs to Turell were all replaced with I-555 shields completely. No follow ups at I-55 or at I-40 either.
So give it a new number instead.
US 63 is being rerouted to follow US 49 south from Jonesboro
Quote from: Mapmikey on September 18, 2020, 10:26:03 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 18, 2020, 09:56:09 AM
US 63 south of I-40 should be decommissioned for another number. Being AR won't sign it on the freeways due to their dumb rule, that particular route is really severed as US 63 going south actually disappears in Jonesboro as all signs to Turell were all replaced with I-555 shields completely. No follow ups at I-55 or at I-40 either.
So give it a new number instead.
US 63 is being rerouted to follow US 49 south from Jonesboro
Which is only a marginal improvement over the mostly unsigned all-freeway reverse-L -- but a halfway imaginative (ok, it's ADOT) reroute scheme would be to replace US 167 between Ash Flat and Bald Knob and AR 11 between Searcy and I-40 near Hazen; US 167 would be cut back to the I-530 interchange. US 412 would be the sole designation from Cherokee Village to the split west of Hoxie, with AR 555 (a state extension of you-know-what) from there to Jonesboro. That would make much more sense as a US 63 direct route while eliminating the current long US 67/167 multiplex.
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 25, 2020, 06:28:14 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on June 20, 2020, 05:37:06 PM
US-266 really what is the purpose of it? It's like 40 miles long and runs close to I-40.
US-266 was there first and I-40 took over the corridor. The parts that were entirely redundant to I-40 were decommissioned, and what's still around is what was left over.
Not exactly. US 266 used to run from the state capitol building east to US 64 in Warner, but when US 62 was commissioned in 1932, it was cut back to Henryetta and the western section of US 266 was renumbered as US 62. I-40 came long after US 266 was truncated, and the part that still exists is redundant to I-40 (if you believe in such a concept.) I-40 coming along had nothing to do with it.
You might say "Just make it OK 266." The problem there is that there is already an OK 266 in the NE part of the Tulsa metro area, which is a major route that connects US 169 and I-44 to the Port of Catoosa. If they decommissioned US 266, they would have to change the number. ODOT is obviously fine with the status quo, and sees no reason to add confusion by changing the number of a highway, so I don't expect for it to be decommissioned unless AASHTO goes radical and declares jihad on one state US highways, and forces them to decommission it. ODOT might continue to sign it as US 266 anyway, because they obviously don't care about AASHTO's blessing (See US 377.)
US 421 north of I-74 in Indiana. no reason for it to go north of that city.
Quote from: sparker on June 25, 2020, 04:14:57 PM
Until US 62 was extended to become a border-to-border diagonal, US 266 extended west from Henryetta to US 66 in OKC. It just happened to be the "straightline" route to the Arkansas River Valley between the Ozarks and Ouachitas, so it was the obvious place to locate I-40. But it still remains a local server; renumbering it would serve little or no purpose.
I find it interesting that if one wanted to follow the modern I-40 corridor in Oklahoma and Arkansas before it was built, they would have had to take US 66 to US 62 (after 1932) to US 266 to US 64 to US 65 to US 70. Six designations united under one corridor. This might be blasphemy to the 66 nerds, but US 66 should have ended in OKC and US 64 should have gone through OKC, Amarillo, Albuquerque, Needles and LA. The rest of what was then US 64 west of Warner could have had another US highway number. Oklahoma tried to at least unite the corridor as one version of OK 1, which lasted from 1934 to 1962, but it really should have had a single US number all the way across the state.
US 80 west of Meridian. It doesn't serve any major function in MS, LA, and TX. The portion running from Cuba to Montgomery and where it leaves its overlap with US 29 to Macon are the only parts of the route that isn't redundant. But MS doesn't have a problem with overlapping or parallel routes (51/55, 22/78, 59/11, 10/90) so I doubt they'll get rid of any routes anytime soon.
The op already pointed it out, US 42's physical route is important in some places, but the number can easily be decommissioned and replaced. I suggested the following 2 ways in fictional highways before to replace US 42:
1) Extend US 79 on US 68 to Bowling Green, then replace US 31W from Bowling Green to Louisville, then take over all of US 42.
2) Replace US 42 with a US 25 extension in Ohio, and a US 22 extension in Kentucky.
Quote from: SkyPesos on January 07, 2021, 09:28:05 PM
The op already pointed it out, US 42's physical route is important in some places, but the number can easily be decommissioned and replaced. I suggested the following 2 ways in fictional highways before to replace US 42:
1) Extend US 79 on US 68 to Bowling Green, then replace US 31W from Bowling Green to Louisville, then take over all of US 42.
2) Replace US 42 with a US 25 extension in Ohio, and a US 22 extension in Kentucky.
For your #2 you could extend US-25 up US-68 north of Xenia too.
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 08, 2021, 06:55:57 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on January 07, 2021, 09:28:05 PM
The op already pointed it out, US 42's physical route is important in some places, but the number can easily be decommissioned and replaced. I suggested the following 2 ways in fictional highways before to replace US 42:
1) Extend US 79 on US 68 to Bowling Green, then replace US 31W from Bowling Green to Louisville, then take over all of US 42.
2) Replace US 42 with a US 25 extension in Ohio, and a US 22 extension in Kentucky.
For your #2 you could extend US-25 up US-68 north of Xenia too.
And US 68 takes over US 42 from Xenia to Cleveland? That's not a bad idea. Although I'm under the opinion that US 68 is a "wasted" number on the routing it currently is on, and it could easily work as a US 162, and 68 should be used on something like US 412.
Quote from: mgk920 on June 22, 2020, 02:18:09 PM
Quote from: DandyDan on June 20, 2020, 10:37:31 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on June 20, 2020, 05:37:06 PM
US-266 really what is the purpose of it? It's like 40 miles long and runs close to I-40. In my state I would say WI-127 and WI-134. WI-127 is just a parallel route with WI-16 and does not serve any towns. WI-134 is a short spur to an unincorporated town that nobody cares about.
WI-127 probably continues to exist solely because the Columbia Correctional Institution (coincidentally the prison where Jeffrey Dahmer got killed at) is on the route, even though it's close to the east end.
WI 127 is a US 16 'old' road that Columbia County refused to take over.
In that light, I wonder why WI 152 exists, running northeastward from WI 21 in Wautoma to unincorporated Mount Morris. It barely makes the grade as a county highway.
Mike
At least with WI 152 you can make the case it serves a popular ski resort town. WI 134 serves London who in the world ever goes there?
VA 4. I get that it runs over Kerr Dam but other than that it could be downgraded to a secondary route, which it becomes when it crosses into NC anyway. That number just seems way too important for that road.
Quote from: dvferyance on January 08, 2021, 04:04:49 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on June 22, 2020, 02:18:09 PM
Quote from: DandyDan on June 20, 2020, 10:37:31 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on June 20, 2020, 05:37:06 PM
US-266 really what is the purpose of it? It's like 40 miles long and runs close to I-40. In my state I would say WI-127 and WI-134. WI-127 is just a parallel route with WI-16 and does not serve any towns. WI-134 is a short spur to an unincorporated town that nobody cares about.
WI-127 probably continues to exist solely because the Columbia Correctional Institution (coincidentally the prison where Jeffrey Dahmer got killed at) is on the route, even though it's close to the east end.
WI 127 is a US 16 'old' road that Columbia County refused to take over.
In that light, I wonder why WI 152 exists, running northeastward from WI 21 in Wautoma to unincorporated Mount Morris. It barely makes the grade as a county highway.
Mike
At least with WI 152 you can make the case it serves a popular ski resort town. WI 134 serves London who in the world ever goes there?
With WI-134 at least extend it over County Road O to Waterloo.
Quote from: SkyPesos on January 08, 2021, 09:42:33 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 08, 2021, 06:55:57 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on January 07, 2021, 09:28:05 PM
The op already pointed it out, US 42's physical route is important in some places, but the number can easily be decommissioned and replaced. I suggested the following 2 ways in fictional highways before to replace US 42:
1) Extend US 79 on US 68 to Bowling Green, then replace US 31W from Bowling Green to Louisville, then take over all of US 42.
2) Replace US 42 with a US 25 extension in Ohio, and a US 22 extension in Kentucky.
For your #2 you could extend US-25 up US-68 north of Xenia too.
And US 68 takes over US 42 from Xenia to Cleveland? That's not a bad idea. Although I'm under the opinion that US 68 is a "wasted" number on the routing it currently is on, and it could easily work as a US 162, and 68 should be used on something like US 412.
I was at the western end of US-68 about a month ago and never really thought about where it went. I was more focused on US-79 in Tennessee but anyway since US-68 serves a longer route it probably would work that way. I think US-68 should be a 3 digit US highway too.
As far as US-412, my opinion on that is that it overlaps several other US highways (US-43, 56, 60, 62, 63, 64, 65). It runs parallel to US-62 and 64 in various places and intersects US-70. US-68 would probably work for US-412 but look at all the other US highways we have running concurrent or parallel with it.
The one I think is hilarious is US-400. For it's first almost 300 miles it runs concurrent with US-50 and US-54. Maybe the eastern section of it is more on it's own but there isn't even a US-0.
Quote from: bugo on September 21, 2020, 07:58:37 AM
ODOT might continue to sign it as US 266 anyway, because they obviously don't care about AASHTO's blessing (See US 377.)
Not 100% relevant, but it turns out that the US-377 designation was written into federal law in December 1987 (in the 1988 DOT appropriations bill). ODOT posted US-377 in compliance with that law, even though AASHTO rejected the designation
after President Reagan signed it. What was ODOT going to do, refuse to comply with federal law based on AASHTO's say-so?
M-188. It would be a little more useful if it ran to US-127 at Leslie instead of ending at the VFW National Home
Interstate 190 in Rapid City. Sure, it's an Interstate grade freeway, but it's completely concurrent with US 16 and barely a mile long. Its original purpose of connecting Rapid City to I-90 is now redundant since the city built up around the interstate. It could be signed as simply a freeway segment of US 16 instead.
If the FHWA really wants to keep their westernmost 3di for I-90 in South Dakota, they could persuade SDDOT to upgrade US 16 Bypass to a freeway between I-90 and SD 79 before it gets too built up for that. In the long run, a better connection around Rapid City might also persuade Nebraska to start working on their segment of the Heartland Expressway again.
WA 339 only existed to have the Vashon-Downtown Seattle passenger ferry operated by WSF in the state highway system along with the other ferry routes. But it's been operated by King County for the past 15 years, so it's clinchable (during peak hours) but not state-run.
IL 336. Now that its "independent" section between Macomb and Peoria is (all but officially) cancelled, the entire route is multiplexed, entirely with the IL 110 CKC designation, among others
IL isn't going to decommission the unneeded IL 110, so go ahead and decommission IL 336
US 81 through the Dakotas. It's concurrent with I-29 through most of the states, and with the small divergance in North Dakota, it could easily become a state route. Ironically, when I-29 crosses into Canada, it becomes PTH 75, taking on US 75's number which is on the other side of the Red River.
I am quite surprised no move has been made by either CDOT or Nebraska DOT to get AASHTO's permission to decommission US138. Especially since the south end at Sterling has just finished being two-way rerouted onto 3rd St.
Quote from: brad2971 on January 19, 2021, 02:12:44 AM
I am quite surprised no move has been made by either CDOT or Nebraska DOT to get AASHTO's permission to decommission US138. Especially since the south end at Sterling has just finished being two-way rerouted onto 3rd St.
And half the shields on the Nebraska portion are N-138s anyway.
Quote from: dmuzika on January 19, 2021, 01:49:28 AM
US 81 through the Dakotas. It's concurrent with I-29 through most of the states, and with the small divergance in North Dakota, it could easily become a state route. Ironically, when I-29 crosses into Canada, it becomes PTH 75, taking on US 75's number which is on the other side of the Red River.
That one looks like it's all North Dakota, as South Dakota puts it on I-29 north of Watertown, where the two highways converge. It's similar to how US 52 hasn't been decommissioned there. US 81 and US 52 could both become North Dakota state highways without too much trouble.
Quote from: mrcmc888 on June 15, 2020, 01:22:14 PM
Almost all of US 41 south of Evansville parallels an interstate and should be axed.
Not only is US 46 a short intrastate route, it also parallels an interstate as well.
US 70 could also easily be cut back on the East Coast.
US 41 is still used as a Nashville-Evansville-Chicago corridor.
US 41 is FL veers away from the Interstate well enough in FL especially the Naples to Miami corridor. It is very useful as a signed highway going through GA as a business route for I-75.
US 14 in Wyoming. It really should be truncated at Greybull where it splits off US 20; west of there, it embarks on a pointless duplex with US 20 through Cody to the east entrance of Yellowstone, whereupon it simply vanishes into thin air.
On the other side of the park, at the west entrance, US 20 resumes its westward journey - all by itself - as it goes through West Yellowstone, MT and into Idaho.
Or perhaps even better yet: truncate US 14 at I-90 near Sheridan, and then turn the road from Greybull to Ranchester into a state route. (According to Wikipedia [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_state_highways_in_Wyoming], that road used to be called WY 520 - maybe change it back to that? Just a thought.)
Quote from: KCRoadFan on January 23, 2021, 12:42:26 AM
US 14 in Wyoming. It really should be truncated at Greybull where it splits off US 20; west of there, it embarks on a pointless duplex with US 20 through Cody to the east entrance of Yellowstone, whereupon it simply vanishes into thin air.
On the other side of the park, at the west entrance, US 20 resumes its westward journey - all by itself - as it goes through West Yellowstone, MT and into Idaho.
Or perhaps even better yet: truncate US 14 at I-90 near Sheridan, and then turn the road from Greybull to Ranchester into a state route. (According to Wikipedia [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_state_highways_in_Wyoming], that road used to be called WY 520 - maybe change it back to that? Just a thought.)
I would have to actually say US 16 could be eliminated entirely. US 14 could take over the entirety of US 16's route between Moorcroft, WY and Rapid City, SD. US 14 could follow its current route west of Moorcroft and east of Rapid City. The section of current US 14 between Moorcroft and Sundance and the section of current US 16 between Worland and its intersection NE of Buffalo with US 14 can be Wyoming state highways. The Alternate US 14 in South Dakota can be South Dakota state highways. The rest already is something else and yes, US 14 should end in Greybull.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on January 19, 2021, 09:42:02 AM
Quote from: mrcmc888 on June 15, 2020, 01:22:14 PM
Almost all of US 41 south of Evansville parallels an interstate and should be axed.
Not only is US 46 a short intrastate route, it also parallels an interstate as well.
US 70 could also easily be cut back on the East Coast.
US 41 is still used as a Nashville-Evansville-Chicago corridor.
US 41 is FL veers away from the Interstate well enough in FL especially the Naples to Miami corridor. It is very useful as a signed highway going through GA as a business route for I-75.
Some of it is. I think IN-63 has taken over the primary route north of Terre Haute to the northern terminus of IN-63 for one example.
IN 63 should be US 41A or US 41W.
US-41 should have been swapped with IN-63 north of Terre Haute when the latter was upgraded. US-41 from I-94 to Evansville is about 275 miles, only a quarter of which is on IN-63.
No point at all in switching highway numbers around. All that does is confuses people.
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 29, 2021, 08:52:26 AM
No point at all in switching highway numbers around. All that does is confuses people.
Now that GPS is the primary form of navigation, switching routes is pointless, but back when 63 first got upgraded, it would have made sense.
Quote from: cabiness42 on January 29, 2021, 09:17:54 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 29, 2021, 08:52:26 AM
No point at all in switching highway numbers around. All that does is confuses people.
Now that GPS is the primary form of navigation, switching routes is pointless, but back when 63 first got upgraded, it would have made sense.
True today it is pointless. Back then maybe IN-63 should have been US-41 and US-41 be IN-63 or whatever but today it's pointless. I know what kind of roadway IN-63 is and can tell you that it wouldn't make any difference if I was on IN-63 or US-41 meaning the roadway that IN-63 is on not that I would take US-41 over IN-63 as they currently are right now because I would indeed use IN-63 going north of Terre Haute if my destination was on US-41 north of IN-63's northern terminus.
There's also road signs that sign Chicago for SR 63 going north and Terre Haute going south at the two junctions with US 41. There's a reason control cities are a thing.
Quote from: tdindy88 on January 29, 2021, 09:37:12 AM
There's also road signs that sign Chicago for SR 63 going north and Terre Haute going south at the two junctions with US 41. There's a reason control cities are a thing.
Yeah US-36 being one I noticed it last year. I wondered why Chicago was mentioned on an Indiana State Road that doesn't go anywhere near Chicago but I figured it out.
When I saw it I thought to myself IN-63 doesn't go to Chicago but then after discussing it on here a little bit it made sense as it ends into US-41 north.
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.7936658,-87.4091543,3a,75y,102.58h,110.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLaU3UjkwUefz03Vnh1OgGg!2e0!7i3328!8i1664
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 29, 2021, 09:29:49 AM
Quote from: cabiness42 on January 29, 2021, 09:17:54 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 29, 2021, 08:52:26 AM
No point at all in switching highway numbers around. All that does is confuses people.
Now that GPS is the primary form of navigation, switching routes is pointless, but back when 63 first got upgraded, it would have made sense.
True today it is pointless. Back then maybe IN-63 should have been US-41 and US-41 be IN-63 or whatever but today it's pointless.
Then its a good thing I wasn't suggesting that they do it today. I specifically said at the time of IN-63's upgrades.
Quote from: tdindy88 on January 29, 2021, 09:37:12 AM
There's also road signs that sign Chicago for SR 63 going north and Terre Haute going south at the two junctions with US 41. There's a reason control cities are a thing.
I used to live in Terre Haute. The first time I drove there from Milwaukee was in a driving rainstorm at night. When I got to that interchange I was massively confused because I thought I was going to be on US-41 the entire way. (Did not look at the map closely enough and this was 1994 - pre GPS.) The control city signage saved me.
I agree with making the switch when IN-63 was upgraded as it being an important corridor it should have a US highway shield along it. What is US-41 between Terre Haute and IN-63's northern terminus that should have become a state road.
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 29, 2021, 09:29:49 AM
True today it is pointless. Back then maybe IN-63 should have been US-41 and US-41 be IN-63 or whatever but today it's pointless. I know what kind of roadway IN-63 is and can tell you that it wouldn't make any difference if I was on IN-63 or US-41 meaning the roadway that IN-63 is on not that I would take US-41 over IN-63 as they currently are right now because I would indeed use IN-63 going north of Terre Haute if my destination was on US-41 north of IN-63's northern terminus.
US 50 and OH 32 between Cincinnati and Athens seems to be a similar case as US 41 and IN 63, with the former route as a 2 lane and the latter as an expressway. OH 32 wasn't upgraded to expressway status until it got added as an ADHS corridor.
Quote from: DandyDan on January 29, 2021, 07:32:28 AM
Quote from: KCRoadFan on January 23, 2021, 12:42:26 AM
US 14 in Wyoming. It really should be truncated at Greybull where it splits off US 20; west of there, it embarks on a pointless duplex with US 20 through Cody to the east entrance of Yellowstone, whereupon it simply vanishes into thin air.
On the other side of the park, at the west entrance, US 20 resumes its westward journey - all by itself - as it goes through West Yellowstone, MT and into Idaho.
Or perhaps even better yet: truncate US 14 at I-90 near Sheridan, and then turn the road from Greybull to Ranchester into a state route. (According to Wikipedia [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_state_highways_in_Wyoming], that road used to be called WY 520 - maybe change it back to that? Just a thought.)
I would have to actually say US 16 could be eliminated entirely. US 14 could take over the entirety of US 16's route between Moorcroft, WY and Rapid City, SD. US 14 could follow its current route west of Moorcroft and east of Rapid City. The section of current US 14 between Moorcroft and Sundance and the section of current US 16 between Worland and its intersection NE of Buffalo with US 14 can be Wyoming state highways. The Alternate US 14 in South Dakota can be South Dakota state highways. The rest already is something else and yes, US 14 should end in Greybull.
Again, South Dakota DOT would go ballistic at such a suggestion. If you want just one number on the road to Yellowstone from I-90, have US 16 take the place of US 14 through there, and move US 20 onto current US 26.
Quote from: SkyPesos on January 29, 2021, 12:23:44 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 29, 2021, 09:29:49 AM
True today it is pointless. Back then maybe IN-63 should have been US-41 and US-41 be IN-63 or whatever but today it's pointless. I know what kind of roadway IN-63 is and can tell you that it wouldn't make any difference if I was on IN-63 or US-41 meaning the roadway that IN-63 is on not that I would take US-41 over IN-63 as they currently are right now because I would indeed use IN-63 going north of Terre Haute if my destination was on US-41 north of IN-63's northern terminus.
US 50 and OH 32 between Cincinnati and Athens seems to be a similar case as US 41 and IN 63, with the former route as a 2 lane and the latter as an expressway. OH 32 wasn't upgraded to expressway status until it got added as an ADHS corridor.
Pretty much. I've also used OH-32 and like IN-63 I know how that highway is as well. In this case though US-50 and OH-32 are roughly the same distance it's just quicker to take OH-32.
Quote from: brad2971 on January 29, 2021, 12:31:18 PM
Quote from: DandyDan on January 29, 2021, 07:32:28 AM
Quote from: KCRoadFan on January 23, 2021, 12:42:26 AM
US 14 in Wyoming. It really should be truncated at Greybull where it splits off US 20; west of there, it embarks on a pointless duplex with US 20 through Cody to the east entrance of Yellowstone, whereupon it simply vanishes into thin air.
On the other side of the park, at the west entrance, US 20 resumes its westward journey - all by itself - as it goes through West Yellowstone, MT and into Idaho.
Or perhaps even better yet: truncate US 14 at I-90 near Sheridan, and then turn the road from Greybull to Ranchester into a state route. (According to Wikipedia [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_state_highways_in_Wyoming], that road used to be called WY 520 - maybe change it back to that? Just a thought.)
I would have to actually say US 16 could be eliminated entirely. US 14 could take over the entirety of US 16's route between Moorcroft, WY and Rapid City, SD. US 14 could follow its current route west of Moorcroft and east of Rapid City. The section of current US 14 between Moorcroft and Sundance and the section of current US 16 between Worland and its intersection NE of Buffalo with US 14 can be Wyoming state highways. The Alternate US 14 in South Dakota can be South Dakota state highways. The rest already is something else and yes, US 14 should end in Greybull.
Again, South Dakota DOT would go ballistic at such a suggestion. If you want just one number on the road to Yellowstone from I-90, have US 16 take the place of US 14 through there, and move US 20 onto current US 26.
Wyoming takes great care to connect its towns and cities with Yellowstone National Park. They have the set the corridors so that those towns and cities sit on one of the routes so travelers can choose whichever route makes the most sense to them and ensures those cities are kept on one of the preferred routes.
Those US routes are:
14 - Sundance, Devils Tower, Moorcroft, Gillette, Sheridan, Greybull, Cody, Yellowstone
16 - Newcastle, Upton, Moorcroft, Gillette, Buffalo, Worland, Greybull, Cody, Yellowstone
20 - Douglas, Glenrock, Casper, Shoshoni, Thermopolis, Worland, Greybull, Cody, Yellowstone (parts are on the "Yellowstone Highway ")
This means the chambers of commerce for those cities and towns help sell the visitor experience by placing them on the road to Yellowstone, the most popular tourist attraction in Wyoming. Therefore, I don't see imminent interest in eliminating 14 or 16 since they each serve unique places along their routes and they both go to Yellowstone.
With that in mind, there are ways to rationalize numbering of highways while keeping these cities on the road to Yellowstone. I would suggest using WYO 120 as a realigned US 20 and signing a single odd-numbered US designation to the corridor following WYO 789 and US 310 (could be US 187, or a US 789 as proposed in the 1950s .... US 310 could work in theory, and while even-numbered routes could travel north-south, it seems like a separate designation may make better sense considering how far south the corridor goes ... and yes, I'm aware of US 220).
Truncate I-74 near Randleman, NC.
Or just remove the I-74 designation totally and make it an I-x77 or I-x73. Other states (Virginia, West Virginia) said they are NOT building their part!
Quote from: cabiness42 on January 29, 2021, 09:17:54 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 29, 2021, 08:52:26 AM
No point at all in switching highway numbers around. All that does is confuses people.
Now that GPS is the primary form of navigation, switching routes is pointless, but back when 63 first got upgraded, it would have made sense.
People should not be forced to depend on GPS to navigate, the system should be navigable on its own terms, so it is hardly "pointless."
On the contrary, the argument that "GPS is the primary form of navigation" actually minimizes whatever negative impact there would be of changing numbers, since those who don't pay attention to them in the first place are not going to know they changed, while those who do would have a more consistent system to work with.
MA 225 in Bedford and Lexington. I don't really understand why it needs to follow MA 4 all the way to MA 2.
I don't see why MA 150 hasn't been decommissioned south of I-495. The road it ends at isn't even numbered.
Missouri Route 16. It's a 16-mile-long old alignment of MO 6 which no county wanted and serves no purpose, which, to add insult to injury, terminates (eastern) at a business route.
Frankly, the northern portion of MA-6A in Truro and P-town, MA.
TOTAL: 9 miles
LOCALLY-CONTROLLED: 7 miles
STATE-CONTROLLED: 1 mile (Commerical St. to the town line)
FEDERALLY-CONTROLLED: 1 mile (on Nat'l Seashore land)
Here are just a few from NY: :bigass:
US-62 (NY segment): runs N-S for the most part, and E-W in Niagara Falls (opposite to the rest of the route), one must make 19 turns in 103 miles to make the entire southbound trip in NY, as well as long chunks of local maintenance and poor signage
US-202 (entirety): State maintained and non-concurrent for a measly 36.6% or so of its 629 total miles, most of which can be easily replace by extending pre-existing State routes
NY-5B: I struggle to see a purpose for this to be signed, especially as a child route. Reference routes exist for a reason.
NY-9N: A collection of 3 different loops connected by a concurrency with its parent and a wrong-way concurrency with its parent :ded:
NY-9R: A collection of 3 residential roads that are state maintained and happen to be connected and form a loop off of US-9
NY-55: Effectively 4 separate routes (one of which is county maintained) connected by concurrencies of varying lengths
NY-118: With the concurrency in the middle being longer than either of the two bookend segments, it's kinda stupid now, but will come in handy if US-202 is decommissioned :)
NY-171: Disconnected from the rest of the State highway system, not a high quality road, part village maintained, and the state maintained section serves 168 cars per day
NY-213: Westernmost segment is county maintained as CR-4
NY-279: Only 1.91 miles out of 8.76 are NYSDOT maintained, the rest is concurrent with County routes
NY-314: A formerly useful designation, but when they upgraded the corridor, they relinquished maintenance and left a 0.76 mile segment that should be a reference route
NY-324: Effectively two separate segments connected by a concurrency with I-190 over the South Grand Island Bridges, also has a useless concurrency with I-190 over the North Grand Island Bridges (relic from before I-190/Niagara Thruway was built)
NY-344: Short spur from Copake Falls into a Massachusetts State Park, AADT of 84, took NYSDPW a year and a half to repair the road after a landslide in the 50s and no one really cared (some people thought it was a waste of money to make it passable)
NY-412: 0.75 mile long village street that happens to be maintained by NYSDOT
NY-419: A driveway for Watkins Glen SP
NY-421: Spur into Adirondack SP, with an AADT of 126. If NYSDOT needs to maintain it, it could just be a reference route.
NY-470: Less than 3 miles long, entirely locally maintained
NY-309, 320, and 331: Effectively sections of County routes that happen to be state maintained
NY-990V: Same as above, has a reference route number, but is signed :confused:
NY-329 and 409: Old sections of the Watkins Glen road course that are glorified town roads with AADT's under 500
NY-961F, 962J, and 990L: Signed reference routes that have no need to be signed
Quote from: cockroachking on February 21, 2022, 07:10:00 PM
NY-5B: I struggle to see a purpose for this to be signed, especially as a child route. Reference routes exist for a reason.
If they really want it signed, then why isn't it more of NY 5A? 5A's western end is the next intersection east of 5B's eastern end, after all.
Me, whenever someone mentions a minor-ish route in this thread that I've already driven/clinched:
(https://12ax7web.s3.amazonaws.com/accounts/1/products/1986199880548/I-Might-Need-This-Later_800x800_SEPS-1000x1000.jpg)
I-878- I suppose this is more of "why is this still an even number?", but also given that it's a one-way interstate that's unsigned and is simply the remenant of bigger plans and only connects an interstate to an airport it already connects to, really suprised it hasn't been decommissioned.
I-295 (NY)- Really should be truncated back to 495 and then the rest could be a state route (even though NY 295 is taken) or in all honesty given that 295 and 278 somewhat end at each other, maybe absorb 278 into 295? (i.e. 95 and 278 would switch highways at the Bruckner) On that note...
I-278- The road ends at or near I-95 at both termini, and with 895 a possibility once again (along with the reverse of the 295 scenario above), a number change would make sense...
How about I-587 in New York. Why does that one still exist? Even I-87 doesn't acknowledge its existence.
I-391 in Massachusetts - basically the Chicopee expressway.
I-195 in Maine: road to OOB.
I-189 in Vermont: (not even) Burlington bypass.
I-790 in NY: basically an overlay to NY-12
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on February 25, 2022, 08:56:07 AM
I-391 in Massachusetts - basically the Chicopee expressway.
I-195 in Maine: road to OOB.
I-189 in Vermont: (not even) Burlington bypass.
I-790 in NY: basically an overlay to NY-12
The only reason to keep I-790 around is so NYSDOT can use 90% NHP on its length. And, I don't think anyone agrees on the exact begin and end of it...which works to NYSDOT's advantage.
Not sure why you think the others should be changed, though.
Quote from: Rothman on February 25, 2022, 08:59:42 AM
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on February 25, 2022, 08:56:07 AM
I-391 in Massachusetts - basically the Chicopee expressway.
I-195 in Maine: road to OOB.
I-189 in Vermont: (not even) Burlington bypass.
I-790 in NY: basically an overlay to NY-12
The only reason to keep I-790 around is so NYSDOT can use 90% NHP on its length. And, I don't think anyone agrees on the exact begin and end of it...which works to NYSDOT's advantage.
Not sure why you think the others should be changed, though.
I agree with I-790 in Utica. Get rid of it and save it for something else.
Do bear in mind that I-189 in Vermont was initially supposed to be part of a longer route into Downtown Burlington, so it would have been more useful. VT 189 would be fine.
I-195 in Maine is indeed useful for summer traffic from Old Orchard Beach to get to the Maine Turnpike.
My vote would be I-393 in New Hampshire. It doesn’t really serve anywhere important.