I'll go first: CO-16 and CO-21 in Colorado Springs.
Don't we have at least 15 of this thread topic in fictional already?
Found one for interstates https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=25256.0
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 19, 2021, 09:10:19 AM
Don't we have at least 15 of this thread topic in fictional already?
I actually took this into consideration. Looked up "CO-21", but there were no matching threads.
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on March 19, 2021, 09:55:23 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 19, 2021, 09:10:19 AM
Don't we have at least 15 of this thread topic in fictional already?
I actually took this into consideration. Looked up "CO-21", but there were no matching threads.
Most Colorado posters here use "˜SH-XX' for their state routes. If you're going to use a route number to search for a combining routes thread, use I-44 or I-64, as they're the most commonly suggested ones for some reason.
- MS 25 and (West) MS 18
- US 49 and US 63 (lets pretend 63 still ends in Memphis and 49 still ends in Clarksdale)
- US 212 and US 8
- MS 69 and MS 12 (north of columbus, 12 is overlapped with US 82 until that point)
- AL 95 and AL 165
- US 280 and US 78 West of Birmingham
- US 72 and US 74
- AZ 64 and 264
- US 89 and AZ 87 (it could dog leg over there somehow)
- US 60 and CA 62
US 641, KY 91, Cave-in-Rock Ferry, IL 1
Here's one (two?) I mentioned a lot on this forum:
US 22 and US 42 in KY
US 25 and US 42 in OH
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 19, 2021, 10:06:03 AM
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on March 19, 2021, 09:55:23 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 19, 2021, 09:10:19 AM
Don't we have at least 15 of this thread topic in fictional already?
I actually took this into consideration. Looked up "CO-21", but there were no matching threads.
Most Colorado posters here use "˜SH-XX' for their state routes. If you're going to use a route number to search for a combining routes thread, use I-44 or I-64, as they're the most commonly suggested ones for some reason.
In regards to I-44 and I-64, while they do connect in St. Louis, I feel the overall trajectories of each highway are different enough to merit (retain) separate numbering.
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on March 19, 2021, 11:02:48 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 19, 2021, 10:06:03 AM
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on March 19, 2021, 09:55:23 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 19, 2021, 09:10:19 AM
Don’t we have at least 15 of this thread topic in fictional already?
I actually took this into consideration. Looked up "CO-21", but there were no matching threads.
Most Colorado posters here use ‘SH-XX’ for their state routes. If you’re going to use a route number to search for a combining routes thread, use I-44 or I-64, as they’re the most commonly suggested ones for some reason.
In regards to I-44 and I-64, while they do connect in St. Louis, I feel the overall trajectories of each highway are different enough to merit (retain) separate numbering.
That's my general concieus too. I-44 is a diagonal SW-NE route, while I-64 is mostly straight, with a NW-SE (opposite of I-44's trajectory) between Richmond and the Hampton Roads. That's why I didn't combine those two routes together in my fictional interstates thread in my sig.
Meanwhile for I-29 and I-49 at the other side of the state, I combined them as a single I-45.
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on March 19, 2021, 09:55:23 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 19, 2021, 09:10:19 AM
Don't we have at least 15 of this thread topic in fictional already?
I actually took this into consideration. Looked up "CO-21", but there were no matching threads.
Why didn't you put this one in Fictional too, then?
How many times have we talked about this?
Quote from: kenarmy on March 19, 2021, 10:31:33 AM
- US 212 and US 8
This may have been sensible when they were at their full extents, but as they presently constitute it doesn't make sense to do this anymore.
One I've seen from Steve Riner is MN 15 and MN 371.
Mine:
MN 72 and MN 46
MN 58 and MN 57
US 72 and US 76
I-5 and I-95
69E, 69C, and 69W
MA 40 and MA 133
MA 60 and MA 117
I-180 (WY) and /dev/null
Is there a reasonable way connect MA 114 and NH 114? Maybe via current NH 128?
US 32 and US 38. Oh, wait, they did. As US 6 :spin:.
Quote from: kenarmy on March 19, 2021, 10:31:33 AM
- US 89 and AZ 87 (it could dog leg over there somehow)
Coconino County Hwy 3 (formerly Forest Hwy 3), better known as Lake Mary Rd., connects I-17 in Flagstaff to AZ 87. It would require new ramps to I-40 to link with US 89 at Country Club Dr (US 180) as well as having ADOT take over maintenance on CH 3.
By "merged," do you mean continuing a route as one number as opposed to two separate numbers, or do you mean two numbers running concurrently that should only be one number (a useless concurrency, like the southern end of US 319 that is totally concurrent with US 98)?
US 33 and VA 33. Seriously, why does the latter even exist? If I were VDOT, I would just make the whole thing US 33.
Same thing with US 15 and NY 15, US 3 and MA 3 - you get the idea. Just have the US route take over the whole road.
US 18 and M-46.
The idea: have US 18 cross Lake Michigan via ferry like US 10 already does. From its current eastern terminus on Michigan Street in Milwaukee, US 18 would be extended down I-794/Lake Parkway to the Port of Milwaukee exit; from there, it would follow the car ferry across the lake to Muskegon. Once it comes ashore there, US 18 would then follow Lakeshore Drive, Laketon Avenue, Seaway Drive, Muskegon Avenue, and Apple Avenue to the current western terminus of M-46; east of there, US 18 would replace M-46 across the state, ending in Port Sanilac at M-25 along the shore of Lake Huron. (Of course, US 18 could also be extended south from there to Port Huron and have its eastern terminus at the same spot as I-69 and I-94, taking over the southernmost segment of M-25 in the process.)
Michigan users, what do you think of this idea?
US 33 and US 131, for the only reason of removing an almost intrastate US route.
M-46 and M-82. The western end of M-46 becomes an extension of M-57.
Quote from: KCRoadFan on March 20, 2021, 09:48:36 PM
US 33 and VA 33. Seriously, why does the latter even exist? If I were VDOT, I would just make the whole thing US 33.
Same thing with US 15 and NY 15, US 3 and MA 3 - you get the idea. Just have the US route take over the whole road.
Because the US route wasn't approved for the whole thing and the state's wanted an extension of the route so it becomes a state highway.
In Iowa, the obvious merger candidates are IA 39 and IA 471. I don't know why when US 71 was rerouted they just didn't extend IA 39. It's only 5 miles from the end of IA 39 to the end of IA 471. I also wonder why IA 23 and IA 78 aren't merged.
I've probably mentioned this in another similar thread, but ...
M-117 and the western leg of M-123. (Possibly extend the eastern leg of M-123 from Paradise to Whitefish Point.)
As far as US-18 crossing Lake Michigan, what benefit does it give for long-distance travel? Anyone with a destination more than a few miles from Lake Michigan, say 25 or so, would probably benefit from going around the lake rather than waiting for (and paying for) the ferry. This may be heresy, but I also think the Badger still being a part of US-10 is more for historical reasons rather than practical reasons.
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on March 19, 2021, 09:09:26 AM
I'll go first: CO-16 and CO-21 in Colorado Springs.
And then merge CO83 onto that too.
Chris
Another MN one, MN 210 and MN 39
Hot take I've heard from more than a few (I don't want this, but OK :P ): MN 23 and MN 61
FL 655 and FL 620. Heading southbound along Recker Hwy, FL 655 magically changes to FL 620 at Lake Shipp Drive before ending at FL 540 a short distance later.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on March 22, 2021, 04:58:01 PM
Hot take I've heard from more than a few (I don't want this, but OK :P ): MN 23 and MN 61
Hotter take: US 61 and MN 61 :)
Though if MN 23 and 61 gets merged, I think that would be the longest route in the state, at just under 500 miles.
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 19, 2021, 11:07:07 AM
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on March 19, 2021, 11:02:48 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 19, 2021, 10:06:03 AM
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on March 19, 2021, 09:55:23 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 19, 2021, 09:10:19 AM
Don't we have at least 15 of this thread topic in fictional already?
I actually took this into consideration. Looked up "CO-21", but there were no matching threads.
Most Colorado posters here use "˜SH-XX' for their state routes. If you're going to use a route number to search for a combining routes thread, use I-44 or I-64, as they're the most commonly suggested ones for some reason.
In regards to I-44 and I-64, while they do connect in St. Louis, I feel the overall trajectories of each highway are different enough to merit (retain) separate numbering.
That's my general concieus too. I-44 is a diagonal SW-NE route, while I-64 is mostly straight, with a NW-SE (opposite of I-44's trajectory) between Richmond and the Hampton Roads. That's why I didn't combine those two routes together in my fictional interstates thread in my sig.
Meanwhile for I-29 and I-49 at the other side of the state, I combined them as a single I-45.
What would you do with the I-45 that connects Houston to Dallas and Galveston?
I-17 and I-19 are two worthy candidates for merging, with an I-10 concurrency in the middle.
IN 15 (except for the far southern stub) and the middle section of IN 37 should be merged.
IN 2 and IN 120 should be merged via a US 20 concurrency
IN 327 and IN 205 should be merged
CT 14 extended along CT 66 (and through Meriden on East/West Main St), the E/W portion of CT 322, through Wolcott and Waterbury on Meriden Rd, East/West Main St and Chase Parkway, CT 64, a wrong-way concurrency with US 6, CT 317, and CT 133.
CT 21 and CT 193 as an extended CT 193. That way, you could free up the 21 number to repurpose for CT 286 and CT/MA 186 and add the 21 number to Elm St, Cooley St, and Parker St to MA 21.
CT 82 and CT 165. RI could renumber RI 165 to RI 82.
CT 27 and CT 201
CT 49 and CT/RI 78 via a brief concurrency with CT 2
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on March 23, 2021, 10:52:03 AM
CT 14 extended along CT 66 (and through Meriden on East/West Main St), the E/W portion of CT 322, through Wolcott and Waterbury on Meriden Rd, East/West Main St and Chase Parkway, CT 64, a wrong-way concurrency with US 6, CT 317, and CT 133.
CT 21 and CT 193 as an extended CT 193. That way, you could free up the 21 number to repurpose for CT 286 and CT/MA 186 and add the 21 number to Elm St, Cooley St, and Parker St to MA 21.
CT 82 and CT 165. RI could renumber RI 165 to RI 82.
CT 27 and CT 201
CT 49 and CT/RI 78 via a brief concurrency with CT 2
Yes, to all these. (Based on the "route changes" spreadsheet, it looks like ConnDOT wanted to absorb CT 21 into 193 just as you propose.)
I'd also:
* extend CT 190 along CT 171 to Putnam (leftover 171 in Union can be an SR)
* extend CT 61 south to CT 64, then take over CT 188 south to 34
* 138 along 207 and 16 to East Hampton
US 222 and PA 222. It's kind of useless to have a federal highway continue as a state highway just to end at a lowly state route. It doesn't even traverse the whole valley!
Quote from: Henry on March 23, 2021, 10:26:10 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 19, 2021, 11:07:07 AM
That's my general concieus too. I-44 is a diagonal SW-NE route, while I-64 is mostly straight, with a NW-SE (opposite of I-44's trajectory) between Richmond and the Hampton Roads. That's why I didn't combine those two routes together in my fictional interstates thread in my sig.
Meanwhile for I-29 and I-49 at the other side of the state, I combined them as a single I-45.
What would you do with the I-45 that connects Houston to Dallas and Galveston?
It's in my fictional compilation thread. Current I-45 becomes I-41, and current I-41 becomes an I-65 extension, with current I-94 broken up into multiple segments. Also renumbered the whole upper midwest and Texas N-S grid as part of it. Since combining route numbers 99.9999% of the time won't happen in real life, regardless how simple it is (like my OH 16 and OH 161 swap idea west of Granville), might as well go a bit deeper than looking at the two routes.
Speaking of fictional, I'm surprised that this thread has been up for 4 days with 38 replies, and haven't been moved to fictional yet.
Australia highway 1 is a route that goes around the whole country, if the US did the same it could make such a route out of I-5, I-10, I-95, I-90, and I-94.
Another one: FL 33 and FL 37. FL 33's south end and FL 37's north end are about a half mile apart.
Ohio 31 and Ohio 38 end at each other in downtown Marysville, Ohio. Ohio 31 was truncated there when Ohio 4 took over its route southwest of Marysville in 1926.
Another possible extension could have Ohio 53 take over both routes. Ohio 53 and Ohio 31 are co-signed through downtown and both end at US 68 in Kenton (57 on the south side and 31 on the north). US 68 took over Ohio 31 north of Kenton and Ohio 53 south of Kenton when it was extended to Ohio in 1933.
Quote from: zzcarp on March 24, 2021, 12:25:21 AM
Ohio 31 and Ohio 38 end at each other in downtown Marysville, Ohio. Ohio 31 was truncated there when Ohio 4 took over its route southwest of Marysville in 1926.
Another possible extension could have Ohio 53 take over both routes. Ohio 53 and Ohio 31 are co-signed through downtown and both end at US 68 in Kenton (57 on the south side and 31 on the north). US 68 took over Ohio 31 north of Kenton and Ohio 53 south of Kenton when it was extended to Ohio in 1933.
Ohio have a lot of state routes that end close to each other that could be combined. A full list would take a long time to make out. Here are some in the Cincinnati area I can think of
OH 63 and OH 350. Could be connected on an approx 3.7 mile long concurrency with OH 123.
OH 125 and OH 561. Those two routes, along with OH 32 share the same terminus at US 50. OH 125 is pretty much a SE-NW routing at that point, and it can be continued on OH 561's SE-NW routing.
OH 126 and OH 131. Originally thought of OH 126 and OH 28, but OH 28's SW-NE routing doesn't really fit with OH 126's NW-SE routing.
US 72 and US 76.
US 130 and US 301.
US 113 and US 202.
CA 72, the eastern end of CA 90, and CA 142. Relinquish the mile or of CA 90 east of CA 142 that isn't already relinquished to Brea and Placentia.
KY SR 79 and US 79
US 76 and US 72
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 23, 2021, 10:01:51 AM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on March 22, 2021, 04:58:01 PM
Hot take I've heard from more than a few (I don't want this, but OK :P ): MN 23 and MN 61
Hotter take: US 61 and MN 61 :)
Though if MN 23 and 61 gets merged, I think that would be the longest route in the state, at just under 500 miles.
The thing there is that MN-61 use to be US-61 until it was scaled back to Wyoming and the former route became I-35 and a state highway with the same number (MN-61). Then there's Ontario Highway 61 that goes from the border to Thunder Bay. I think it should have stayed US-61.
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 24, 2021, 07:52:32 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 23, 2021, 10:01:51 AM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on March 22, 2021, 04:58:01 PM
Hot take I've heard from more than a few (I don't want this, but OK :P ): MN 23 and MN 61
Hotter take: US 61 and MN 61 :)
Though if MN 23 and 61 gets merged, I think that would be the longest route in the state, at just under 500 miles.
The thing there is that MN-61 use to be US-61 until it was scaled back to Wyoming and the former route became I-35 and a state highway with the same number (MN-61). Then there's Ontario Highway 61 that goes from the border to Thunder Bay. I think it should have stayed US-61.
I still think US 61 is the most unnecessary US route truncation out there. Most of the California E-W ones make sense, as the route ends in the state and shares the same path as an interstate the whole way through. US 61 have a significant path north of Duluth that US 35 doesn't cover, and it's only about 120 miles from current 61's northern terminus to I-35's northern terminus in Duluth.
US 65 makes sense as it ended at Minneapolis and it's mostly with I-35 between Albert Lea and Minneapolis
I wouldn't be surprised if MN attempted to work with North Dakota to truncate US 52 at St Paul before either.
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 24, 2021, 08:13:39 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 24, 2021, 07:52:32 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 23, 2021, 10:01:51 AM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on March 22, 2021, 04:58:01 PM
Hot take I've heard from more than a few (I don't want this, but OK :P ): MN 23 and MN 61
Hotter take: US 61 and MN 61 :)
Though if MN 23 and 61 gets merged, I think that would be the longest route in the state, at just under 500 miles.
The thing there is that MN-61 use to be US-61 until it was scaled back to Wyoming and the former route became I-35 and a state highway with the same number (MN-61). Then there's Ontario Highway 61 that goes from the border to Thunder Bay. I think it should have stayed US-61.
I still think US 61 is the most unnecessary US route truncation out there. Most of the California E-W ones make sense, as the route ends in the state and shares the same path as an interstate the whole way through. US 61 have a significant path north of Duluth that US 35 doesn't cover, and it's only about 120 miles from current 61's northern terminus to I-35's northern terminus in Duluth.
I wouldn't be surprised if MN attempted to work with North Dakota to truncate US 52 at St Paul before either.
No reason the ND portion of 52 can't be an extension of 10 to make a shorter concurrency.
Yes seems odd for 61 since they generally like US routes to touch the border. Explain why 85 exists in El Paso, or even 62, or US 57 in texas, yet 61 is a state highway now?
Quote from: texaskdog on March 24, 2021, 09:03:50 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 24, 2021, 08:13:39 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 24, 2021, 07:52:32 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 23, 2021, 10:01:51 AM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on March 22, 2021, 04:58:01 PM
Hot take I've heard from more than a few (I don't want this, but OK :P ): MN 23 and MN 61
Hotter take: US 61 and MN 61 :)
Though if MN 23 and 61 gets merged, I think that would be the longest route in the state, at just under 500 miles.
The thing there is that MN-61 use to be US-61 until it was scaled back to Wyoming and the former route became I-35 and a state highway with the same number (MN-61). Then there's Ontario Highway 61 that goes from the border to Thunder Bay. I think it should have stayed US-61.
I still think US 61 is the most unnecessary US route truncation out there. Most of the California E-W ones make sense, as the route ends in the state and shares the same path as an interstate the whole way through. US 61 have a significant path north of Duluth that US 35 doesn't cover, and it's only about 120 miles from current 61's northern terminus to I-35's northern terminus in Duluth.
I wouldn't be surprised if MN attempted to work with North Dakota to truncate US 52 at St Paul before either.
No reason the ND portion of 52 can't be an extension of 10 to make a shorter concurrency.
Yes seems odd for 61 since they generally like US routes to touch the border. Explain why 85 exists in El Paso, or even 62, or US 57 in texas, yet 61 is a state highway now?
I think TXDOT just has a thing for US 85, and they probably won't be getting rid of it either since they rerouted it recently :D. Otherwise, 85 would probably not even make it to Denver. 57 is just, well, it's 57. 62 doesn't really need to be truncated, it's 180 that deserves the axe
Quote from: kenarmy on March 24, 2021, 09:35:35 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on March 24, 2021, 09:03:50 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 24, 2021, 08:13:39 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 24, 2021, 07:52:32 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 23, 2021, 10:01:51 AM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on March 22, 2021, 04:58:01 PM
Hot take I've heard from more than a few (I don't want this, but OK :P ): MN 23 and MN 61
Hotter take: US 61 and MN 61 :)
Though if MN 23 and 61 gets merged, I think that would be the longest route in the state, at just under 500 miles.
The thing there is that MN-61 use to be US-61 until it was scaled back to Wyoming and the former route became I-35 and a state highway with the same number (MN-61). Then there's Ontario Highway 61 that goes from the border to Thunder Bay. I think it should have stayed US-61.
I still think US 61 is the most unnecessary US route truncation out there. Most of the California E-W ones make sense, as the route ends in the state and shares the same path as an interstate the whole way through. US 61 have a significant path north of Duluth that US 35 doesn't cover, and it's only about 120 miles from current 61's northern terminus to I-35's northern terminus in Duluth.
I wouldn't be surprised if MN attempted to work with North Dakota to truncate US 52 at St Paul before either.
No reason the ND portion of 52 can't be an extension of 10 to make a shorter concurrency.
Yes seems odd for 61 since they generally like US routes to touch the border. Explain why 85 exists in El Paso, or even 62, or US 57 in texas, yet 61 is a state highway now?
I think TXDOT just has a thing for US 85, and they probably won't be getting rid of it either since they rerouted it recently :D. Otherwise, 85 would probably not even make it to Denver. 57 is just, well, it's 57. 62 doesn't really need to be truncated, it's 180 that deserves the axe
I think 180 should be an extension of 80. 62 has many unnecessary parts before it gets to 180.
I mentioned this upthread, but are there any other examples out there where there are three numbered highways that terminate consecutively such as CO16, CO21, and CO83? (i.e. two instances of End XX, Begin XX)
Chris
Quote from: roadman65 on March 24, 2021, 01:54:45 AM
US 72 and US 76.
US 130 and US 301.
US 113 and US 202.
I think 202 and 301 combined as 301 would make some sense.
In the 1930s, NJ floated combining 113 and 130 into a longer 113.
Quote from: Mapmikey on March 24, 2021, 11:08:12 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 24, 2021, 01:54:45 AM
US 72 and US 76.
US 130 and US 301.
US 113 and US 202.
I think 202 and 301 combined as 301 would make some sense.
In the 1930s, NJ floated combining 113 and 130 into a longer 113.
My idea with 202 is to reroute 13 north of Wilmington onto US 202 up to Haverstraw, NY, and have 301 multiplex with DE 1 and 13(/40) up to Wilmington and take over current US 13 to Morrisville. Yes, you would have violations in NJ in NY having a US route and a state route with the same number. But NJ 13 is less than a mile long (DECOMMISSION IT!!), and like NY 2 and US 2, they're far enough from each other not to cause confusion. North of Haverstraw, US 202 is mostly multiplexed, but to fill the gaps:
Extend NY 116 and NY 100
Extend CT 53 to Brookfield, then re-extend CT 25 to US 44 in Canton (as it was 1961-1974)
US 202 would start at US 20 in Westfield, MA (I'd suggest starting it where it splits from MA 10, but I extended it to connect to another US route, plus you'd have a neat fact in that it connects US 20 and US 2).
Quote from: jayhawkco on March 24, 2021, 10:41:25 AM
I mentioned this upthread, but are there any other examples out there where there are three numbered highways that terminate consecutively such as CO16, CO21, and CO83? (i.e. two instances of End XX, Begin XX)
Chris
OH-32, OH-125, and OH-561. 32 used to end at 125, but now it is needlessly concurrent with 125 until they hit US-50, where they both end and 561 begins. Someone above suggested renumbering one of these. I would renumber 561 as 125 and have 32's western terminus moved back to where it hits 125.
I-494 and I-694 in the Twin Cities. They even merge 694 with 94 just to make it continuous. Most cities have a one-numbered beltway.
Quote from: texaskdog on March 24, 2021, 01:26:55 PM
I-494 and I-694 in the Twin Cities. They even merge 694 with 94 just to make it continuous. Most cities have a one-numbered beltway.
I-255 and I-270 around St Louis :wave:
Quote from: texaskdog on March 24, 2021, 01:26:55 PM
I-494 and I-694 in the Twin Cities. They even merge 694 with 94 just to make it continuous. Most cities have a one-numbered beltway.
Not sure if I would want to merge them, but would like it if their exit numbers are separate from each other to not make it seem like it's not sure if it's a single beltway or two partial beltways. Both exit numbers would start at their west end with I-94, after removing I-694's concurrency with its parent, and increase eastward.
California once had a few examples of this in the past that were changed over very quickly (old Route 243/I-605 near Irwindale, Route 109/I-8 in San Diego, 133/231 in Orange County).
I get why Route 17 was never renumbered to state route 880 when the north portion became I-880, but really the whole road functions as one through corridor and I don't think there should be an exit number reset at I-280.
I-980 really could (and should) be applied to all of the remainder of Route 24, now that 24 has a full 8 lanes at the Caldecott Tunnel.
Near Long Beach, if 47 never gets signed on Alameda Street, not sure why 103/47 should be two separate routes. (But only in that specific circumstance; if 47 does get signed north of Henry Ford Avenue then the current configuration is fine as is).
164 has never been signed so that designation shouldn't exist and 19 (which has been signed along it the whole time) legislatively restored to that portion of its route.
213/258 corridor is essentially one route along Western Avenue, though none of the 258 portion will ever be built.
Quote from: ilpt4u on March 24, 2021, 02:58:26 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on March 24, 2021, 01:26:55 PM
I-494 and I-694 in the Twin Cities. They even merge 694 with 94 just to make it continuous. Most cities have a one-numbered beltway.
I-255 and I-270 around St Louis :wave:
I-696 and I-275 in Detroit
I-83 and I-97 via I-695 in MD.
I think I brought it up before, but US 175 really should be more of US 75, considering both routes end near each other.
Quote from: LilianaUwU on March 24, 2021, 06:08:54 PM
I think I brought it up before, but US 175 really should be more of US 75, considering both routes end near each other.
Good one as US 175 is a one state route.
CA-24 and I-980 (CA) should really be CA-24 all the way
One of my favorites US 85 and US 285. 85 essentially ends south of Denver but if you chopped a small piece, US 285 could be the rest of US 85.
Quote from: texaskdog on March 24, 2021, 09:03:50 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 24, 2021, 08:13:39 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 24, 2021, 07:52:32 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 23, 2021, 10:01:51 AM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on March 22, 2021, 04:58:01 PM
Hot take I've heard from more than a few (I don't want this, but OK :P ): MN 23 and MN 61
Hotter take: US 61 and MN 61 :)
Though if MN 23 and 61 gets merged, I think that would be the longest route in the state, at just under 500 miles.
The thing there is that MN-61 use to be US-61 until it was scaled back to Wyoming and the former route became I-35 and a state highway with the same number (MN-61). Then there's Ontario Highway 61 that goes from the border to Thunder Bay. I think it should have stayed US-61.
I still think US 61 is the most unnecessary US route truncation out there. Most of the California E-W ones make sense, as the route ends in the state and shares the same path as an interstate the whole way through. US 61 have a significant path north of Duluth that US 35 doesn't cover, and it's only about 120 miles from current 61's northern terminus to I-35's northern terminus in Duluth.
I wouldn't be surprised if MN attempted to work with North Dakota to truncate US 52 at St Paul before either.
No reason the ND portion of 52 can't be an extension of 10 to make a shorter concurrency.
Yes seems odd for 61 since they generally like US routes to touch the border. Explain why 85 exists in El Paso, or even 62, or US 57 in texas, yet 61 is a state highway now?
US-57 should probably be a state highway but it's an extension of Mexican Highway 57 that's why it has the number 57.
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 25, 2021, 07:55:21 AM
US-57 should probably be a state highway but it's an extension of Mexican Highway 57 that's why it has the number 57.
US-57 used to be TX-57, for a few years in the late 1960s. Nowadays, TX-57 is a 1½-mile stretch of Grande Blvd in Tyler–hardly deserving of a primary SH designation, if you ask me. So, if US-57 were removed, the road could still keep number continuity with Mexico if only that entirely-within-city-limits-and-not-really-a-primary-highway thing in Tyler were demoted or renumbered.
I-10 and I-12. Can we go back to suffixing again?
Quote from: tolbs17 on March 25, 2021, 09:11:30 PM
I-10 and I-12. Can we go back to suffixing again?
No. Suffixing with letters isn't a thing in Louisiana.
Speaking of my home state, I'm sure I can find plenty of examples with our thousands of state routes. It's a bit harder to limit it just to the routes that don't involve significant rerouting. One example that jumps to mind is LA 16 and LA 70 via a concurrency over LA 22.
PA Route 33 and Interstate 380.
PA Route 378 and PA Route 191.
Quote from: tolbs17 on March 25, 2021, 09:11:30 PM
I-10 and I-12. Can we go back to suffixing again?
Nah. I would replace the entirety of I-12 with I-10. Current I-10 between I-12 at Baton Rouge and I-55 at Laplace becomes I-710. I-55 takes over I-10 between Laplace and downtown New Orleans. I-59 takes over the rest of I-10 between NOLA and Slidell.
Edit: that would also mean renumbering I-510 and I-610. I-510 becomes I-159 and I-610 becomes I-559, which makes sense because I-559 would connect I-55 and I-59.
Quote from: thspfc on March 26, 2021, 01:11:19 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on March 25, 2021, 09:11:30 PM
I-10 and I-12. Can we go back to suffixing again?
Nah. I would replace the entirety of I-12 with I-10. Current I-10 between I-12 at Baton Rouge and I-55 at Laplace becomes I-710. I-55 takes over I-10 between Laplace and downtown New Orleans. I-59 takes over the rest of I-10 between NOLA and Slidell.
Edit: that would also mean renumbering I-510 and I-610. I-510 becomes I-159 and I-610 becomes I-559, which makes sense because I-559 would connect I-55 and I-59.
Wouldn't I-810 make more sense than I-710, as it connects two interstates? Similar issue regarding I-559; while logical, I doubt AASHTO would approve of that.
Another one I forgot to bring up is QC-265 and QC-267, because they end 650 meters away from each other. (https://goo.gl/maps/8LBqXKpBwMf7drtC9)
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on March 28, 2021, 07:50:06 AM
Quote from: thspfc on March 26, 2021, 01:11:19 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on March 25, 2021, 09:11:30 PM
I-10 and I-12. Can we go back to suffixing again?
Nah. I would replace the entirety of I-12 with I-10. Current I-10 between I-12 at Baton Rouge and I-55 at Laplace becomes I-710. I-55 takes over I-10 between Laplace and downtown New Orleans. I-59 takes over the rest of I-10 between NOLA and Slidell.
Edit: that would also mean renumbering I-510 and I-610. I-510 becomes I-159 and I-610 becomes I-559, which makes sense because I-559 would connect I-55 and I-59.
Wouldn't I-810 make more sense than I-710, as it connects two interstates? Similar issue regarding I-559; while logical, I doubt AASHTO would approve of that.
Doesn't matter, since any idea of renumbering or extending every interstate in southeast Louisiana is fantasy land.
Quote from: ilpt4u on March 19, 2021, 10:39:45 AM
US 641, KY 91, Cave-in-Rock Ferry, IL 1
I actually love this idea. I assume to make it all US 641. I would have it go straight up IL 1, IL 394, I-94, Stony Island Ave and Cornell Dr to end at Lake Shore Dr (US 41) at 57th Dr right by the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago.
Quote from: hobsini2 on March 29, 2021, 02:43:16 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on March 19, 2021, 10:39:45 AM
US 641, KY 91, Cave-in-Rock Ferry, IL 1
I actually love this idea. I assume to make it all US 641. I would have it go straight up IL 1, IL 394, I-94, Stony Island Ave and Cornell Dr to end at Lake Shore Dr (US 41) at 57th Dr right by the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago.
That is one of my potential Chicagoland routings to get US 641 (back) to US 41, and probably my favorite
Other possibilities:
-Go up IL 394, enter 80/94 EB into Indiana and cross the border to the Calumet Ave/US 41 exit
-Go up IL 394, enter the Tri-State/I-294 NB, and follow the Tri-State to its Northern terminus where US 41/I-41 joins I-94
-Go up IL 1, keep US 641 signed on Halsted St, then Clarendon Ave in Chicago to its termination at Lawrence, then over to US 41/LSD there
-Go up IL 394, then follow I-94 via the Bishop Ford, Dan Ryan, Kennedy, Edens until Skokie Blvd/US 41 joins the Edens
I-49 and I-29 into I-49