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

EDIT September 6: I was aware even when I posted this originally that there is no rule for 3-digit US routes. I mentioned it because it's internally inconsistent, so whichever direction you pick as the "main" one, there are exceptions.
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).
Title: Re: US routes that don't fit the numbering/direction convention
Post by: -- US 175 -- on September 03, 2025, 12:13:57 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on September 02, 2025, 07:35:47 PMMore...

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


There was a brief time in the mid-1980s that US 175 was re-badged as N-S but I would guess that it was unpopular due to locals already knowing the route as E-W.  I never saw any news reports about it being done/undone.

(Seagoville, TX uses N-S for addressing on US 175.)
Title: Re: US routes that don't fit the numbering/direction convention
Post by: Mapmikey on September 03, 2025, 12:17:14 PM
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 122 was signed N-S
US 240 was signed N-S
US 299 was signed E-W
US 666 was signed N-S

Several more likely would've been signed opposite if they had direction banners:  original US 117, US 170, US 260, original US 411 are examples.
Title: Re: US routes that don't fit the numbering/direction convention
Post by: CtrlAltDel on September 03, 2025, 12:48:06 PM
US-101 changes from N-S to E-W in Washington before changing again to S-N.

Similarly, US-321 changes from N-S to S-N in Tennessee.
Title: Re: US routes that don't fit the numbering/direction convention
Post by: hbelkins on September 03, 2025, 12:56:56 PM
I've been on US 218, US 340, and US 550 and had meant to list them, but forgot.

Also, US 206 is signed N-S during its short run in Pennsylvania. I don't remember how the signage is over in New Jersey.
Title: Re: US routes that don't fit the numbering/direction convention
Post by: kphoger on September 03, 2025, 01:10:58 PM
Quote from: Henry on September 02, 2025, 09:13:52 PMUS 57 goes E-W.
Quote from: LilianaUwU on September 02, 2025, 09:52:49 PMBut AFAIK signage is N-S to match the Mexican highway of the same number.

Correct.  Or else, just, you know, forget the banners entirely (https://maps.app.goo.gl/WUgKkhA6EPxugFYs5)!
Title: Re: US routes that don't fit the numbering/direction convention
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on September 03, 2025, 01:14:12 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 03, 2025, 12:56:56 PMI've been on US 218, US 340, and US 550 and had meant to list them, but forgot.

Also, US 206 is signed N-S during its short run in Pennsylvania. I don't remember how the signage is over in New Jersey.

Also N-S.
Title: Re: US routes that don't fit the numbering/direction convention
Post by: fillup420 on September 03, 2025, 04:58:36 PM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on September 03, 2025, 12:48:06 PMUS-101 changes from N-S to E-W in Washington before changing again to S-N.

Similarly, US-321 changes from N-S to S-N in Tennessee.

i will never understand the routing of 321 north of Boone. It should just be truncated to US 421 in downtown Boone. The bit from 421 to 19E in Hampton can be state(s) route, as well as the "wrong way" bit south of Elizabethton.
Title: Re: US routes that don't fit the numbering/direction convention
Post by: GaryV on September 03, 2025, 05:06:13 PM
Does anyone remember how US-102 was signed. (Not from personal experience.)
Title: Re: US routes that don't fit the numbering/direction convention
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on September 03, 2025, 05:25:27 PM
Quote from: GaryV on September 03, 2025, 05:06:13 PMDoes anyone remember how US-102 was signed. (Not from personal experience.)


That early in the system's existence, the directions may not have been signed at all.
Title: Re: US routes that don't fit the numbering/direction convention
Post by: Bitmapped on September 03, 2025, 08:11:34 PM
Do the 3-digit routes really count? They're numbered that because they intersect a 2-digit parent. In most cases, I think the default assumption is that if you have a child route, it's going to run perpendicular to its parent. US 220 being north/south would be the expected behavior rather than an abnormality.
Title: Re: US routes that don't fit the numbering/direction convention
Post by: usends on September 03, 2025, 10:11:51 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on September 03, 2025, 08:11:34 PMDo the 3-digit routes really count? They're numbered that because they intersect a 2-digit parent. In most cases, I think the default assumption is that if you have a child route, it's going to run perpendicular to its parent. US 220 being north/south would be the expected behavior rather than an abnormality.
Actually the vast majority of 3dus run parallel to their parent (not perpendicular), as illustrated at the bottom of this page (https://www.usends.com/numbering.html).  US 220 is one of the few exceptions.
Title: Re: US routes that don't fit the numbering/direction convention
Post by: Kulerage on September 03, 2025, 10:27:16 PM
Still don't think 3dus highways should count. They're meant to be branches off the main highway to serve whatever purpose they must, and if it needs to run perpendicular to its parent, then so be it.
Title: Re: US routes that don't fit the numbering/direction convention
Post by: kphoger on September 04, 2025, 11:28:24 AM
Quote from: Bitmapped on September 03, 2025, 08:11:34 PMDo the 3-digit routes really count?

I've been wondering that this whole time.  I never assumed that 3-digit US routes were supposed to follow the usual odd/even convention.

Quote from: usends on September 03, 2025, 10:11:51 PMActually the vast majority of 3dus run parallel to their parent (not perpendicular), as illustrated at the bottom of this page (https://www.usends.com/numbering.html).

And yet, from your same page:

"Unlike 2-digit US routes, there was never a guideline stating that 3-digit routes should run in a particular direction -- that is, no stipulation that north/south branch routes should be assigned odd numbers (so as to be considered branches of north/south main routes), and that even numbers should be given to east/west branch routes."

And I'd say US-430 is proof.
Title: Re: US routes that don't fit the numbering/direction convention
Post by: Molandfreak on September 04, 2025, 05:30:37 PM
US 310 varies in Montana—in Rockvale it is signed east-west matching its overlap with US 212 (eastbound towards Laurel but westbound towards the Wyoming border), but in other places it is signed north-south. In Wyoming, it is consistently signed east-west with the opposite directions that are signed in Rockvale, so eastbound travels towards Greybull and westbound travels towards the Montana border.
Title: Re: US routes that don't fit the numbering/direction convention
Post by: dgolub on September 06, 2025, 08:29:29 AM
Quote from: kphoger on September 04, 2025, 11:28:24 AM"Unlike 2-digit US routes, there was never a guideline stating that 3-digit routes should run in a particular direction -- that is, no stipulation that north/south branch routes should be assigned odd numbers (so as to be considered branches of north/south main routes), and that even numbers should be given to east/west branch routes."

And I'd say US-430 is proof.

Also US 130, US 202, US 206, US 211, US 222, and US 522.