I was driving along MD 295 the other day and I realized it was the only highway I know of owned by the National Park Service. Does anyone possibly know of any others?
US 212 from the Yellowstone entrance to the eastern Montana entrance is maintained by either the forest service or the NPS- as a result there's lots of old signs along the route
Quote from: kj3400 on July 20, 2010, 02:44:53 PM
I was driving along MD 295 the other day and I realized it was the only highway I know of owned by the National Park Service. Does anyone possibly know of any others?
Of course, the part of the Baltimore-Washington Parkway south of MD 175 technically isn't part of MD 295, nor is it signed as such (except perhaps some stray "To MD 295" signs).
Certainly NPS owns/maintains a number of highways, including several in the D.C. area. But highways
signed with route numbers might be another, more challenging story. Usually when a numbered highway enters a national park, either there's a gap in the numbered route, or state ownership and maintenance continues through the park (as with HI 11 through Hawaii Volcanoes National Park).
There are a few other parkways maintained by the NPS which are not inside larger National Parks. The Blue Ridge Parkway in North Carolina and Virginia, the Colonial Parkway from Jamestown through Williamsburg to Yorktown and the Natchez Trace in Mississippi, Alabama and Tennessee are examples.
The Colonial Parkway is actually inside a larger national park. Namely, the Colonial National Historical Park, though there are a few stretches of the Parkway near the Yorktown Naval Weapons Station and Colonial Williamsburg where the national park consists solely of the road's right-of-way.
Quote from: oscar on July 20, 2010, 03:48:14 PM
Quote from: kj3400 on July 20, 2010, 02:44:53 PM
I was driving along MD 295 the other day and I realized it was the only highway I know of owned by the National Park Service. Does anyone possibly know of any others?
Of course, the part of the Baltimore-Washington Parkway south of MD 175 technically isn't part of MD 295, nor is it signed as such (except perhaps some stray "To MD 295" signs).
My understanding is that technically, the entire highway is MD 295, but the part owned by the National Park Service is not signed as such to distinguish maintenance.
Quote from: AlpsROADS on July 20, 2010, 06:58:19 PM
the part owned by the National Park Service is not signed as such to distinguish maintenance.
that's dumb as Hell. sounds like California 178 through Death Valley - 79 miles between reassurance markers, guide signs, or any other indication that yes, you are still on 178. Why, because this section of 178 is maintained by Government Bureau X, instead of Government Bureau Y, and we all know my half my tax dollars are a different shade of green than the other half.
The utter lack of guidance is not a whole lot of fun at 1am on a moonless night when you know you have enough gas to make it to Shoshone but not a whole lot more than that, especially when the road is kind of a U-shaped arc, so you can't just think to yourself "head due south and you should be okay".
Oscar/Steve/et al: SHA considers the Baltimore-Washington Parkway all the way down to US 50 as part of MD 295, with the short leg of Kenilworth Ave between US 50 and Eastern Ave (DC line) being part of MD 201.
Jake: as I'm sure you've noticed, the NPS really follows a different standard than the state DOTs do. You (and likely others) may not agree with it, but that's the way it is.
Back on topic, VDOT considers the Blue Ridge Parkway and Skyline Drive as part of VA 48 for right-of-way purposes.
Quote from: froggie on July 20, 2010, 09:23:34 PM
Jake: as I'm sure you've noticed, the NPS really follows a different standard than the state DOTs do. You (and likely others) may not agree with it, but that's the way it is.
I think this goes beyond a simple "disagreement", say regarding Highway Gothic vs. Clearview. This is fundamental to the purposes of highway number markers and guide signs being an implement for navigation, not just pretty roadside decorations.
Try telling the NPS that. All NP's I have visited (Recently as in since 2000) only have signs at intersections, never along the road (Yosemite, KC/Sequoia, Rocky Mtn) all maintained by the NPS or its affiliates and using NPS fonts. No State DOT markers exist whatsoever. They also indicate (in an indirect manner) that this is a "To" sign, an indication of a "gap"
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 20, 2010, 09:26:05 PM
Quote from: froggie on July 20, 2010, 09:23:34 PM
Jake: as I'm sure you've noticed, the NPS really follows a different standard than the state DOTs do. You (and likely others) may not agree with it, but that's the way it is.
I think this goes beyond a simple "disagreement", say regarding Highway Gothic vs. Clearview. This is fundamental to the purposes of highway number markers and guide signs being an implement for navigation, not just pretty roadside decorations.
I have to agree because the solution would be so simple. The route is marked by name everywhere but MD 295 shields end at MD 175. Even when state maintenance ends, Baltimore City signs the route as MD 295. The city is hurting so much, they have to weld together span wire for traffic signals because a new strand of wire would be too costly or they use electrical tape to fix a signal's lens. They understand the importance of the route name and number and have made signs for state and US routes within the city for years. All MDSHA would have to do is sign the route as 295 at their interchanges with the federal portion such as at MD 198, MD 197, I-495 etc. Only slacker would be NPS and those would be reassurance markers. Oh well.
US 441 through the Great Smoky Mountains National Park in Tennessee and North Carolina is maintained by the NPS.
Quote from: codyg1985 on July 21, 2010, 11:06:27 AM
US 441 through the Great Smoky Mountains National Park in Tennessee and North Carolina is maintained by the NPS.
There are no trailblazers or reassurance shields inside the park. The only references to US 441 are signs showing TO US 441 at the Blue Ridge Parkway and the Gatlinburg Bypass.
Quote from: Master son on July 21, 2010, 09:11:37 AM
Try telling the NPS that. All NP's I have visited (Recently as in since 2000) only have signs at intersections, never along the road (Yosemite, KC/Sequoia, Rocky Mtn) all maintained by the NPS or its affiliates and using NPS fonts. No State DOT markers exist whatsoever. They also indicate (in an indirect manner) that this is a "To" sign, an indication of a "gap"
According to ODOT, OR 62 officially traverses through Crater Lake NP.
Quote from: Steven Reed, ODOT6.) OR62 at Crater Lake Park:
The route is designated at the state level, all the way through the park. However, the highway inside the park is federal jurisdiction. I do not know if signs inside the park refer to the Oregon route. I do remember that other types of signs are quite different from what is employed on adjacent state highway segments.
I'm not sure really how the maintenance works on US-177 through the Chickasaw National Recreation Area, but it (and OK 18A which it spurs off in the park) has full route signage while still having NPS brown guide signage. Maybe ODOT insisted on it, or raided the park and posted the damn things themselves.
There's an interesting stretch of I-93 through the White Mountains National Forest in NH that's owned by the US Forest Service. It goes down to 1 lane in each direction. It's been a while since I was there, but I remember the signs on the side roads at the interchanges indicating that it's I-93 still, but the reassurance markers on that stretch of highway say To I-93.
Quote from: realjd on July 23, 2010, 10:08:44 AM
There's an interesting stretch of I-93 through the White Mountains National Forest in NH that's owned by the US Forest Service. It goes down to 1 lane in each direction. It's been a while since I was there, but I remember the signs on the side roads at the interchanges indicating that it's I-93 still, but the reassurance markers on that stretch of highway say To I-93.
Aren't one laned interstates prohibited? Or does the NPS get to do what it wants with the amount of lanes on the road?
it's pretty inconsistently signed whether it's I-93 or TO I-93. There is a brown guide sign on the mainline where the word "TO" is clearly missing, for instance.
two-lane interstates are technically prohibited. they used to be a lot more common. but given the violations of I-99 (porky numbering), I-70 and I-180 (traffic lights), and I-710 and I-95 (doesn't exist), the fact that an infrequently-used road through a national park has only one lane of travel isn't particularly outrageous. I-278 is a much more blatantly bad example of one-lane interstate.
Quote from: realjd on July 23, 2010, 10:08:44 AM
There's an interesting stretch of I-93 through the White Mountains National Forest in NH that's owned by the US Forest Service. It goes down to 1 lane in each direction. It's been a while since I was there, but I remember the signs on the side roads at the interchanges indicating that it's I-93 still, but the reassurance markers on that stretch of highway say To I-93.
I think this is actually through Franconia Notch
State Park. There was a lot of controversy about routing a 4-lane freeway through the scenic area, and the "parkway" was the end result. I thought the "TO I-93" signage was silly; even without 4 lanes it's still controlled access, and it's effectively I-93.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 11, 2010, 03:07:49 PM
but given the violations of I-99 (porky numbering), I-70 and I-180 (traffic lights)
Doesn't I-78 east of Route 139 in Jersey City qualify for the latter? :-D
Quote from: TheStranger on August 11, 2010, 04:18:05 PM
Doesn't I-78 east of Route 139 in Jersey City qualify for the latter? :-D
I keep forgetting that I-78 ends as a surface street at the tunnel. I'm surprised that when they truncated it, they didn't truncate the extra few miles to keep it all freeway.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 11, 2010, 04:21:48 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on August 11, 2010, 04:18:05 PM
Doesn't I-78 east of Route 139 in Jersey City qualify for the latter? :-D
I keep forgetting that I-78 ends as a surface street at the tunnel. I'm surprised that when they truncated it, they didn't truncate the extra few miles to keep it all freeway.
Considering that NYCDOT still thinks of 495 west of the BQE as an Interstate... ;)
Honestly though, it isn't as if there really was a better designation for the tunnel, with Business Spur 1/9 already having been truncated.
Quote from: TheStranger on August 11, 2010, 04:48:56 PM
Considering that NYCDOT still thinks of 495 west of the BQE as an Interstate... ;)
hell, it's signed heading into the Lincoln Tunnel!
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/NY/NY19884952i2.jpg)
that last leg of 78 would be served quite well as New Jersey state route 78.
Haha - yeah I have a snapshot of a shield like that too on the Joe DiMaggio Hwy (NY 5A) - haven't uploaded it yet.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 11, 2010, 04:59:13 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on August 11, 2010, 04:48:56 PM
Considering that NYCDOT still thinks of 495 west of the BQE as an Interstate... ;)
hell, it's signed heading into the Lincoln Tunnel!
www.aaroads.com/shields/img/NY/NY19884952i2.jpg
I do recall 34th Street in Manhattan having at least one 1960s I-495 shield (I THINK a To 495) going westbound, back in 1998! Honestly, a surface street NY 495 between the Queens-Midtown and Lincoln wouldn't be such a bad idea, and some late-90s atlases even showed that along 34th.
Jeff Royston got a photo of it for us.
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/NY/NY19724951i1.jpg)
Dec '98.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 12, 2010, 03:07:13 PM
Jeff Royston got a photo of it for us.
www.aaroads.com/shields/img/NY/NY19724951i1.jpg
Dec '98.
Series E digits! How many states used Series E shield digits for Interstates on a regular basis?
Seems like they're mostly found on newer US route shields the most.
Quote from: TheStranger on August 12, 2010, 03:21:59 PM
Series E digits! How many states used Series E shield digits for Interstates on a regular basis?
A lot of states in the 40s-60s used the entire set of widths, A-F, for various digit quantities. For example, a 1961 Indiana MUTCD that I have a scan of specifies Series A for three-digit US and state route shields, and Series F for one-digit.
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/IN/IN19550021i1.jpg)
Series E was specified for "one and a half digit" in a lot of places - a digit 1 and another digit. Indiana was not alone: Montana as well used it on US-10 and US-12 shields a lot.
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/MT/MT19550121i1.jpg)
as for interstates, I am trying to think of any consistent examples - it seems to show up most on I-10 shields (especially in Mississippi and California) and occasionally California I-5 and I-8. Again, fewer digits. I-495 is very unusual...
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 11, 2010, 04:21:48 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on August 11, 2010, 04:18:05 PM
Doesn't I-78 east of Route 139 in Jersey City qualify for the latter? :-D
I keep forgetting that I-78 ends as a surface street at the tunnel. I'm surprised that when they truncated it, they didn't truncate the extra few miles to keep it all freeway.
If memory serves, I-78 is designated into the Holland Tunnel and ends at surface streets on the Manhattan side. I believe there are signs on West Street showing I-78 shields.
US 206 and US 209 within the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area is under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service.
Quote from: TheStranger on August 12, 2010, 03:01:14 PM
Honestly, a surface street NY 495 between the Queens-Midtown and Lincoln wouldn't be such a bad idea, and some late-90s atlases even showed that along 34th.
Except that sections of surface street state highways in New York that are within a city are generally maintained by said city rather than by NYSDOT. So, a surface street designation entirely within the City of New York wouldn't serve much purpose. There aren't too many numbered state routes in the five boroughs (22, 25, 25A, and 27), all of them extend into the city from beyond its borders.
Then again, the NY 495 designation already exists pointlessly (albeit unsigned) on roadway maintained by the Port Authority, so why not?
If it is to be done, though, it will likely have to be a one-way couple on two streets other than 34th. NYCDOT has plans to convert 34th to one-way towards the rivers with bus lanes (http://www.nyc.gov/html/brt/html/next/34th_transit.shtml), and it will be unable to carry any numbered routes if that happens.
Quote from: Duke87 on August 12, 2010, 05:03:00 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on August 12, 2010, 03:01:14 PM
Honestly, a surface street NY 495 between the Queens-Midtown and Lincoln wouldn't be such a bad idea, and some late-90s atlases even showed that along 34th.
Except that sections of surface street state highways in New York that are within a city are generally maintained by said city rather than by NYSDOT. So, a surface street designation entirely within the City of New York wouldn't serve much purpose. There aren't too many numbered state routes in the five boroughs (22, 25, 25A, and 27), all of them extend into the city from beyond its borders.
Then again, the NY 495 designation already exists pointlessly (albeit unsigned) on roadway maintained by the Port Authority, so why not?
If it is to be done, though, it will likely have to be a one-way couple on two streets other than 34th. NYCDOT has plans to convert 34th to one-way towards the rivers with bus lanes (http://www.nyc.gov/html/brt/html/next/34th_transit.shtml), and it will be unable to carry any numbered routes if that happens.
Since the designation exists per se, at least it'd be a good way to create a naviable numbered route between the two tunnels (and IIRC, I don't think 34th is the most direct path between the two, despite the old TO 495 signs on it).