AARoads Forum

National Boards => General Highway Talk => Topic started by: hbelkins on September 02, 2025, 05:59:41 PM

Title: US routes that don't fit the numbering/direction convention
Post by: hbelkins on September 02, 2025, 05:59:41 PM
Has anyone ever tried to compile a list of even-numbered US routes that are signed north-south, or odd-numbered routes that are signed east-west?

Here's my attempt:

US 1 -- signed E-W in Connecticut
US 4 -- signed N-S in New York
US 24 -- signed N-S in Michigan
US 33 -- signed E-W in Ohio, West Virginia, and Virginia
US 35 -- signed E-W in Ohio
US 42 -- signed N-S in Ohio
US 52 -- signed N-S in several states
US 62 -- signed N-S in New York
US 68 -- signed N-S in Ohio
US 220 -- signed N-S for its entire length
US 250 -- signed N-S in West Virginia
US 258 -- signed N-S for its entire length
US 522 -- signed N-S for its entire length

What have I overlooked?
Title: Re: US routes that don't fit the numbering/direction convention
Post by: hotdogPi on September 02, 2025, 06:00:37 PM
US 202 varies by state
Title: Re: US routes that don't fit the numbering/direction convention
Post by: SkyPesos on September 02, 2025, 06:20:57 PM
For historical examples, anyone know if US 66 was signed north-south in Illinois? And US 6 in California?
Title: Re: US routes that don't fit the numbering/direction convention
Post by: freebrickproductions on September 02, 2025, 06:35:53 PM
Ain't US 98 signed North/South in part of Florida?
Title: Re: US routes that don't fit the numbering/direction convention
Post by: jp the roadgeek on September 02, 2025, 07:02:01 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 02, 2025, 05:59:41 PMUS 1 -- signed E-W in Connecticut


99% of all East-West signage has been changed to North-South.  A couple of stray remnants still exist in the wild.

US 62 is also signed North-South in PA
Title: Re: US routes that don't fit the numbering/direction convention
Post by: Mapmikey on September 02, 2025, 07:35:47 PM
More...

US 9 is E-W in DE
US 41 is E-W in south FL
US 175
US 178 is N-S in NC
US 218
US 550
Title: Re: US routes that don't fit the numbering/direction convention
Post by: Henry on September 02, 2025, 09:13:52 PM
US 83 goes E-W when it parallels the Rio Grande in TX.
US 96 goes N-S, and US 57 goes E-W.
I also think US 340 is signed N-S along most of its route.
Title: Re: US routes that don't fit the numbering/direction convention
Post by: Dirt Roads on September 02, 2025, 09:24:12 PM
Quote from: Henry on September 02, 2025, 09:13:52 PMI also think US 340 is signed N-S along most of its route.

Correct.  US-340 is posted as East/West for the 17-mile stretch in Maryland; the short east/west stretch in Loudoun County, Virginia is posted as North/South consistent with the remainder of the route up-and-down the Shenandoah Valley.
Title: Re: US routes that don't fit the numbering/direction convention
Post by: LilianaUwU on September 02, 2025, 09:52:49 PM
Quote from: Henry on September 02, 2025, 09:13:52 PMUS 57 goes E-W.
But AFAIK signage is N-S to match the Mexican highway of the same number.
Title: Re: US routes that don't fit the numbering/direction convention
Post by: Konza on September 03, 2025, 01:13:28 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on September 02, 2025, 06:20:57 PMFor historical examples, anyone know if US 66 was signed north-south in Illinois? And US 6 in California?

US 66 in Illinois was signed "ST. LOUIS" in the Chicago to St. Louis direction and "CHICAGO" in the St. Louis to Chicago direction.
Title: Re: US routes that don't fit the numbering/direction convention
Post by: usends on September 03, 2025, 08:16:11 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 02, 2025, 05:59:41 PMHas anyone ever tried to compile a list of even-numbered US routes that are signed north-south, or odd-numbered routes that are signed east-west?
If I understand correctly, that topic was discussed in this thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=26072.msg2461858#msg2461858).