Having lived in California, I've learned from studying its routes that it does not allow any two of its routes to share the same number, and has done so since 1964, with the exception of extended routes (I-110/CA 110 and I-238/CA 238) and future routes (CA 905 to become I-905 within a few years). Which is why US 40 and US 80 no longer exist there, with the coming of I-40 and I-80, and US 70 is also gone because CA 70 exists further north.
What other states also prohibit route numbers from being duplicated?
Prohibit is too strong a word. Caltrans could decide to duplicate numbers if they signed a legislative route with a different sign route number (like they sign SR 61 along SR 112 and SR 260, but without any 'correct' section).
You also have cause and effect somewhat wrong. US 40, US 70, and US 80 no longer enter California because Interstates replaced them, not because their numbers were taken. (SR 70 was in fact a new number in the 1964 renumbering, replacing US 40 Alternate.)
Pretty much every state that codifies its state highways practically disallows route duplicates, except in the situation NE2 alluded to.
So that tacks on Washington and Utah, among others. Then Nebraska and Colorado don't allow duplication either (although Nebraska has awkward gaps in highways that are technically the same highway and Colorado has instances of US-36/SH-36, US-40/SH-40, etc, but they all follow the same functional corridor and it gets fairly complicated)
Idaho doesn't have any duplicates, but I'm not sure if that's policy or just the way the dog shook.
QuoteProhibit is too strong a word. Caltrans could decide to duplicate numbers if they signed a legislative route with a different sign route number (like they sign SR 61 along SR 112 and SR 260, but without any 'correct' section).
I would say that there is prior evidence that California prohibits route duplication. We know as a matter of fact that when I-238 was established, the AASHTO recommended I-180 and California said "no, because we have a State Route 180"
Missouri used to, though the more recent interstate additions seem to have broken Missouri's will to avoid duplication. There's now both a MO 64 and I-64, MO 72 and I-72, and there will soon be both MO 49 and I-49.
Quote from: corco on January 28, 2011, 05:00:31 PM
I would say that there is prior evidence that California prohibits route duplication. We know as a matter of fact that when I-238 was established, the AASHTO recommended I-180 and California said "no, because we have a State Route 180"
Full quote: "We already have a state route 180 in our Fresno area, and this route is separated from I-580 in Castro Valley by about 100 miles." If existing SR 180 were in San Diego they might have been willing.
QuoteQuote from: corco on Today at 03:00:31 PM
I would say that there is prior evidence that California prohibits route duplication. We know as a matter of fact that when I-238 was established, the AASHTO recommended I-180 and California said "no, because we have a State Route 180"
Full quote: "We already have a state route 180 in our Fresno area, and this route is separated from I-580 in Castro Valley by about 100 miles." If existing SR 180 were in San Diego they might have been willing.
I read that as meaning that the route is too far separated from the proposed 180 routing to merit a signed concurrency connecting the two routes, so they wouldn't do it. If the route were closer, they would have considered it.
Perhaps.
But California did continue to sign US 40 and US 80 after the renumbering until the Interstates that replaced them were sufficiently complete. They just didn't use the numbers internally.
Connecticut, Massachusetts, and RI all do not allow duplicate numbers. There have been cases of multiple states having to renumbr a route because another state had to change a route number to avoid duplication (especially when the interstates were being built) and the neighboring state the route crossed into had to change their end.
Mass has he only exception in that there is I-295 and a MA 295. The reason these are allowed is they are both less than 5 miles long and are on opposite ends of the state. They both continue routes from neighboring states. Actually, MA 295 used to just be signed as "To NY 295" at its Mass end for years. Only recently was it signed as MA 295 in its own right. Always been a state maintained road as far as I know.
Quote from: NE2 on January 28, 2011, 05:28:03 PM
Full quote: "We already have a state route 180 in our Fresno area, and this route is separated from I-580 in Castro Valley by about 100 miles." If existing SR 180 were in San Diego they might have been willing.
I wonder why CA didn't renumber 180. they have historically not been averse to it. in fact, 128 was renumbered in 1951 from 28 to make room for a CA-28 that connects to NV-28. (interestingly, when NV renumbered in the 70s, they kept 28 and 88, which continued California numbers, as the only two in the system with fewer than three digits)
Hawaii does not have duplicates because 10 is their lowest-numbered state highway, intentionally.
though they are apparently in the process of designating an old alignment of 200 on the Big Island as county route 201. Hawaii county-maintained routes have the same raindrop shield as the state highways, so it is left as an exercise to the reader if this coincides with Oahu's interstate H201.
Hawaii doesn't strictly prohibit duplication, but the system for assigning route numbers (single-digit route numbers reserved for Interstates and interisland ferries, each county has its own reserved block of two- through four-digit state and county routes) makes duplication unlikely. Some related state and county routes share the same number, such as state 340 on Maui turning into county 340, or state 31 which once was connected to county 31. This is because Hawaii at statehood had one route number system lumping together state and county routes, which only later was broken into two separate systems but most of the numbers stayed the same.
Technically, Interstate H-201 on Oahu could be considered to duplicate secret state route 201 on the Big Island (concurrent with state 200 west of mile 42, which in a few years is to be bypassed by a new alignment and turned over to the county). But not really, since Hawaii DOT considers the "H-" prefix to be part of the Interstate's route number.
Quote from: NE2 on January 28, 2011, 05:28:03 PM
Quote from: corco on January 28, 2011, 05:00:31 PM
I would say that there is prior evidence that California prohibits route duplication. We know as a matter of fact that when I-238 was established, the AASHTO recommended I-180 and California said "no, because we have a State Route 180"
Full quote: "We already have a state route 180 in our Fresno area, and this route is separated from I-580 in Castro Valley by about 100 miles." If existing SR 180 were in San Diego they might have been willing.
Hmmm... so your saying if CA-180 were in San Diego, then Caltrans would have considered using I-180 in the S.F. Bay Area? I don't know about that. It was my understanding that route duplication is simply not allowed.
To the original poster, 110 and 238 are extensions of existing highways. CA-110 is an extension of I-110 onto the Arroyo Seco Parkway which is not up to Interstate standards (and cannot be upgraded due to it's historical nature). I-238 is an extension of CA-238/Mission Blvd. CA-905 will probably become I-905 once the freeway from I-805 to the Mexican border is completed (it's currently a 4-6 lane expressway). I also believe CA-210 will become I-210 once California gets around to asking AASHTO to include the entire route in the interstate system.
Yes, I believe California simply doesn't allow route duplication, plain and simple. Even if they wanted to build an Interstate 161 along the Mexican border, it wouldn't be allowed due to the presence of CA-161 at the northern border, some 700+ miles away.
Quote from: NE2 on January 28, 2011, 05:28:03 PM
Quote from: corco on January 28, 2011, 05:00:31 PM
I would say that there is prior evidence that California prohibits route duplication. We know as a matter of fact that when I-238 was established, the AASHTO recommended I-180 and California said "no, because we have a State Route 180"
Full quote: "We already have a state route 180 in our Fresno area, and this route is separated from I-580 in Castro Valley by about 100 miles." If existing SR 180 were in San Diego they might have been willing.
And they already have a Cal. 238 right around the corner!
There is no excuse for I-238. None.
I-238 briefly made sense during the 1980s when every possible x80 auxiliary was used up, but since 1991, I-480 has been available. And that should be used. It even makes perfect sense, as even-numbered 3di have a tendency to start and end at Interstates and serve as loops or bypasses.
Of course, there is always the proposition of replacing I-238 with I-980 and returning CA-24 to its former length. But I-238 simply should not exist anymore.
Pennsylvania is a main issue, and its due to their own stupidity if you ask me. If you have SR 283 attached to I-283, then don't designate PA 283 as PA 283, designate PA 283 as PA 300, as its SR 300. Same for PA 380/SR 400. If we're so worried on confusion, then SIGN the change! PA 222 is just dumb in my opinion.
New Jersey gets credit from me for the 1953 renumbering working on eliminated duplexed designations. NJ 77 in south jersey was NJ 46 and was renumbered to avoid US 46 and NJ 46. NJ 76 was renumbered to 81 in proposals to can the 76 repeation.
New York is going backwards. They did a great job with no duplication. Now NY 695, NY 86, NY 88, NY 295 all duplicate. Its really silly. NY 87 was renumbered to 812, a part of 88 went to be 488, NY 84 became 284, NY 78 is a borderline issue, etc. Its just getting dopey.
Indiana does not allow route number duplication between US numbered highways and State numbered highways, although there can be and are duplications between Interstates and state numbered highways (the most obvious being SR 64 intersecting I-64).
When the US Highway system came into existence, the Indiana state route numbers were changed in order to fit the US Highways into a common grid with the state highways. When I worked in Indianapolis while in college back in the 1970's, I had visited the State Library and found some very old road maps. There was one from the early 30's that had the current numbering system, but US 35 had not yet been signed in Indiana.
What is now SR 135, which starts on the Ohio River south of Corydon and continues north to Indianapolis, was numbered on that map as SR 35. SR 35 actually fits the Indiana grid almost perfectly, with SR 37 to the west and US 31 to the east. Obviously, when US 35 entered the state, SR 35 was renumbered as SR 135, hence the violation the grid, but the prevention of a route duplication.
Has New York ever had a US/state duplication?
I ask because while reference markers clearly put "I" as a suffix on interstates, no special suffix appears for US routes. So, for instance, reference markers for US 9 and a theoretical NY 9 would both carry just the number "9" and thus be ambiguous from each other.
Ohio has a long history of not allowing number duplication.
Renumbering in 1926 for US highways http://pages.prodigy.net/john.simpson/highways/rr1926.html (http://pages.prodigy.net/john.simpson/highways/rr1926.html)
Renumbering in 1962 for Interstate http://pages.prodigy.net/john.simpson/highways/rr1962.html (http://pages.prodigy.net/john.simpson/highways/rr1962.html)
Quote from: Duke87 on January 28, 2011, 09:48:05 PM
Has New York ever had a US/state duplication?
I ask because while reference markers clearly put "I" as a suffix on interstates, no special suffix appears for US routes. So, for instance, reference markers for US 9 and a theoretical NY 9 would both carry just the number "9" and thus be ambiguous from each other.
There is both US2 and NY2 (though US2 exists for less than a mile before going into Vermont, and NY2 is nowhere near US2)...the reference markers for US2 say "2U".
There is also US15 and NY15, though in that case, NY15 was formerly US15 (and used to extend from the current northern terminus of US15 until NYSDOT removed signage for NY15 along I-86/NY17 and I-390). Like US2, US15 is regarded as "15U".
US220 also exists in NY conflicting with NY220, however, US220 in NY is less than a tenth of a mile long, and is locally maintained, thus having no inventory number or reference markers.
Quote from: cu2010 on January 28, 2011, 10:05:58 PM
There is also US15 and NY15, though in that case, NY15 was formerly US15 (and used to extend from the current northern terminus of US15 until NYSDOT removed signage for NY15 along I-86/NY17 and I-390). Like US2, US15 is regarded as "15U".
NYSDOT Traffic Data Reports refer to it as 15U, but when I was on US 15 back in 2008, I saw reference markers that said 99I.
Adam, you missed I-90 and NY 90. They even cross each other in Montezuma!
On a side note, I like how NY signs extensions of Interstates as NY routes.
Nevada does not duplicate numbers between systems, at least since the 1976 renumbering of state highways. Given the numbers that were used, NDOT anticipated back in 1976 (or may have already been planning to) eventually building I-515 in Las Vegas, even though the 510-530 numbers were being assigned to roads around Carson City--I-515 was finally signed in 1994-95.
Prior to the 1976 renumbering, state route alignments were somewhat codified in state law. These were created sequentially and without regard for the U.S. routes. So at that time, we had both US highways and state highways duplicating routes 6, 40, 50, 91 & 93--none of the state route numbers intersected or were located in any close proximity to the US counterpart.
Wisconsin, with one exception (I-39), does not use route number duplicates. And in that case, they could change the existing state highway to 139 or 239 without issue, but apparently determined nobody would confuse it for the interstate.
Quote from: Michael on January 29, 2011, 12:55:20 AM
Adam, you missed I-90 and NY 90. They even cross each other in Montezuma!
Not to mention NY 81/I-81, NY 190/I-190, and NY 290/I-290! NY 87's conversion to NY 812 is the exception that proves the rule of NY not caring.
Quote from: deanej on January 29, 2011, 10:22:17 AM
Quote from: Michael on January 29, 2011, 12:55:20 AM
Adam, you missed I-90 and NY 90. They even cross each other in Montezuma!
Not to mention NY 81/I-81, NY 190/I-190, and NY 290/I-290! NY 87's conversion to NY 812 is the exception that proves the rule of NY not caring.
Must we seriously care how much I missed?
I just came up with the three that came in my head, don't need to add every single one.
Quote from: Michael on January 29, 2011, 12:55:20 AM
Quote from: cu2010 on January 28, 2011, 10:05:58 PM
There is also US15 and NY15, though in that case, NY15 was formerly US15 (and used to extend from the current northern terminus of US15 until NYSDOT removed signage for NY15 along I-86/NY17 and I-390). Like US2, US15 is regarded as "15U".
NYSDOT Traffic Data Reports refer to it as 15U, but when I was on US 15 back in 2008, I saw reference markers that said 99I.
NY 15 is still currently signed along the parts of I-390, and all along the I-86/NY-17 multiplex. Even the BGS heading onto I-390 North from I-86 West still has NY 15 on it.
Also, even though the traffic data reports use 15U, the reference markers we never updated, they still show "15". The parts of US 15 that were newly constructed in Painted Post and at the PA line do have the 99I listing.
I agree with the earlier post about PA's duplication. There were several, and although all were changed internally, the actual route number hasn't changed.
I-283 (SR 0283) and PA 283 (SR 0300)
I-380 (SR 0380) and PA 380 (SR 0400)
I-86 (SR 0086) and PA 86 (SR 0886)
I-99 (SR 0099) and PA 99 (either SR 0699 or SR 0399)
Also in PA, PA 29 and PA 97 exist in two separate parts of the state. I believe PA 29 used to be connected in the 20's before the creation of US 309, now PA 309. The southern PA 97 used to be US 140, and when decommissioned, was renumbered to match MD 97. In both cases, SR 0029 and SR 0097 are used for both.
CT had state route 95 as a continuation of I-95 for a few years in the southeast.
I-87 (now I-684) and CT 87 coexisted for about a year; CT was planning to change CT 87 to CT 287, but then NY changed I-87.
CT 190 and CT 93 were altered because of interstate designation conflicts in Massachusetts.
Quote from: jemacedo9 on January 29, 2011, 02:40:48 PM
Also, even though the traffic data reports use 15U, the reference markers we never updated, they still show "15". The parts of US 15 that were newly constructed in Painted Post and at the PA line do have the 99I listing.
I guess I should have been more specific. I saw the 99I reference marker near the new I-86/US 15 interchange. The portion of US 15 from Tioga, PA to Watson Creek Road was being built when I was last there.
Quote from: Roadgeek_Adam on January 29, 2011, 11:40:13 AM
Must we seriously care how much I missed?
Given that you originally posted the one (and only) example of NYSDOT renumbering a route because of the interstate system and three later ones to say that NYSDOT once cared and no longer does, while Michael and I posted examples of routes that didn't get renumbered that date back to the same era as the NY 87 -> NY 812 renumbering, yes.
VA mostly does not have route duplication outside of the SR's with the exception of state highway extensions(US 211/VA 211) and the infamous US 13 in Hampton Roads and VA 13 in Central Virginia
And US/VA 360, which actually intersect.
There's also primary SR 895 and secondary SR 895 :)
Stupid question, but CA routes that are separated by the Sierras and are near impossible to connect geographically, such as CA-190 and CA-168, are still funded as if they were a connected route, correct?
QuoteStupid question, but CA routes that are separated by the Sierras and are near impossible to connect geographically, such as CA-190 and CA-168, are still funded as if they were a connected route, correct?
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "funded," but they are codified as one highway
Quote from: NE2 on January 31, 2011, 12:02:25 AM
There's also primary SR 895 and secondary SR 895 :)
Well, that situation isn't quite as bad since Henrico County doesn't have numbered secondary routes, and Chesterfield County's SR 895 is a rather short residential street (VA 895 only exists in Chesterfield County for about 0.2 mile or so) - not quite the same caliber as US/VA 360 and US/VA 211! :)
I-664 in Suffolk used to fall into this category when Suffolk still had numbered SRs, but it doesn't anymore.
Texas actually has US 70,running E-W, intersecting a N-S highway : another highway 70, TX 70!
Quote from: JREwing78 on January 29, 2011, 08:22:36 AM
Wisconsin, with one exception (I-39), does not use route number duplicates. And in that case, they could change the existing state highway to 139 or 239 without issue, but apparently determined nobody would confuse it for the interstate.
Technically there are two. The other being I-794 and WIS 794, but it could be looked at as one. The WI-794 part is not entirely controlled access. (I-794 was slated to go down toward WIS 100 as a full freeway, but was trashed when the Nimbys (pre Nordquist the Freeway Killer) bitched.
WIS 39 is situated near I-39 but not close enough. The east end is in New Glarus. The Interstate version circles to the east of Janesville. If they renumbered WIS 39, it would have to be a totally diferent number besides X39 - to account for the unlikely event that a freeway looping or spurring off I-39 got a 3di status. Though the only candidate - if it were upgraded to Interstate standards - would be the Madison Beltline.
If the Interstate designation of US 41 truly were to be I-41, you'd have the I-74 syndrome (I-41 concurrent with US 41) as US 41 has historical roots at its northern terminus on the Keewenaw Peninsula in Michigan just east of Copper Harbor.
Quote from: jemacedo9 on January 29, 2011, 02:40:48 PM
I-99 (SR 0099) and PA 99 (either SR 0699 or SR 0399)
SR 0699
Quote from: jemacedo9 on January 29, 2011, 02:40:48 PMI believe PA 29 used to be connected in the 20's before the creation of US 309, now PA 309.
It was one continuous route until 1966.
Maine initially did pretty well, renumbering state routes 201, 202, and 95, then cocked it all up by introducing I-195 in 1983.
Arkansas used to, though we will some day have US 49 and I-49
Maryland has no duplication between state and US, but this doesn't extend to state/Interstate. Fortunately, this doesn't really pose a problem, with perhaps one exception (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=39.653113,-77.90743&spn=0,0.132093&t=h&z=14&layer=c&cbll=39.653113,-77.90743&panoid=t6VZ9lc9ierBLxMPLYF8eA&cbp=12,285.85,,0,0.5).
Georgia duplicates until it's blue in the face, including such bright ideas as US 27 intersecting SR 27 and SR 85 paralleling I-85 about 20 miles to the southeast for pretty much its entire length.
Quote from: Eth on February 04, 2011, 10:41:20 PM
Georgia duplicates until it's blue in the face, including such bright ideas as US 27 intersecting SR 27 and SR 85 paralleling I-85 about 20 miles to the southeast for pretty much its entire length.
And let's not forget GA 20 intersecting I-20 over in Conyers!
Tennessee also duplicates route numbers between the three classifications, but for the most part avoids most major issues with duplicate numbers intersecting. TN 81 comes close to I-81 near Fall Branch, TN 27 almost meets US 27 (they're connected by US 127), and TN 70 looks like it's on a heading to intersect US 70 until it crosses into North Carolina, where it becomes NC 208. After further research, TN 74 actually DOES intersect US 74 in Cleveland, but US 74 is barely even recognized in TN since it's multiplexed (most of the time invisibly) with either US 64 or I-75 for its entire length. And even though they don't come close to intersecting, both I-155 and TN 155 are freeways.
Funny story about the duplicate numbers: My father, who has been in sales longer than I've been alive and still makes trips to call on customers throughout Tennessee, doesn't understand the difference between TN 64 and US 64. He knows that there are two of them (the one that connects Lewisburg to Shelbyville to Beechgrove, and the one that goes from Memphis to the foot of Monteagle Mountain), and he may even think that the one that goes through the Ocoee River Gorge is yet another one, but he doesn't understand the difference between the TN state route shield and the US route shield. To him, they're both just "Highway 64".
Missouri is a former. They renumbered MO 57 as MO 171 after I-57 was built and also renumbered Mo 55 and Mo 44... but now they have Mo 72/I-72; Mo 64/I-64; Mo 49/Future I-49
US 287 intersects with MT 287 in Ennis, Montana.
Quote from: Beeper1 on January 28, 2011, 06:13:43 PM
Connecticut, Massachusetts, and RI all do not allow duplicate numbers. There have been cases of multiple states having to renumbr a route because another state had to change a route number to avoid duplication (especially when the interstates were being built) and the neighboring state the route crossed into had to change their end.
Mass has he only exception in that there is I-295 and a MA 295. The reason these are allowed is they are both less than 5 miles long and are on opposite ends of the state. They both continue routes from neighboring states. Actually, MA 295 used to just be signed as "To NY 295" at its Mass end for years. Only recently was it signed as MA 295 in its own right. Always been a state maintained road as far as I know.
Not the only exception. The duplication between US-3 and MA-3 is far older than the 295 one, and they're in the same general area, although they don't intersect.
Quote from: SidS1045 on February 05, 2011, 11:35:33 PM
Not the only exception. The duplication between US-3 and MA-3 is far older than the 295 one, and they're in the same general area, although they don't intersect.
Isn't MA 3 a continuation of the US route?
Yes, they do intersect end-on.
Quote from: TheStranger on February 06, 2011, 03:43:14 AM
Quote from: SidS1045 on February 05, 2011, 11:35:33 PM
Not the only exception. The duplication between US-3 and MA-3 is far older than the 295 one, and they're in the same general area, although they don't intersect.
Isn't MA 3 a continuation of the US route?
According to the MassDOT shapefiles, the US3/MA3 designation change occurs along Memorial Drive in Cambridge when that route crosses MA2A/Mass Ave, in front of the MIT campus.
Anyone know the history of this? Why not just keep the US 3 designation right down to US 6?
Quote from: US71 on February 04, 2011, 10:08:02 PM
Arkansas used to, though we will some day have US 49 and I-49
Arkansas did briefly have I-540 and AR 540 though when the freeway N. of I-40 was just a stub and there still is I-440 and AR 440. I do know that they try to avoid it in other cases though-they even renumbered the short AR 371 from McRae to AR 267 in White County to a disjointed continuation of AR 13 when they added US 371 in the state.
Quote from: Jim on February 06, 2011, 01:42:39 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on February 06, 2011, 03:43:14 AM
Quote from: SidS1045 on February 05, 2011, 11:35:33 PM
Not the only exception. The duplication between US-3 and MA-3 is far older than the 295 one, and they're in the same general area, although they don't intersect.
Isn't MA 3 a continuation of the US route?
According to the MassDOT shapefiles, the US3/MA3 designation change occurs along Memorial Drive in Cambridge when that route crosses MA2A/Mass Ave, in front of the MIT campus.
Anyone know the history of this? Why not just keep the US 3 designation right down to US 6?
US 3 always ended in Boston. I don't know if it was ever considered to extend further, but at least Mass DPW decided the number should go that far. Does anyone know if Mass. applied to FHWA to extend the route?
I asked MassDOT about the whole US/MA 3 situation. I suggested it had to do with MA 3 in Boston being below design standards. Here is the response:
"When MA 3 and US 3 were originally designated in the 1920s, there was no strict prohibition on having US and state routes with the same number within a given state, as there is now. As you point out, much of MA 3 through Downtown Boston did not meet the design standards, even in the 1920s, for US Routes, which is likely why it was not given the US designation at that time.
Once the 'no identical route numbers within a state' rules were established, available records suggest that the MA 3 designation between the Mass. Ave Bridge in Cambridge and Cape Cod was retained on the basis it was to be a 'temporary' extension of US 3 until the US 3 and I-695 freeways were completed. Since that other freeway work was cancelled in the 1970s, there has been discussion about converting the present MA 3 designation to an extension of the US route. However, this would not be possible unless both US 3 between Burlington and Cambridge and MA 3 south of Hingham are updated to current AASHTO design standards for those classification of roads."
Quote from: PennDOTFan on February 07, 2011, 09:33:01 PMthe design standards, even in the 1920s, for US Routes
some AASHO official must not have heard of US-550.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on February 07, 2011, 09:34:21 PM
Quote from: PennDOTFan on February 07, 2011, 09:33:01 PMthe design standards, even in the 1920s, for US Routes
some AASHO official must not have heard of US-550.
Or the segment of US 183 which was a dirt road until the 1960s, certainly lower standard than any segment of MA 3 in Boston.
I wasn't aware there were even design standards back in the 1920s. I thought the only requirement was a U.S. Route had to at least lead somewhere.
I've never seen a photo of US-183, but if Nebraska's US-30 from the early 40s is any indication, then 183 was a well-graded, level two-lane-wide dirt road: more than up to standard.
just because a road is dirt doesn't mean it's bad quality.
I believe US 6 in western Utah, on the other hand, was bad dirt for a while.
US-66 down La Bajada in New Mexico was quite awful. I've seen 1915 photos of the 20% downhill incline, and I don't think it was much upgraded until the 30s.
US-2 across Montana was initially a railroad connection because the road had not been built yet! I do not know exactly how long, but I think it may have been as much as Ray, ND to Shelby, MT. I cannot for the life of me find the reference to this information - I think it may be found on Robert Droz's US route page.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on February 08, 2011, 03:52:53 PM
US-2 across Montana was initially a railroad connection because the road had not been built yet! I do not know exactly how long, but I think it may have been as much as Ray, ND to Shelby, MT. I cannot for the life of me find the reference to this information - I think it may be found on Robert Droz's US route page.
1926 Rand McNally: http://www.broermapsonline.org/members/NorthAmerica/UnitedStates/NorthernRockies/Montana/unitedstates1926ra_068.html
Quote from: agentsteel53 on February 08, 2011, 02:47:16 PM
I've never seen a photo of US-183, but if Nebraska's US-30 from the early 40s is any indication, then 183 was a well-graded, level two-lane-wide dirt road: more than up to standard.
just because a road is dirt doesn't mean it's bad quality.
There are still to this day some dirt roads on Nebraska's state system.
Quote from: NE2 on February 08, 2011, 04:17:26 PM
1926 Rand McNally: http://www.broermapsonline.org/members/NorthAmerica/UnitedStates/NorthernRockies/Montana/unitedstates1926ra_068.html
thanks! looks like it was the section across Glacier National Park that had not been built. well, I suppose if a ferry over water is a valid part of a US route (US-10 from the beginning, US-9 since 1978) then one over land can count too.
Quote from: PennDOTFan on February 07, 2011, 09:33:01 PM
I asked MassDOT about the whole US/MA 3 situation. I suggested it had to do with MA 3 in Boston being below design standards. Here is the response:
"When MA 3 and US 3 were originally designated in the 1920s, there was no strict prohibition on having US and state routes with the same number within a given state, as there is now. As you point out, much of MA 3 through Downtown Boston did not meet the design standards, even in the 1920s, for US Routes, which is likely why it was not given the US designation at that time.
Once the 'no identical route numbers within a state' rules were established, available records suggest that the MA 3 designation between the Mass. Ave Bridge in Cambridge and Cape Cod was retained on the basis it was to be a 'temporary' extension of US 3 until the US 3 and I-695 freeways were completed. Since that other freeway work was cancelled in the 1970s, there has been discussion about converting the present MA 3 designation to an extension of the US route. However, this would not be possible unless both US 3 between Burlington and Cambridge and MA 3 south of Hingham are updated to current AASHTO design standards for those classification of roads."
Are there any viable re-routing options possible to avoid the supposedly deficient sections?
Quote from: xonhulu on February 08, 2011, 08:11:27 PM
Are there any viable re-routing options possible to avoid the supposedly deficient sections?
I would take the current MA-3 routing to the Big Dig and the Southeastern Expressway. I think the SE Expwy is almost
interstate standard - US route standard for sure! If you insist on doing with 3 what was done with 1 and moving it to the freeway as quickly as possible, maybe have it cross the Harvard Bridge instead of the Longfellow, and route it onto I-90 for a few blocks to get to I-93.
though then that runs into the problem of having a US route as a toll road without a clearly designated free alternative. Have the Longfellow be signed as Alternate US 3, but of course Mass does not do alternate US routes (with the exception of a very short-lived US-5A in the 30s) so it would be dropped to MA-3A in status.
this being Massachusetts, they'd fudge this up totally... there are enough US-3 shields south of Boston that for all intents and purposes, the route
is US 3 :ded:
You could also reroute US 3 onto MA 128/I-95 until you reach I-93, where it could follow that to MA 3 then have US 3 take up the rest of MA 3. With this, you could just extend MA 3A along the current US/MA 3 in Boston.
Quote from: PennDOTFan on February 08, 2011, 09:03:33 PM
You could also reroute US 3 onto MA 128/I-95 until you reach I-93, where it could follow that to MA 3 then have US 3 take up the rest of MA 3. With this, you could just extend MA 3A along the current US/MA 3 in Boston.
too Indianapolis-like. I dislike putting all the US routes onto the ring road.
by the way, are there any other examples of a US route number that continues as a state route after its terminus? like US-3 turning into MA-3.
The only related example I can think of is US-1A comes out of Rhode Island and becomes MA-1A, and the exact same thing happens southbound at the NH/MA line - but that isn't quite exactly the same thing, as it's not the terminus of US-1.
US 222 continues as MD 222.
Quote from: PennDOTFan on February 08, 2011, 09:19:51 PM
US 222 continues as MD 222.
I had forgotten that one!
this is pretty common with interstate routes. 15, 210, 905 come to mind in southern California - but with US routes it is much rarer, since that one blurb regarding US-3 is the first time I'd ever heard of a US route not being up to spec.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on February 08, 2011, 09:28:42 PM
Quote from: PennDOTFan on February 08, 2011, 09:19:51 PM
US 222 continues as MD 222.
I had forgotten that one!
this is pretty common with interstate routes. 15, 210, 905 come to mind in southern California - but with US routes it is much rarer, since that one blurb regarding US-3 is the first time I'd ever heard of a US route not being up to spec.
Even though it doesn't follow what you posted, didn't California number CA-46 as such because it used to be a segment of
466? And US-299, of course, became CA-299.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on February 08, 2011, 09:07:48 PM
by the way, are there any other examples of a US route number that continues as a state route after its terminus? like US-3 turning into MA-3.
US 79 and KY 79 had a "close but no cigar" relationship there for awhile. There actually used to be a sign assembly with both the US and state markers in Russellville. The relocation of US 431 and the truncation of US 79's terminus resulted in the elimination of that sign.
But the routes did not intersect. US 79 ended at US 68 east of downtown Russellville. KY 79 ended at US 431 north of downtown.
Quote from: yakra on February 08, 2011, 04:43:22 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on February 08, 2011, 02:47:16 PM
I've never seen a photo of US-183, but if Nebraska's US-30 from the early 40s is any indication, then 183 was a well-graded, level two-lane-wide dirt road: more than up to standard.
just because a road is dirt doesn't mean it's bad quality.
There are still to this day some dirt roads on Nebraska's state system.
There are not. Gravel, yes(only a few of those left). But dirt-no.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on February 08, 2011, 09:07:48 PMby the way, are there any other examples of a US route number that continues as a state route after its terminus? like US-3 turning into MA-3.
US 211 continues as VA 211.
Quote from: PennDOTFan on February 08, 2011, 09:19:51 PM
US 222 continues as MD 222.
and PA 222.
Miraculously, US 202 continues as MA 202, but resumes being a US route on either side. Same with US 20 becoming MA 20 for most of that state. *sarcasm*
In Delaware, SR 202 ends at the I-95/US 202 interchange.
In Virginia, while VA 360 is not exactly a continuation of US 360, it is, I believe, an old alignment of it, and signs showing both routes do exist (supplanted by "US" and "STATE" banners), so this almost qualifies.
Virginia has had a number of these:
US 121 (now US 52) and current VA 121
US 17 and VA 17 (promoted to US 17)
US 13 and VA 13 (promoted to US 13)
US 501 and VA 501 (renumbered to VA 39)
US 33 and VA 33 (briefly disconnected in early 80s)
US 158 and VA 158 (renumbered to US 258 and VA 258)
US 258 and VA 258 (promoted to US 258)
US 301 and VA 301 (promoted to US 301)
US 340 and VA 340 (renumbered as VA 12 then eventually US 340)
The US 360 setup of today is also not unique...Va once had US 29/VA 29 both running from Culpeper to Warrenton. VA 29 is now VA 229 and SR 802.
In proximity (never did meet) - US 311 (now US 220) and VA 311
Mapmikey
for states that do allow route number duplication, Florida may be the most egregious example, with US-17, FL-17, and county route 17 all within two miles of each other.
Georgia is pretty bad too. US-27 intersects at right angles with SR-27. That's not as overtly bad as the Florida example, but bear in mind that about one in every 30 US or state route sign in Georgia is of the wrong polarity. I can only imagine the day they put up a gantry with US-27 intersecting US-27.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on February 08, 2011, 09:07:48 PM
by the way, are there any other examples of a US route number that continues as a state route after its terminus? like US-3 turning into MA-3.
Formerly US 15 and NY 15. The NY 15 concurrencies with I-390 and I-86/NY 17 are since decommissioned, and most -- but not all ;-) -- of the signs have been taken down.
Illinois does use duplicate numbers as long as the 2 routes do not cross. When IL 5 was changed to I-88 back in the mid 80s, there was IL 88 that had an interchange with the tollway. When I-88 was put on the tollway, IL 88 became IL 40 so there would not be any confusion. other duplicate instances that do not cross are US 6 and IL 6 (Peoria), US 14 and IL 14 (White Co), I-24 and US 24, US 34 and IL 34 (Elizabethtown), US 40 and IL 40 (Peoria), US 41 and IL 41 (Galesburg), US 50 and IL 50 (Cicero Ave - Chicago), US 54 and IL 54 (old alignment of US 54 became IL 54), I-57 and IL 57 (Quincy), US 60 and IL 60 (Town Line Rd - Vernon Hills), US 61 and IL 61 (Macomb), US 62 and IL 62 (Algonquin Rd - Algonquin), I-64 and IL 64 (North Ave - Chicago), I-70 and IL 70 (Rockford), I-72 and IL 72 (Higgins Rd - Schaumburg), I-90 and IL 90 (Peoria Co), I-94 and IL 94 (Adams Co), US 136 and IL 136 (Whiteside Co), US 150 and IL 150 (Perry Co), I-155 and IL 155 (Randolph Co), I-172 and IL 172 (Whiteside Co), I-180 and IL 180 (Galva), and I-255 and IL 255 (I-255 continues as IL 255 north of I-270).