From US 71's post in the UNO thread..
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49759254772_bd3e290b61_z_d.jpg)
I also know of US/VA 360 (have seen this one) and US/GA 27 (have seen photos).
Note: this does not include continuations of the same route, where a US route may end but a state route with the same number continues.
As for US/KY 79. To my knowledge, the routes never intersected, and KY 79 has never been a direct continuation of US 79, there was always a gap with another numbered route between them.
95/95 in Arizona
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.corcohighways.org%2Fhighways%2Faz%2F10quartzsite%2F10to95%2F5.jpg&hash=ffc111d64f7edfb58ee21f03d83470a4f68f049d)
287/287 in Montana
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.corcohighways.org%2Fhighways%2Fmt%2F287%2F84to287%2F8.jpg&hash=402adf5f589beead698eeed2f196c5f27b60ffde)
Won't happen in Connecticut.
In Lumpkin, Georgia US 27/ SR 1 intersects SR 27.
FL 17 at US 17 in Haines City.
GA 23 at US 23 in Folkston.
For any state that allows this to happen, they are allowing confusion to run rampant.
I'm squarely in the no repeating numbers within the same state camp. The offending state highway numbers need to be renumbered to avoid confusion.
Quote from: mrsman on July 06, 2020, 07:18:02 PM
I'm squarely in the no repeating numbers within the same state camp. The offending state highway numbers need to be renumbered to avoid confusion.
I don't think it needs to be THAT strict.
In Illinois, for example, no one is going to confuse IL 50/Cicero Ave in Chicago with US 50 between the Metro East and Vincennes, IN downstate in the border-area of Central/Southern IL
Same with US 150 between Danville and the Quad Cities, when IL 150 is in Southwestern IL between Chester and Cutler
US 6 and IL 6 come about the closest to each other, with US 6 roughly paralleling I-80 and IL 6 being the non-interstate Freeway northern stub of the I-474 Peoria Bypass, about 40 miles away as the crow flies
IL 54 in Eastern Illinois is former US 54 before it got truncated within IL. US 54 still exists in Illinois to Pittsfield and then I-72 in Western Illinois
Minnesota used to have US 65/MN 65 in downtown Minneapolis before the US route was truncated to Albert Lea. I'm not sure if US 212 and MN 212 directly intersected in downtown St. Paul before MN 212 was renumbered an extension of MN 5 and US 212 was truncated to the suburbs.
US 169 and MN 169 may have "crossed over" at some point, but officially both routes now end at their junctions with US 53.
US 3 ends at MA 3, and vice versa.
(MassDOT considers it one long route)
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5726019,-75.5392787,3a,75y,252.52h,88.47t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1siDStclTXxto2I8qgZuyi1A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5726019,-75.5392787,3a,75y,252.52h,88.47t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1siDStclTXxto2I8qgZuyi1A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
PA 222 SB transitions into US 222 SB.
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6786267,-76.1598208,3a,75y,176.7h,81.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srNWmv4rjFqTApyQUc-pSKw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
US 222 SB transitions into MD 222 SB.
In Indiana it doesn't happen with US and state highways because there is no number duplication, though it does with interstate and state highways (which are less likely to be confused with each other).
This thread is how you troll me lol. I absolutely hate when this happens.
Michigan had historically US-24 and M-24 in Pontaic, US-25 and M-25 up in the thumb, US-10 and M-10 in Flint, and US-112 and M-112 in Detroit.
The only example in TX that I've seen is US 70 (along with US 62) crossing TX 70 in Matador. I'm sure TxDOT could have fixed that before now, but I guess it doesn't matter much to them.
Michigan has none.
Quote from: ilpt4u on July 06, 2020, 07:35:59 PM
Quote from: mrsman on July 06, 2020, 07:18:02 PM
I'm squarely in the no repeating numbers within the same state camp. The offending state highway numbers need to be renumbered to avoid confusion.
I don't think it needs to be THAT strict.
In Illinois, for example, no one is going to confuse IL 50/Cicero Ave in Chicago with US 50 between the Metro East and Vincennes, IN downstate in the border-area of Central/Southern IL
Exactly. US-50 and IL-50 cause zero confusion.
I-35 and I-135 both being in Kansas causes way more confusion.
DE and US 202 at I-95
CT, RI, NH, VT, and ME have no US/state duplicates. NY has 1 (all 0.9 miles of US 2 and NY 2, which are over 150 miles apart).
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on July 07, 2020, 10:40:01 AM
CT, RI, NH, VT, and ME have no US/state duplicates. NY has 1 (all 0.9 miles of US 2 and NY 2, which are over 150 miles apart).
US 4 and NH 4, although it's a pseudo-extension the way that US 79 and KY 79 are.
Quote from: hbelkins on July 06, 2020, 04:23:38 PM
From US 71's post in the UNO thread..
<see original for picture>
I also know of US/VA 360 (have seen this one) and US/GA 27 (have seen photos).
Note: this does not include continuations of the same route, where a US route may end but a state route with the same number continues.
As for US/KY 79. To my knowledge, the routes never intersected, and KY 79 has never been a direct continuation of US 79, there was always a gap with another numbered route between them.
This is likely to be
rare or non-existent in California for a couple reasons:
1) We don't have that many US-routes in the state: 6, 50, 95, 101, and 395.
2) We don't duplicate route numbers, so the US-route designation would have to have been truncated with a CASR continuing.
3) Most of the possible routes described in (2) were redesignated as CASRs in 1964.
One of the posters here displays a picture of a CASR-50 sign in his profile which I assume he came by honestly. If the sign and the route still exist (likely some often-closed snow road alternative to US-50), that
would be an example it.
My understanding is that CA is designation-agnostic; that is, US 50 and CA 50 would be considered the same thing. Thus why I-238 and SR 238 coexist, because I-238 is considered part of SR 238 that just gets fancier shields.
Quote from: -- US 175 -- on July 07, 2020, 01:07:22 AM
The only example in TX that I've seen is US 70 (along with US 62) crossing TX 70 in Matador.
Came here to note this example, but I also noticed something interesting about this particular intersection. (GSV: https://goo.gl/maps/5yHyzp9ZvnLU3MvK7.) Even at the most rural of intersections, TxDOT likes to indicate both the cross-route and the through-route (i.e., both left/right shields and straight-ahead shields), especially when the two routes are "major" enough, so a US (well, two) and an SH should qualify. That's not the case here for any of the four approaching directions, though. One has to wonder if this is intentional due to it being two of the same numbered routes crossing each other.
Nothing in Massachusetts. I guess that the US 3/MA 3 point kinda counts, but not really...
Quote from: -- US 175 -- on July 07, 2020, 01:07:22 AM
The only example in TX that I've seen is US 70 (along with US 62) crossing TX 70 in Matador. I'm sure TxDOT could have fixed that before now, but I guess it doesn't matter much to them.
Yeah, I'm surprised TXDoT allowed that, because in other instances
it did matter to them (https://www.usends.com/blog/intersection-of-the-two-longest-texas-state-highways): in 1937 they renumbered TX 81 because it intersected US 81, and in 1945 they renumbered TX 67 because it intersected US 67. But then just two years later they replaced TX 18 with TX 70, which created the conflict with US 70.
SH 40 in Colorado is an umbrella designation for a bunch of old US 40 alignments between Byers and Limon, and it may intersect US 40 a couple times. As far as I know, none of those junctions are fully signed: the majority of possible junction points would be on US 40’s hidden concurrency with I-70, and signage for SH 40 is spotty at best.
Quote from: corco on July 06, 2020, 04:34:31 PM
95/95 in Arizona
AZ 89 and US 89, as well as AZ 89A and US 89A still exist in Arizona, although they don't intersect. AZ 89 and 89A exist mostly because of tradition (AZ 89A is also signed as Historic US 89A). The current AZ 89 from Congress to Ash Fork could be an extension of AZ 71, with the section between Congress and US 93 (I-11) north of Wickenburg numbered AZ 171. AZ 89A could be renumbered as AZ 65, which was overridden by AZ 87 60 years ago. Keep the Historic US 89A signage, though.
US 93 and AZ 93 used to coexist, but the whole thing is US 93 now, at least until I-11 is built and takes it over.
Both sections of AZ/US 95 (shades of Indiana!) need to be renumbered. How about AZ 59 for the Bullhead City-to-Needles segment. Have US 95 end at I-8 in California, and add its AZ segment to the Quartzsite-to-I-40 stretch of AZ 95.
The US- and VA-360 example mentioned in the OP uses white-on-black signs saying "US" and "STATE" to distinguish, though I suspect people who are confused by this sort of thing would not be likely to appreciate that distinction.
(Screenshot from the Google Maps app–I didn't want to use a link because sometimes links from the app result in the camera pointing up at the sky or something random.)
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200708/1260231bd413a551e64d2ceb79acb748.jpg)
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 08, 2020, 07:50:17 AM
The US- and VA-360 example mentioned in the OP uses white-on-black signs saying "US" and "STATE" to distinguish, though I suspect people who are confused by this sort of thing would not be likely to appreciate that distinction.
(Screenshot from the Google Maps app–I didn't want to use a link because sometimes links from the app result in the camera pointing up at the sky or something random.)
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200708/1260231bd413a551e64d2ceb79acb748.jpg)
IMO, it would be less confusing if both shields didn't use the same color scheme with vaguely similar shapes.
Quote from: US 89 on July 08, 2020, 01:54:14 AM
SH 40 in Colorado is an umbrella designation for a bunch of old US 40 alignments between Byers and Limon, and it may intersect US 40 a couple times. As far as I know, none of those junctions are fully signed: the majority of possible junction points would be on US 40's hidden concurrency with I-70, and signage for SH 40 is spotty at best.
There's a CO 36 that meets US 36. CO 36 being pre-interstate US 36
Quote from: kphoger on July 08, 2020, 11:15:56 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 08, 2020, 07:50:17 AM
The US- and VA-360 example mentioned in the OP uses white-on-black signs saying "US" and "STATE" to distinguish, though I suspect people who are confused by this sort of thing would not be likely to appreciate that distinction.
(Screenshot from the Google Maps app–I didn't want to use a link because sometimes links from the app result in the camera pointing up at the sky or something random.)
IMO, it would be less confusing if both shields didn't use the same color scheme with vaguely similar shapes.
This is AASHTO's fault...Virginia wanted VA 360 to be US 360 ALT and AASHTO rejected it. Yet Virginia could have called it VA 360 ALT and in practical terms would've gotten the same result. Once they decided not to do that they should've just renumbered it as something else entirely.
Quote from: US71 on July 08, 2020, 11:43:35 AM
Quote from: US 89 on July 08, 2020, 01:54:14 AM
SH 40 in Colorado is an umbrella designation for a bunch of old US 40 alignments between Byers and Limon, and it may intersect US 40 a couple times. As far as I know, none of those junctions are fully signed: the majority of possible junction points would be on US 40's hidden concurrency with I-70, and signage for SH 40 is spotty at best.
There's a CO 36 that meets US 36. CO 36 being pre-interstate US 36
Yep. The OP.
Quote from: kphoger on July 08, 2020, 11:15:56 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 08, 2020, 07:50:17 AM
The US- and VA-360 example mentioned in the OP uses white-on-black signs saying "US" and "STATE" to distinguish, though I suspect people who are confused by this sort of thing would not be likely to appreciate that distinction.
(Screenshot from the Google Maps app–I didn't want to use a link because sometimes links from the app result in the camera pointing up at the sky or something random.)
IMO, it would be less confusing if both shields didn't use the same color scheme with vaguely similar shapes.
I think this is the main reason why you see so many US/state shield mix ups in Virginia. Somewhere like Colorado, the shields are so different-looking that it's harder for a contractor to mix them up.
Quote from: Mapmikey on July 08, 2020, 11:51:32 AM
Quote from: kphoger on July 08, 2020, 11:15:56 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 08, 2020, 07:50:17 AM
The US- and VA-360 example mentioned in the OP uses white-on-black signs saying "US" and "STATE" to distinguish, though I suspect people who are confused by this sort of thing would not be likely to appreciate that distinction.
(Screenshot from the Google Maps app–I didn't want to use a link because sometimes links from the app result in the camera pointing up at the sky or something random.)
IMO, it would be less confusing if both shields didn't use the same color scheme with vaguely similar shapes.
This is AASHTO's fault...Virginia wanted VA 360 to be US 360 ALT and AASHTO rejected it. Yet Virginia could have called it VA 360 ALT and in practical terms would've gotten the same result. Once they decided not to do that they should've just renumbered it as something else entirely.
"US 220A" near Roanoke -- isn't it technically VA 220A but is just signed as a US route? And it's unusual in that it's signed with an "A" instead of an "Alternate" banner.
Quote from: US 89 on July 08, 2020, 01:54:14 AM
SH 40 in Colorado is an umbrella designation for a bunch of old US 40 alignments between Byers and Limon, and it may intersect US 40 a couple times. As far as I know, none of those junctions are fully signed: the majority of possible junction points would be on US 40’s hidden concurrency with I-70, and signage for SH 40 is spotty at best.
QuoteQuote
There's a CO 36 that meets US 36. CO 36 being pre-interstate US 36
Yep. The OP.
CO 36 is actually an old alignment of US 36 just as CO 40 is old US 40. US 36 from Strasburg to Byers was CO 102 (http://www.mesalek.com/colo/r100-119.html#102) prior to US 36 being extended into Colorado.
Quote from: zzcarp on July 08, 2020, 11:59:55 PM
Quote from: US 89 on July 08, 2020, 01:54:14 AM
SH 40 in Colorado is an umbrella designation for a bunch of old US 40 alignments between Byers and Limon, and it may intersect US 40 a couple times. As far as I know, none of those junctions are fully signed: the majority of possible junction points would be on US 40’s hidden concurrency with I-70, and signage for SH 40 is spotty at best.
QuoteQuote
There's a CO 36 that meets US 36. CO 36 being pre-interstate US 36
Yep. The OP.
CO 36 is actually an old alignment of US 36 just as CO 40 is old US 40. US 36 from Strasburg to Byers was CO 102 (http://"http://www.mesalek.com/colo/r100-119.html#102") prior to US 36 being extended into Colorado.
And CO 36 is also old US 40, but CO 40 is not old US 36.
Confusing much?
Quote from: Mapmikey on July 08, 2020, 11:51:32 AM
Quote from: kphoger on July 08, 2020, 11:15:56 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 08, 2020, 07:50:17 AM
The US- and VA-360 example mentioned in the OP uses white-on-black signs saying "US" and "STATE" to distinguish, though I suspect people who are confused by this sort of thing would not be likely to appreciate that distinction.
(Screenshot from the Google Maps app–I didn't want to use a link because sometimes links from the app result in the camera pointing up at the sky or something random.)
IMO, it would be less confusing if both shields didn't use the same color scheme with vaguely similar shapes.
This is AASHTO's fault...Virginia wanted VA 360 to be US 360 ALT and AASHTO rejected it. Yet Virginia could have called it VA 360 ALT and in practical terms would've gotten the same result. Once they decided not to do that they should've just renumbered it as something else entirely.
Like an extension of VA 344?
In the near future, US 271 will intersect AR 271 (probably within the next 2 years)
Quote from: csw on July 08, 2020, 02:38:30 PM
Quote from: kphoger on July 08, 2020, 11:15:56 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 08, 2020, 07:50:17 AM
The US- and VA-360 example mentioned in the OP uses white-on-black signs saying "US" and "STATE" to distinguish, though I suspect people who are confused by this sort of thing would not be likely to appreciate that distinction.
(Screenshot from the Google Maps app–I didn't want to use a link because sometimes links from the app result in the camera pointing up at the sky or something random.)
IMO, it would be less confusing if both shields didn't use the same color scheme with vaguely similar shapes.
I think this is the main reason why you see so many US/state shield mix ups in Virginia. Somewhere like Colorado, the shields are so different-looking that it's harder for a contractor to mix them up.
Indeed. The Virginia state primary shield looks like the middle phase between the US route shield and the circle used for secondaries, which also get mixed up a lot. (Or if you're Petersburg, you just decide to only order US shields at some point. Seriously, almost every VA 36 shield in the city was replaced with a US shield, most of them 3-digit, within the past few years. It legitimately looks like US 36 runs through the town.)
The Virginia primary shield used to have a more distinct appearance, but over the years it's turned into more and more of a blob.
Quote from: amroad17 on July 09, 2020, 07:11:12 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on July 08, 2020, 11:51:32 AM
Quote from: kphoger on July 08, 2020, 11:15:56 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 08, 2020, 07:50:17 AM
The US- and VA-360 example mentioned in the OP uses white-on-black signs saying "US" and "STATE" to distinguish, though I suspect people who are confused by this sort of thing would not be likely to appreciate that distinction.
(Screenshot from the Google Maps app–I didn't want to use a link because sometimes links from the app result in the camera pointing up at the sky or something random.)
IMO, it would be less confusing if both shields didn't use the same color scheme with vaguely similar shapes.
This is AASHTO's fault...Virginia wanted VA 360 to be US 360 ALT and AASHTO rejected it. Yet Virginia could have called it VA 360 ALT and in practical terms would've gotten the same result. Once they decided not to do that they should've just renumbered it as something else entirely.
Like an extension of VA 344?
Any of these would be better than VA 360:
VA 344
VA 92
VA 413
VA 86
VA 51
VA 12 (which it once was)
Quote from: US 89 on July 09, 2020, 12:58:57 AM
Quote from: zzcarp on July 08, 2020, 11:59:55 PM
Quote from: US 89 on July 08, 2020, 01:54:14 AM
SH 40 in Colorado is an umbrella designation for a bunch of old US 40 alignments between Byers and Limon, and it may intersect US 40 a couple times. As far as I know, none of those junctions are fully signed: the majority of possible junction points would be on US 40's hidden concurrency with I-70, and signage for SH 40 is spotty at best.
QuoteQuote
There's a CO 36 that meets US 36. CO 36 being pre-interstate US 36
Yep. The OP.
CO 36 is actually an old alignment of US 36 just as CO 40 is old US 40. US 36 from Strasburg to Byers was CO 102 (http://"http://www.mesalek.com/colo/r100-119.html#102") prior to US 36 being extended into Colorado.
And CO 36 is also old US 40, but CO 40 is not old US 36.
Confusing much?
CO 40 is old US 40 east of Byers, CO