We had a thread for most scenic, but how about least scenic:
For Indiana it has to be IN 16.
It's 105 miles long.
The largest town it travels through has a population of 1,777.
It crosses one interstate but doesn't have an interchange.
There is one river crossing, the Tippecanoe River at Buffalo, that can be considered to be scenic in the broadest sense of the word. I guess if you're really desperate, the Eel River crossing can be seen as somewhat scenic.
The east terminus is 2 miles from the edge of the Huntington retail corridor, which is by far the closest the highway comes to any type of retail center.
There are no elevation changes to speak of, no winding through wooded areas or along rivers. Pretty much just corn and soybean fields.
I know there are plenty of very boring stretches of road, but for a road to be over 100 miles long and not have anything at all is something.
MO-33
CA 137 literally has no scenic value to it. I-5 does have some scenic segments like the Grapevine Grade but it drags badly in places like San Joaquin Valley on the long route side. I suspect some might say CA 99 but there is too much uniqueness in the old freeway grades and former US 99 segments to say it doesn't have much to offer. A lot of the short urban State Highways like CA 114, CA 109, CA 262, and CA 77 are devoid of scenery.
AZ 72 probably the most boring State Highway followed by AZ 74. Both are pretty much straight and don't offer much in the way of terrain variances.
With Florida hands down Florida's Turnpike wins for least scenic. They entire toll road is a bore to look at and a bore to drive.
VA 35 is probably the least scenic route I've driven in the state.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 20, 2020, 09:06:36 PM
I suspect some might say CA 99 but there is too much uniqueness in the old freeway grades and former US 99 segments to say it doesn't have much to offer.
That, and the fact it parallels railroad along a lot of its length, and has to shift alignment at a lot of exits to accommodate ramps.
US 12
MN 32
US 59
US 71
MN 4
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on August 20, 2020, 09:24:32 PM
US 12
MN 32
US 59
US 71
US 12 passes by the biggest ball of twine in Minnesota. Automatically ineligible to be least scenic.
I-10 in Arizona, at least between metro Phoenix and Tucson. Long-haul trucks clogging the road ruin the few areas that may be halfway decent. The most boring stretch of major highway in the state.
I-95
Assuming we're sticking to state highways like my thread of the most scenic, I'm going to nominate CO53. It runs just for a couple miles through a shitty part of industrial Denver with almost no redeeming value. You can't even really see the mountains from it and there's no "wide open spaces" vibe like you can at least get from the eastern Colorado "less scenic" routes. Just a lot of auto body shops, pot holes, parking lots, and questions of "why does this state highway exist?".
Chris
Nevada will offer NV 233. It departs I-80 a ways west of West Wendover and, while NV 233 itself is only about 34 miles, together with Utah 30 it provides a route around the west and north sides of the Great Salt Lake and accompanying desert to I-84. Not a lot to see out there. It was a paradise for lizards (http://ratdog.org/songs/Salt+Lake+City-111/lyrics) when young Brigham saw it first; he said, "I've seen some nasty deserts, Lord, but this one here's the worst."
Quote from: gonealookin on August 21, 2020, 01:29:40 AM
Nevada will offer NV 233. It departs I-80 a ways west of West Wendover and, while NV 233 itself is only about 34 miles, together with Utah 30 it provides a route around the west and north sides of the Great Salt Lake and accompanying desert to I-84. Not a lot to see out there. It was a paradise for lizards (http://ratdog.org/songs/Salt+Lake+City-111/lyrics) when young Brigham saw it first; he said, "I've seen some nasty deserts, Lord, but this one here's the worst."
I think that it looks kinda nice, not the best road but not the least scenic.
M-57, especially the stretch between M-52 and US-127 but it's bad even west of US-127 as well. Just farm field after farm field after farm field, then you come to Carson City, a true hick town. Towards it's western end it's not as bad but I'd rank the stretch through Genesee County as non scenic. East of M-13 you pass through Montrose, another small town then in between Montrose and Clio you pass a landfill. Clio is nothing special and neither is anything else on M-57.
Quote from: jayhawkco on August 21, 2020, 01:07:23 AM
Assuming we're sticking to state highways like my thread of the most scenic, I'm going to nominate CO53. It runs just for a couple miles through a shitty part of industrial Denver with almost no redeeming value. You can't even really see the mountains from it and there's no "wide open spaces" vibe like you can at least get from the eastern Colorado "less scenic" routes. Just a lot of auto body shops, pot holes, parking lots, and questions of "why does this state highway exist?".
Chris
I didn't require that it be a state highway, but I figured in almost every case it would be. Interstates go through population centers, and while cities aren't inherently scenic, at the very least they break up the monotony. I guess it's possible a US Highway could beat out a state highway for least scenic.
I'd say WI-26. Nothing but corn.
Quote from: Flint1979 on August 21, 2020, 01:55:21 AM
M-57, ....
I'll see your M-57 and raise you M-85. A lot of industrial areas (near a quarry, steel, cement and petroleum); loads of retail.
Quote from: GaryV on August 21, 2020, 08:15:00 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on August 21, 2020, 01:55:21 AM
M-57, ....
I'll see your M-57 and raise you M-85. A lot of industrial areas (near a quarry, steel, cement and petroleum); loads of retail.
I never thought M-85 was that bad in the Downriver suburbs but in the city of Detroit it's really nothing interesting as it just runs next to I-75. Now as for M-57 it just has the same scenery over and over and over for miles and it's not an interesting scenery. I think perhaps the most non-scenic part of M-57 is the part in Gratiot County.
Quote from: Flint1979 on August 21, 2020, 09:16:07 AM
Quote from: GaryV on August 21, 2020, 08:15:00 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on August 21, 2020, 01:55:21 AM
M-57, ....
I'll see your M-57 and raise you M-85. A lot of industrial areas (near a quarry, steel, cement and petroleum); loads of retail.
I never thought M-85 was that bad in the Downriver suburbs but in the city of Detroit it's really nothing interesting as it just runs next to I-75. Now as for M-57 it just has the same scenery over and over and over for miles and it's not an interesting scenery. I think perhaps the most non-scenic part of M-57 is the part in Gratiot County.
I kind of dig the dystopian levels of industry on M-85. I kind of always gave me a weird RoboCop vibe.
I-345
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 21, 2020, 09:23:40 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on August 21, 2020, 09:16:07 AM
Quote from: GaryV on August 21, 2020, 08:15:00 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on August 21, 2020, 01:55:21 AM
M-57, ....
I'll see your M-57 and raise you M-85. A lot of industrial areas (near a quarry, steel, cement and petroleum); loads of retail.
I never thought M-85 was that bad in the Downriver suburbs but in the city of Detroit it's really nothing interesting as it just runs next to I-75. Now as for M-57 it just has the same scenery over and over and over for miles and it's not an interesting scenery. I think perhaps the most non-scenic part of M-57 is the part in Gratiot County.
I kind of dig the dystopian levels of industry on M-85. I kind of always gave me a weird RoboCop vibe.
Are you talking about closer to the city of Detroit and in the city of Detroit? M-85 just seems like a normal highway going through Southgate/Wyandotte, Riverview and Trenton. But I can see what you mean in Detroit and Lincoln Park.
Quote from: Flint1979 on August 21, 2020, 01:55:21 AM
M-57, especially the stretch between M-52 and US-127 but it's bad even west of US-127 as well. Just farm field after farm field after farm field, then you come to Carson City, a true hick town. Towards it's western end it's not as bad but I'd rank the stretch through Genesee County as non scenic. East of M-13 you pass through Montrose, another small town then in between Montrose and Clio you pass a landfill. Clio is nothing special and neither is anything else on M-57.
It's nice if you like farms.
Have to go with CT 8. Any road that passes through the pits known as Bridgeport and Waterbury qualifies. Then you have a lot of twisty turny suburbia south of Waterbury and a whole lot of nothing save for a brief break in Torrington until you get to US 44. There's a nice stretch between CT 20 and the MA border, but by then, you've been beaten with an ugly stick.
Quote from: Flint1979 on August 21, 2020, 10:53:26 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 21, 2020, 09:23:40 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on August 21, 2020, 09:16:07 AM
Quote from: GaryV on August 21, 2020, 08:15:00 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on August 21, 2020, 01:55:21 AM
M-57, ....
I'll see your M-57 and raise you M-85. A lot of industrial areas (near a quarry, steel, cement and petroleum); loads of retail.
I never thought M-85 was that bad in the Downriver suburbs but in the city of Detroit it's really nothing interesting as it just runs next to I-75. Now as for M-57 it just has the same scenery over and over and over for miles and it's not an interesting scenery. I think perhaps the most non-scenic part of M-57 is the part in Gratiot County.
I kind of dig the dystopian levels of industry on M-85. I kind of always gave me a weird RoboCop vibe.
Are you talking about closer to the city of Detroit and in the city of Detroit? M-85 just seems like a normal highway going through Southgate/Wyandotte, Riverview and Trenton. But I can see what you mean in Detroit and Lincoln Park.
Yes, pretty much as you exit onto it from I-75.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on August 21, 2020, 11:21:51 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on August 21, 2020, 01:55:21 AM
M-57, especially the stretch between M-52 and US-127 but it's bad even west of US-127 as well. Just farm field after farm field after farm field, then you come to Carson City, a true hick town. Towards it's western end it's not as bad but I'd rank the stretch through Genesee County as non scenic. East of M-13 you pass through Montrose, another small town then in between Montrose and Clio you pass a landfill. Clio is nothing special and neither is anything else on M-57.
It's nice if you like farms.
No one is going to enjoy farms as a form of scenery. Looking at beans and corn for miles is not interesting.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 21, 2020, 11:50:48 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on August 21, 2020, 10:53:26 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 21, 2020, 09:23:40 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on August 21, 2020, 09:16:07 AM
Quote from: GaryV on August 21, 2020, 08:15:00 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on August 21, 2020, 01:55:21 AM
M-57, ....
I'll see your M-57 and raise you M-85. A lot of industrial areas (near a quarry, steel, cement and petroleum); loads of retail.
I never thought M-85 was that bad in the Downriver suburbs but in the city of Detroit it's really nothing interesting as it just runs next to I-75. Now as for M-57 it just has the same scenery over and over and over for miles and it's not an interesting scenery. I think perhaps the most non-scenic part of M-57 is the part in Gratiot County.
I kind of dig the dystopian levels of industry on M-85. I kind of always gave me a weird RoboCop vibe.
Are you talking about closer to the city of Detroit and in the city of Detroit? M-85 just seems like a normal highway going through Southgate/Wyandotte, Riverview and Trenton. But I can see what you mean in Detroit and Lincoln Park.
Yes, pretty much as you exit onto it from I-75.
Ok so down by Lawndale and Springwells area yeah that's a pretty non-scenic part of M-85 but at least you can see the Detroit skyline and Ambassador Bridge if you are heading north/east but going south/west it's rather non-scenic.
Quote from: Flint1979 on August 21, 2020, 01:43:07 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on August 21, 2020, 11:21:51 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on August 21, 2020, 01:55:21 AM
M-57, especially the stretch between M-52 and US-127 but it's bad even west of US-127 as well. Just farm field after farm field after farm field, then you come to Carson City, a true hick town. Towards it's western end it's not as bad but I'd rank the stretch through Genesee County as non scenic. East of M-13 you pass through Montrose, another small town then in between Montrose and Clio you pass a landfill. Clio is nothing special and neither is anything else on M-57.
It's nice if you like farms.
No one is going to enjoy farms as a form of scenery. Looking at beans and corn for miles is not interesting.
Better than the trees or suburbia of metro Boston.
I have a couple of nominees for Texas:
TX 44
TX 60
TX 124
TX 288
As for US Highways, to me US 59 and 90 Alt aren't that scenic.
SR 99 (WA) - An Urban/sub-uban surface street. Used to be interesting along the Alaskan Way Viaduct, decent view on the George Washington (Aurora) Bridge, otherwise grey with traffic.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on August 21, 2020, 02:59:40 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on August 21, 2020, 01:43:07 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on August 21, 2020, 11:21:51 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on August 21, 2020, 01:55:21 AM
M-57, especially the stretch between M-52 and US-127 but it's bad even west of US-127 as well. Just farm field after farm field after farm field, then you come to Carson City, a true hick town. Towards it's western end it's not as bad but I'd rank the stretch through Genesee County as non scenic. East of M-13 you pass through Montrose, another small town then in between Montrose and Clio you pass a landfill. Clio is nothing special and neither is anything else on M-57.
It's nice if you like farms.
No one is going to enjoy farms as a form of scenery. Looking at beans and corn for miles is not interesting.
Better than the trees or suburbia of metro Boston.
I don't know how you figure that. Driving around Metro Boston as much of a pain in the ass that it is would be much more interesting. Boston suffers from having narrow windy streets and having a big population in such a small area. I'd much rather drive anywhere in Massachusetts than driving on a road in Michigan that has an endless slew of farms for miles on top of miles. M-57 qualifies for that, heck I know someone that lives right on M-57 in the middle of this slew of farms. Chesaning is a small town that is surrounded by farms heck most of western Saginaw County and almost all of Gratiot County are nothing but farms. Give me some hills and lakes and that beats driving through farms. And driving through farms on a dirt road is even worse.
Quote from: jayhawkco on August 21, 2020, 01:07:23 AM
Assuming we're sticking to state highways like my thread of the most scenic, I'm going to nominate CO53. It runs just for a couple miles through a shitty part of industrial Denver with almost no redeeming value. You can't even really see the mountains from it and there's no "wide open spaces" vibe like you can at least get from the eastern Colorado "less scenic" routes. Just a lot of auto body shops, pot holes, parking lots, and questions of "why does this state highway exist?".
Chris
I agree CO 53 is one of the least scenic state routes. CO 53 provides a vital purpose on North Broadway in unincorporated Adams County. It has a Clear Creek bridge and provides a state route spur connection from US 36 to I-25 at 58th Avenue which can be used when the US 36 EB ramp to I-25 SB ramp is clobbered at rush hour (which happened often pre-pandemic).
Why it exists is that the Valley Highway, the precursor to today's I-25 through downtown Denver, was constructed as CO 185, and the freeway ended roughly at 58th Avenue. CO 185 was routed north from there on Broadway to 70th Avenue then east to Washington Street, then all the way north to Wellington. As I-25 was completed north from there, CO 185's routing was moved onto I-25 as well and eventually decommissioned. Meanwhile, CO 53 was commissioned as its surface route replacement between 58th and 70th Avenues.
I nominate CO 265 which follows Brighton Boulevard through industrial areas of Denver, Adams County, and Commerce City. There's really no mountain views to speak of. It does have this cool narrow railroad underpass (with the new RTD SlowTracks light rail overpass shown in street view (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.7938275,-104.9564023,3a,75y,6.94h,82.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slEuTMNK_nyZCrqZ7eurYsQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)), though. Its pavement is even worse than 53, but if you find oil refineries and garbage transfer stations interesting, CO 265 is your route!
Illinois 115 would be a good candidate. It connects the south edge of Kankakee with Route 9 west of I-57, and other than its origin doesn't go by any big bodies of water or (excepting Kankakee) any towns larger than a few hundred people, and the topography is very flat for the whole route. And you won't see many vehicles either on most days. I once jokingly proclaimed the intersection of IL 115 and 116 the "crossroads of the world" , commemorated by a vacant and run-down building in the northeast corner.
Quote from: TEG24601 on August 21, 2020, 05:00:22 PM
SR 99 (WA) - An Urban/sub-uban surface street. Used to be interesting along the Alaskan Way Viaduct, decent view on the George Washington (Aurora) Bridge, otherwise grey with traffic.
I get your point. It's pretty drab. But having both the 99 tunnel, and the Aurora Bridge, makes it very hard for me to agree. Both of those are pretty spectacular road features.
I'm not totally in a position to suggest an alternative just yet, but maybe something in eastern Washington?
Massachusetts I'd go for MA-20A, and a bonus NH-101A for New Hampshire.
Quote from: jakeroot on August 22, 2020, 01:50:54 AM
Quote from: TEG24601 on August 21, 2020, 05:00:22 PM
SR 99 (WA) - An Urban/sub-uban surface street. Used to be interesting along the Alaskan Way Viaduct, decent view on the George Washington (Aurora) Bridge, otherwise grey with traffic.
I get your point. It's pretty drab. But having both the 99 tunnel, and the Aurora Bridge, makes it very hard for me to agree. Both of those are pretty spectacular road features.
I'm not totally in a position to suggest an alternative just yet, but maybe something in eastern Washington?
WA 599 is even worse, there isn't even anything drab to look at.
Another one for Michigan for me is M-142. It cuts across the middle of the thumb and ends at M-25 on both ends with boring farm land. Outside of the lake shore Huron County is pretty boring.
Hard to come up with one for Utah. One candidate might be SR 257, which is a flat route across the Sevier Desert, but even then a lot of people find that sort of terrain interesting. Another possibility might be SR 155.
People are confusing "least scenic" and "boring". They're not synonyms. Sure, corn fields are boring... but they're certainly more scenic than suburbia and strip malls. I'm surprised more people haven't been mentioning strictly urban/suburban routes. Those seem like the obvious answers.
I think my nominations for NY would be NY 324, NY 252, and... NY 635?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 22, 2020, 09:16:03 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on August 22, 2020, 01:50:54 AM
Quote from: TEG24601 on August 21, 2020, 05:00:22 PM
SR 99 (WA) - An Urban/sub-uban surface street. Used to be interesting along the Alaskan Way Viaduct, decent view on the George Washington (Aurora) Bridge, otherwise grey with traffic.
I get your point. It's pretty drab. But having both the 99 tunnel, and the Aurora Bridge, makes it very hard for me to agree. Both of those are pretty spectacular road features.
I'm not totally in a position to suggest an alternative just yet, but maybe something in eastern Washington?
WA 599 is even worse, there isn't even anything drab to look at.
Well, there is the Link Light Rail, which runs adjacent to it for a little over a mile. If you're into trains, that's pretty scenic. Although traffic is usually going 70-75, so there's not usually much contest if you're into racing the trains :-D
WA 181 is pretty unspectacular. It's fun, with a rare undivided urban 50mph limit. But, scenery-wise, it's just business parks and warehouses, with the occasional glimpse of the Green River. Yawn.
Quote from: webny99 on August 22, 2020, 01:19:55 PM
People are confusing "least scenic" and "boring". They're not synonyms. Sure, corn fields are boring... but they're certainly more scenic than suburbia and strip malls. I'm surprised more people haven't been mentioning strictly urban/suburban routes. Those seem like the obvious answers.
I think my nominations for NY would be NY 324, NY 252, and... NY 635?
Ok in that case I nominate M-58 in Michigan.
Quote from: zzcarp on August 21, 2020, 05:52:04 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on August 21, 2020, 01:07:23 AM
Assuming we're sticking to state highways like my thread of the most scenic, I'm going to nominate CO53. It runs just for a couple miles through a shitty part of industrial Denver with almost no redeeming value. You can't even really see the mountains from it and there's no "wide open spaces" vibe like you can at least get from the eastern Colorado "less scenic" routes. Just a lot of auto body shops, pot holes, parking lots, and questions of "why does this state highway exist?".
Chris
I agree CO 53 is one of the least scenic state routes. CO 53 provides a vital purpose on North Broadway in unincorporated Adams County. It has a Clear Creek bridge and provides a state route spur connection from US 36 to I-25 at 58th Avenue which can be used when the US 36 EB ramp to I-25 SB ramp is clobbered at rush hour (which happened often pre-pandemic).
Why it exists is that the Valley Highway, the precursor to today's I-25 through downtown Denver, was constructed as CO 185, and the freeway ended roughly at 58th Avenue. CO 185 was routed north from there on Broadway to 70th Avenue then east to Washington Street, then all the way north to Wellington. As I-25 was completed north from there, CO 185's routing was moved onto I-25 as well and eventually decommissioned. Meanwhile, CO 53 was commissioned as its surface route replacement between 58th and 70th Avenues.
I nominate CO 265 which follows Brighton Boulevard through industrial areas of Denver, Adams County, and Commerce City. There's really no mountain views to speak of. It does have this cool narrow railroad underpass (with the new RTD SlowTracks light rail overpass shown in street view (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.7938275,-104.9564023,3a,75y,6.94h,82.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slEuTMNK_nyZCrqZ7eurYsQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)), though. Its pavement is even worse than 53, but if you find oil refineries and garbage transfer stations interesting, CO 265 is your route!
I thought about CO265, but like someone else said for a different route above, the dystopian nature I at least felt was a little more interesting than CO53. For the purposes of "scenic", there is more to look around at (and smell, I suppose) for me on CO265. Another near miss for me was CO22 in Brighton (another on my list of "Why is this a state highway?").
Chris
I would have to say WI 125. It runs between I-41 and downtown Appleton, a four lane mostly commercial street the whole way. There is a somewhat sweeping vista of the semi-suburban western part of the metro area from its bridge over a railroad yard about at its midpoint, though. :nod:
Mike
In South Carolina I would say I-20, especially between Columbia and Florence. Mostly just flat, tree-less medians with no towns along the route once you get past I-77.
At least I-26 is hilly going from Charleston to Columbia and goes around Orangeburg, while I-95 goes over Lake Marion and goes through swampy scenery on a good portion of its route. I-20 has none of that.
I'm nominating CA 103 (unrelinquished). That's about as yugly urban as you can get.
Quote from: Sctvhound on August 24, 2020, 01:03:06 PM
In South Carolina I would say I-20, especially between Columbia and Florence. Mostly just flat, tree-less medians with no towns along the route once you get past I-77.
At least I-26 is hilly going from Charleston to Columbia and goes around Orangeburg, while I-95 goes over Lake Marion and goes through swampy scenery on a good portion of its route. I-20 has none of that.
I-20 might be the champion for least scenic X0 Interstate. I-30 is close but it really in the same league as the other X0 Routes in terms of distance.
In Georgia, I'd say U.S. 80. It's pretty much hills and trees the whole way across Georgia until you get east of Statesboro, when it becomes sand and trees.
Quote from: Gnutella on August 25, 2020, 01:30:59 AM
In Georgia, I'd say U.S. 80. It's pretty much hills and trees the whole way across Georgia until you get east of Statesboro, when it becomes sand and trees.
As opposed to the absolute bore which is I-16? Personally I like US 80 on Tybee Island and at least it has some actual communities to offer. There is absolutely nothing of interest on I-16.
In Texas I'd say US 285. It's awful, a lot of truck traffic too.
PA 291...starts in Chester, passes through industrial land, then past the hotels outside PHL, over the Platt Bridge overlooking the oil refineries and scrap metal yards...
Quote from: webny99 on August 22, 2020, 01:19:55 PM
People are confusing "least scenic" and "boring". They're not synonyms. Sure, corn fields are boring... but they're certainly more scenic than suburbia and strip malls. I'm surprised more people haven't been mentioning strictly urban/suburban routes. Those seem like the obvious answers.
I think my nominations for NY would be NY 324, NY 252, and... NY 635?
A cornfield may be slightly more scenic than a strip mall, but part of the point of "consistently" was to eliminate shorter urban/suburban routes. By default, the shortest routes are the least scenic, but it's harder to put together a route over 100 miles that lacks scenery. Maybe in NY you have longer routes that are nothing but strip malls but those routes don't exist in Indiana.
Quote from: cabiness42 on August 20, 2020, 08:43:21 PM
We had a thread for most scenic, but how about least scenic:
For Indiana it has to be IN 16.
It's 105 miles long.
The largest town it travels through has a population of 1,777.
It crosses one interstate but doesn't have an interchange.
There is one river crossing, the Tippecanoe River at Buffalo, that can be considered to be scenic in the broadest sense of the word. I guess if you're really desperate, the Eel River crossing can be seen as somewhat scenic.
The east terminus is 2 miles from the edge of the Huntington retail corridor, which is by far the closest the highway comes to any type of retail center.
There are no elevation changes to speak of, no winding through wooded areas or along rivers. Pretty much just corn and soybean fields.
I know there are plenty of very boring stretches of road, but for a road to be over 100 miles long and not have anything at all is something.
SR 16 is a strange state road, it really doesn't serve any purpose at all.
Quote from: cabiness42 on August 25, 2020, 12:07:05 PM
Quote from: webny99 on August 22, 2020, 01:19:55 PM
People are confusing "least scenic" and "boring". They're not synonyms. Sure, corn fields are boring... but they're certainly more scenic than suburbia and strip malls. I'm surprised more people haven't been mentioning strictly urban/suburban routes. Those seem like the obvious answers.
I think my nominations for NY would be NY 324, NY 252, and... NY 635?
A cornfield may be slightly more scenic than a strip mall, but part of the point of "consistently" was to eliminate shorter urban/suburban routes. By default, the shortest routes are the least scenic, but it's harder to put together a route over 100 miles that lacks scenery. Maybe in NY you have longer routes that are nothing but strip malls but those routes don't exist in Indiana.
You might want to specifically specify that. "Consistently" to me implies uniformity but says nothing about length.
Quote from: silverback1065 on August 25, 2020, 12:27:54 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on August 20, 2020, 08:43:21 PM
We had a thread for most scenic, but how about least scenic:
For Indiana it has to be IN 16.
It's 105 miles long.
The largest town it travels through has a population of 1,777.
It crosses one interstate but doesn't have an interchange.
There is one river crossing, the Tippecanoe River at Buffalo, that can be considered to be scenic in the broadest sense of the word. I guess if you're really desperate, the Eel River crossing can be seen as somewhat scenic.
The east terminus is 2 miles from the edge of the Huntington retail corridor, which is by far the closest the highway comes to any type of retail center.
There are no elevation changes to speak of, no winding through wooded areas or along rivers. Pretty much just corn and soybean fields.
I know there are plenty of very boring stretches of road, but for a road to be over 100 miles long and not have anything at all is something.
SR 16 is a strange state road, it really doesn't serve any purpose at all.
I think I've been on that road before doesn't it run past a landfill that comes up next to the road? I always thought IN-47 was a highway that serves little purpose.
Indiana has very few sections of state roads that have strip mall after strip mall along them. Most of the state roads in Indiana are in rural areas and there are several discontinuous state roads with some broke up simply by a city because INDOT feels that the cities should have control of their streets and not them like IN-25 around Lafayette.
Quote from: Flint1979 on August 25, 2020, 08:48:28 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on August 25, 2020, 12:27:54 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on August 20, 2020, 08:43:21 PM
We had a thread for most scenic, but how about least scenic:
For Indiana it has to be IN 16.
It's 105 miles long.
The largest town it travels through has a population of 1,777.
It crosses one interstate but doesn't have an interchange.
There is one river crossing, the Tippecanoe River at Buffalo, that can be considered to be scenic in the broadest sense of the word. I guess if you're really desperate, the Eel River crossing can be seen as somewhat scenic.
The east terminus is 2 miles from the edge of the Huntington retail corridor, which is by far the closest the highway comes to any type of retail center.
There are no elevation changes to speak of, no winding through wooded areas or along rivers. Pretty much just corn and soybean fields.
I know there are plenty of very boring stretches of road, but for a road to be over 100 miles long and not have anything at all is something.
SR 16 is a strange state road, it really doesn't serve any purpose at all.
I think I've been on that road before doesn't it run past a landfill that comes up next to the road? I always thought IN-47 was a highway that serves little purpose.
The western section of IN 47 services one of the busiest state parks, Turkey Run, and also services Wabash College in Crawfordsville.
Quote from: cabiness42 on August 26, 2020, 07:50:56 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on August 25, 2020, 08:48:28 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on August 25, 2020, 12:27:54 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on August 20, 2020, 08:43:21 PM
We had a thread for most scenic, but how about least scenic:
For Indiana it has to be IN 16.
It's 105 miles long.
The largest town it travels through has a population of 1,777.
It crosses one interstate but doesn't have an interchange.
There is one river crossing, the Tippecanoe River at Buffalo, that can be considered to be scenic in the broadest sense of the word. I guess if you're really desperate, the Eel River crossing can be seen as somewhat scenic.
The east terminus is 2 miles from the edge of the Huntington retail corridor, which is by far the closest the highway comes to any type of retail center.
There are no elevation changes to speak of, no winding through wooded areas or along rivers. Pretty much just corn and soybean fields.
I know there are plenty of very boring stretches of road, but for a road to be over 100 miles long and not have anything at all is something.
SR 16 is a strange state road, it really doesn't serve any purpose at all.
I think I've been on that road before doesn't it run past a landfill that comes up next to the road? I always thought IN-47 was a highway that serves little purpose.
The western section of IN 47 services one of the busiest state parks, Turkey Run, and also services Wabash College in Crawfordsville.
It's just weird being on an east-west highway in Indiana with an odd number and it's signed north-south too when it goes mostly east-west. Outside of the western end I don't think it needs to go all the way to Sheridan.
Ohio
OH 235
Max already cited CA 137 as a good candidate for this dubious "award". I'd double down on that, plus pretty much any flatland connector in the Valley: CA 184, definitely CA 204, CA 233, CA 219 (which will likely be supplanted by the CA 108 North Modesto bypass shortly), and the longest of the bunch, CA 165. More urban candidates would be the little that's left of CA 19, CA 83, CA 107, CA 123, and CA 262. I'd include CA 47 except for the views from the Vincent Thomas Bridge as well as CA 61, which would make the list except for the historic old houses along its length in Alameda. OK, CA 112 gets on the list too, along with neighbor CA 185; nothing of import to see there. In essence, all these surface facilities are strictly utilitarian in nature as per their function; not a lot to attract folks on their own.
Here are the routes I'd pick for Maryland:
- US 301 between Queenstown and the DE state line. Flat, mostly straight, with nothing to see except trees and cornfields.
- US 40 northeast of Baltimore. Straight, heavily built up in many areas and surrounded by trees and cornfields in less built up areas. The only spot where anything remotely scenic could be found is a rest area on the eastbound side near the Bush River.
- MD 144 between MD 27 and US 40. Mostly straight and built up throughout its length, with cornfields surrounding it everywhere else. (A lot of MD farms grow corn every year!)
MA 9. Car dealerships, strip malls, and office buildings for miles and miles. I'm sure anyone from New Jersey will feel at home on it.
Quote from: sparker on August 30, 2020, 04:57:53 AM
Max already cited CA 137 as a good candidate for this dubious "award". I'd double down on that, plus pretty much any flatland connector in the Valley: CA 184, definitely CA 204, CA 233, CA 219 (which will likely be supplanted by the CA 108 North Modesto bypass shortly), and the longest of the bunch, CA 165. More urban candidates would be the little that's left of CA 19, CA 83, CA 107, CA 123, and CA 262. I'd include CA 47 except for the views from the Vincent Thomas Bridge as well as CA 61, which would make the list except for the historic old houses along its length in Alameda. OK, CA 112 gets on the list too, along with neighbor CA 185; nothing of import to see there. In essence, all these surface facilities are strictly utilitarian in nature as per their function; not a lot to attract folks on their own.
The most interesting two flat land Valley Routes I've found are 43 and 45. 43 has some fantastic rail fanning that can be done, especially around the ghost town of Allensworth. 45 follows the Sacramento River through some quaint towns and probably has the best State Highway view of the Sutter Buttes. I would probably rate 201 and 216 lower if they didn't have fantastic views looking East at the Sierra Nevada Mountains.
Michigan:
M-17. The eastern half is full of abandoned businesses, while its western terminus is home to what might be the worst freeway-to-surface road interchange in Michigan
US 13:
"Wanna see some suburban arterials?"
"Wanna see more?"
And it isn't even the fastest route...anywhere. You'd have better chances on US 1 or I-95 considering both are freeways for sizeable distances.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 25, 2020, 10:42:09 AM
Quote from: Gnutella on August 25, 2020, 01:30:59 AM
In Georgia, I'd say U.S. 80. It's pretty much hills and trees the whole way across Georgia until you get east of Statesboro, when it becomes sand and trees.
As opposed to the absolute bore which is I-16? Personally I like US 80 on Tybee Island and at least it has some actual communities to offer. There is absolutely nothing of interest on I-16.
I considered I-16, but U.S. 80 is longer.
Quote from: Gnutella on September 01, 2020, 11:28:32 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 25, 2020, 10:42:09 AM
Quote from: Gnutella on August 25, 2020, 01:30:59 AM
In Georgia, I'd say U.S. 80. It's pretty much hills and trees the whole way across Georgia until you get east of Statesboro, when it becomes sand and trees.
As opposed to the absolute bore which is I-16? Personally I like US 80 on Tybee Island and at least it has some actual communities to offer. There is absolutely nothing of interest on I-16.
I considered I-16, but U.S. 80 is longer.
But US 80 "does" have scenery, I-16 has none. By default that makes I-16 consistently less scenic than US 80. I would put I-95 right up there with I-16 in regards to Georgia, there is nothing to look at there either.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 01, 2020, 11:42:12 PM
Quote from: Gnutella on September 01, 2020, 11:28:32 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 25, 2020, 10:42:09 AM
Quote from: Gnutella on August 25, 2020, 01:30:59 AM
In Georgia, I'd say U.S. 80. It's pretty much hills and trees the whole way across Georgia until you get east of Statesboro, when it becomes sand and trees.
As opposed to the absolute bore which is I-16? Personally I like US 80 on Tybee Island and at least it has some actual communities to offer. There is absolutely nothing of interest on I-16.
I considered I-16, but U.S. 80 is longer.
But US 80 "does" have scenery, I-16 has none. By default that makes I-16 consistently less scenic than US 80. I would put I-95 right up there with I-16 in regards to Georgia, there is nothing to look at there either.
95 at least has a few decent length bridges over rivers every so often.
Quote from: US 89 on September 01, 2020, 11:49:27 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 01, 2020, 11:42:12 PM
Quote from: Gnutella on September 01, 2020, 11:28:32 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 25, 2020, 10:42:09 AM
Quote from: Gnutella on August 25, 2020, 01:30:59 AM
In Georgia, I'd say U.S. 80. It's pretty much hills and trees the whole way across Georgia until you get east of Statesboro, when it becomes sand and trees.
As opposed to the absolute bore which is I-16? Personally I like US 80 on Tybee Island and at least it has some actual communities to offer. There is absolutely nothing of interest on I-16.
I considered I-16, but U.S. 80 is longer.
But US 80 "does" have scenery, I-16 has none. By default that makes I-16 consistently less scenic than US 80. I would put I-95 right up there with I-16 in regards to Georgia, there is nothing to look at there either.
95 at least has a few decent length bridges over rivers every so often.
If you look close the Sidney Lanier Bridge can be seen from the northbound lanes approaching Blythe Island.
Quote from: kernals12 on August 31, 2020, 12:35:18 PM
MA 9. Car dealerships, strip malls, and office buildings for miles and miles. I'm sure anyone from New Jersey will feel at home on it.
I take it you've never bothered driving west of Worcester on it? Go west of I-91 to Pittsfield and claim it's the least scenic in the state.
Quote from: SectorZ on September 02, 2020, 08:14:46 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 31, 2020, 12:35:18 PM
MA 9. Car dealerships, strip malls, and office buildings for miles and miles. I'm sure anyone from New Jersey will feel at home on it.
I take it you've never bothered driving west of Worcester on it? Go west of I-91 to Pittsfield and claim it's the least scenic in the state.
Have to agree. One of the routes solely in the Boston area would be a lot worse.
I'm in Indiana right now doing some County clinching and somehow ended up on SR-16. On top of it being not scenic at all it has a pointless concurrency with SR-119.