This thread was inspired by the Pointless Termini thread.
Many of the examples given there regard to extended multiplexes at one end of a route.
This is on a similar vein. Highways were one or more of the routes in a multiplex is always multiplexed the entire route.
Some examples to start it off:
In south Akron, OH, the short I-277 is duplexed with US 224 for its entire length. Now, the "I" designation might be needed for USG highway $$ but why not make it hidden and just sign the freeway US 224?
This one no longer exists, but in Wisconsin when the I-43 designation first appeared, it only ran from Milwaukee to Green Bay and was duplexed with US 141 the entire way. Eventually, US 141 was decommissioned.
And, lest we not forget the infamous I-99 in PA. It is duplexed its entire current route with US 220 and also has multiplexes with US 322 and PA 26. The proposed extension to Painted Post, NY won't change the situation as I-99 will be multiplexed with one of more of I-80, US 220, and US 15 for the entire extension. (unless of course they decommission US 15 north of Williamsport)
I-39 comes to mind, save a stretch of about 8 miles near Portage, WI.
U.S. 202 south from Interstate 95 (Exit 8) to Delaware 141 (Exit 5) and then Delaware 141 from Interstate 95 to U.S. 13/40, its end. No one calls it U.S. 202, and its only signed sparingly.
Iowa 27 is useless. I know that they are trying to have it follow the Avenue of the Saints Corridor, but the numbered designation to go along Interstate 380, U.S. 218, etc. is useless.
NY 15 along I-390 and I-86. Hopefully when I-99 replaces US 15 (and hopefully it will be a replacement, not another useless multiplex) it will be truncated at NY 21 in Wayland.
NY 332 and NY 21. NY 332 ends in the multiplex at US 20/NY 5. It use to end further north at NY 21, I'm not sure why they changed this.
And speaking of US 20/NY 5, this multiplex is just too long. The multiplex should be eliminated with NY 5 on one of the ends renumbered to something else (not a problem since NY's state route numbers are random). As it is now, people in the area don't even know that US 20 and NY 5 are ever separate.
I think the entire proposed I-73/I-74 multiplex through West Virginia and North Carolina could be defined as useless, especially how their routes would braid together and apart for hundreds of miles.
It is going to be tough enough to get one of those routes completed, but two? From what I have seen, they don't go thorugh or near many major cities south of the Ohio River. No state has done anything with these routes, that I can see, north of the North Carolina line, and it takes years to get any route contructed these days, between chronic shortages of funding and the endlessly drawn out NEPA process.
Why not just stick with the I-74 extension and drop I-73 entirely, since an I-74 extension from Cincinnatti seems more feasible than the construction of an I-73 all the way to Michigan.
WV has already said that US52 isn't going to be to interstate standards. So, if they do route I-73/I-74 anywhere, it will be east on I-64 to Charleston and south on I-77 down through Virginia to the current 'branch' of I-74 that's signed in North Carolina.
Which would create, potentially, a quadruple-plex: I-64, I-73, I-74, and I-77 from Charleston to Beckley, WV. And then a tri-plex until just north of Winston-Salem/Greensboro.
Sykotyk
I-69 and I-94 multiplex approaching the Canadian border for about 5 miles.
Some still claim I-80 and I-95 multiplex for the three miles or so to the George Washington Bridge.
What about all the U.S. routes that get pulled from their downtown routes to the beltways, such as in Indianapolis and Raleigh?
Quote from: akotchi on February 19, 2009, 12:55:51 PM
What about all the U.S. routes that get pulled from their downtown routes to the beltways, such as in Indianapolis and Raleigh?
All of those freeway syphonings of state and U.S. highways are completely useless IMO. Look at how often U.S. 40 joins Interstate 70 on their mutual journey west to Utah. Pointless...
QuoteAll of those freeway syphonings of state and U.S. highways are completely useless IMO. Look at how often U.S. 40 joins Interstate 70 on their mutual journey west to Utah. Pointless...
Good point. I lost track of how many times I-10 and US 90 meet between Houston and San Antonio.
Why do Georgian US Highways and Interstate Highways have duplexes in the form of unsigned State Routes? It took me a while to figure those out when browsing through their (very extensive) AADT files.
Tennessee has hidden state routes on its US routes as well. I've noticed even Rand McNally will put these hidden numbers on a map.
The explanation I've heard is for state DOT planning purposes. Still doesn't make sense to me either. I've seen newspaper listings for highway work and especially ads for public hearings use the hidden state number. How many people in the general public know that US 31 in TN is also TN 6?
Is it standard practice in the US to have shields for both route numbers in multiplexes? I've seen signs with two or three different route shields if they all share the same stretch of road.
Here in the UK only one number is shown with the other, normally the less imporant route, shown in brackets on the same sign. On maps only one route number is shown with the subordinate route number only appearing after both routes split.
US 301/VA 2 is probably the most useless multiplex I can think of. Just truncate VA 2 to VA 207/US 301 in Bowling Green.
Quote from: Truvelo on February 19, 2009, 04:14:57 PM
Is it standard practice in the US to have shields for both route numbers in multiplexes? I've seen signs with two or three different route shields if they all share the same stretch of road.
Here in the UK only one number is shown with the other, normally the less imporant route, shown in brackets on the same sign. On maps only one route number is shown with the subordinate route number only appearing after both routes split.
In most places, the multiplex is shown with seperate shields; the one notable exception out here (if it hasn't been mentioned already) is US 1/US 9 in New Jersey. (There's also a I-55/I-70 shield somewhere in downtown St. Louis I've seen on the web somewhere...)
Now, if the multiplex involves different types of route, then seperate shields will be the default (i.e. US 50/Business 80/Route 99 in Sacramento).
Quote from: Chris on February 19, 2009, 03:03:16 PM
Why do Georgian US Highways and Interstate Highways have duplexes in the form of unsigned State Routes? It took me a while to figure those out when browsing through their (very extensive) AADT files.
The U.S. highways in Georgia do show their state highway counterparts whereas the Interstates do not. Many map companies (including some I have worked for) try to include these "hidden" state numbers on the interstates. Mightyace is correct in that states use "hidden" routes (Florida uses them as well) as part of their planning system. I know in Florida that even the "hidden" state routes running tandem with their U.S. highway counterparts still follow the grid system the state uses for the rest of their state maintained routes. I would also assume that keeping these routes in conjunction with the U.S. highway could prove useful if ever a particular U.S. highway were truncated or eliminated all together. For example, when ALT U.S. 129 was decommissioned from the system, the state just used its "hidden" route (Florida 349) as the new main number for that portion.
The state highway counterparts are basically for internal use. When a project receives funding, the paperwork will refer to the state highway number rather than the U.S. or Interstate route. This is the case in Florida. Additionally, if you receive a traffic citation along Florida's Turnpike, the ticket will indicate the location along SR 91, since that is the state road number for the toll road.
For the most part these designations are relegated for internal use for the respective DOT. However in Georgia all U.S. and State highway overlaps are signed in the field. Tennessee, Florida, and Alabama all use them as well, but they are unsigned except for in a handful of places where contractors have mistakenly posted them. There are exceptions though, as Palm Beach County, Florida consistently signed the state road counterparts to its U.S. highways.
The 400 highway system in Georgia is for internal use only. Its the system that the DOT uses when referencing its Interstates. In fact a couple of years ago 400 series numbers were assigned to Interstate 516, Interstate 985, and Interstate 575, the three most recent Interstates in the state.
Quote from: deanej on February 18, 2009, 05:25:21 PM
And speaking of US 20/NY 5, this multiplex is just too long. The multiplex should be eliminated with NY 5 on one of the ends renumbered to something else (not a problem since NY's state route numbers are random). As it is now, people in the area don't even know that US 20 and NY 5 are ever separate.
I live near Auburn, which is the location of their eastern split, so I know that! According to Wikipedia, their duplex is 68 miles long, the longest in the state, excluding NY 17/I-86. They actually have another duplex west of Buffalo, which is 2.84 miles long.
In my opinion, terminating NY 5 wouldn't work.
On a side note, US 11/15 are duplexed for 58 miles between Shamokin Dam, PA and Camp Hill, PA
Quick question: I'm trying to produce a YouTube video, therefore, I need some information. Are MS-67 and MS-15 multiplexed north of I-110? Or is MS-67 over at the Woolmarket exit (I-10 exit 41)? I heard about the "new" Highway 67, but the signage is a little contradictory, I think.
I've contacted Miss. DOT, but they haven't answered me yet.
Be well,
Bryant
Another multiplex I think is useless is I-394/US 12 in Minnesota. Are they signed together the entire time? Couldn't it have been US 12 and left 394 unsigned?
Quote from: Bryant5493 on February 20, 2009, 10:17:45 PM
Quick question: I'm trying to produce a YouTube video, therefore, I need some information. Are MS-67 and MS-15 multiplexed north of I-110? Or is MS-67 over at the Woolmarket exit (I-10 exit 41)? I heard about the "new" Highway 67, but the signage is a little contradictory, I think.
Darkangel snapped a photo of the new End I-110/North MS 15/67 shield assembly, so it appears that they will be cosigned:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh5.ggpht.com%2F_29iyIg-vTTw%2FSYeDJpSz4SI%2FAAAAAAAACxo%2FcORiFNz7XC8%2Fs640%2FIMG_0090.JPG&hash=8898b68141cfb095d87488b9f051c5c06c07944c)
^^ I saw that when I was in Biloxi earlier this week, but about a few miles east of here (on I-10), exit 41 is signed MS-67 North (Woolmarket). I guess Miss. DOT just hasn't gotten around to changing the signage at that exit.
Thanks, aaroads.
Be well,
Bryant
Quote from: DrZoidberg on February 20, 2009, 10:47:11 PM
Another multiplex I think is useless is I-394/US 12 in Minnesota. Are they signed together the entire time? Couldn't it have been US 12 and left 394 unsigned?
US routes aren't even signed on Interstate concurrencies in MN.
I-894 became "pointless now that US-45 follows it N-S and I-43 follows it E-W
I-535 is also a bit pointless - just a part of US 53.
All this talk of US highway and interstate concurrencies fascinates me here in California, where we ONLY have two (US 95 with I-40 and later with I-10)!
Technically, we have I-305 concurrent with US 50's first few miles (and Business 80) in West Sacramento/Sacramento but that is not signed and only a FHWA designation not acknowledged here at the state level.
In the 1950s and 1960s, before some US routes were truncated, interstates and US routes were co-signed very well in this state (i.e. US 101 and I-5 south of East Los Angeles, US 60/70/99 with I-10 along the San Bernardino Freeway, US 66/91/395 with I-15 through Cajon, US 40 with I-80, US 50 with I-580/previously I-5W, US 99 and I-5 along the Golden State Freeway). Much evidence of this previous co-signing still exists in older freeway signage statewide, particularly an example of a US 50 greenout reappearing in metro Oakland two or three years ago along I-580.
(Another vestige of this is the "double-shield" practice on the largest green signs - this used to be one shield each for the two multiplexed routes, i.e. I-5/US 101, but then became two shields for the remaining route, with a new shield placed on where the decommissioned route's sign was.)
Quote from: froggie on February 21, 2009, 11:13:27 PM
However, these routes are full-fledged Interstates that were built with Interstate Construction funds. And, of course, Interstates take precedence over U.S. routes...
Well, there are a number of "unsigned" interstates. (http://www.interstate-guide.com/unsigned.html (http://www.interstate-guide.com/unsigned.html))
The most notable of which is MD I-595. The road is signed US 50 & 301 and the 595 is unsigned. So, there is precedent to leave an interstate unsigned.
Quote from: aaroads on February 18, 2009, 04:53:25 PM
Iowa 27 is useless. I know that they are trying to have it follow the Avenue of the Saints Corridor, but the numbered designation to go along Interstate 380, U.S. 218, etc. is useless.
I have mixed feelings about Iowa 27. On one hand its only independent section could have just been a relocated US 218. On the other Iowa is somewhat poor with control cities/destination signage on the Avenue of the Saints north of Waterloo - really could use St. Paul, MN listed sooner and at the northern split of US 18/US 218. I think they could have chosen a better number for it at least, maybe IA 53 (would make it easier for a future interstate number for the Avenue), or IA 380 (to be state highway extensions of I-380).
Quote from: froggie on February 21, 2009, 11:13:27 PM
You have also seen firsthand how slow MDOT is on changing route signage when there's a change in route location. I can't begin to tell you the number of times I've seen old signage linger.
ODOT is lucky they don't do that. If they did, I'd either call and complain, or go buy a bunch of trash bags and cover the signs up myself! :P
One useless multiplex would be the US 40/I-68 multiplex through most of western MD. Instead of having an Alternate US 40 running alongside the freeway which carries both I-68 and US 40, it would make more sense to have US 40 follow the old road. On the other hand, the multiplex east of Cumberland makes sense, considering there are several gaps in the old alignment of US 40 there.
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 22, 2009, 12:45:08 AM
Quote from: froggie on February 21, 2009, 11:13:27 PM
You have also seen firsthand how slow MDOT is on changing route signage when there's a change in route location. I can't begin to tell you the number of times I've seen old signage linger.
ODOT is lucky they don't do that. If they did, I'd either call and complain, or go buy a bunch of trash bags and cover the signs up myself! :P
You're planning to do that the instant US 77 is realigned in Norman, aren't you? :-P
Quote from: algorerhythms on February 22, 2009, 01:03:01 AM
You're planning to do that the instant US 77 is realigned in Norman, aren't you? :-P
Maybe... :spin:
Quote from: froggie on February 21, 2009, 11:13:27 PM
QuoteQuick question: I'm trying to produce a YouTube video, therefore, I need some information. Are MS-67 and MS-15 multiplexed north of I-110? Or is MS-67 over at the Woolmarket exit (I-10 exit 41)? I heard about the "new" Highway 67, but the signage is a little contradictory, I think.
Alex beat me to it, but yes, MS 15 and MS 67 will be cosigned for about a mile or so north of I-10/I-110.
You have also seen firsthand how slow MDOT is on changing route signage when there's a change in route location. I can't begin to tell you the number of times I've seen old signage linger.
Okay, thanks.
Be well,
Bryant
QuoteI think the entire proposed I-73/I-74 multiplex through West Virginia and North Carolina could be defined as useless, especially how their routes would braid together and apart for hundreds of miles.
It is going to be tough enough to get one of those routes completed, but two? From what I have seen, they don't go thorugh or near many major cities south of the Ohio River. No state has done anything with these routes, that I can see, north of the North Carolina line, and it takes years to get any route contructed these days, between chronic shortages of funding and the endlessly drawn out NEPA process.
Why not just stick with the I-74 extension and drop I-73 entirely, since an I-74 extension from Cincinnatti seems more feasible than the construction of an I-73 all the way to Michigan.
I also think the I-73/I-74 multiplex through Ohio, West Virginia, Virginia, and North Carolina is completely useless. I would truncate I-74 to a junction with I-73 in southern Ohio. I would then route I-73 by itself to North Carolina. I-74 doesn't deserve to be in North Carolina, especially considering the fact that it has to be mulitplexed with I-73 to get there.
Why does that multiplex even exist? Surely there are even 2di numbers available in that area.
EDIT: This is, ironically, my 74th post.
The 580-80 multiplex seems fairly useless. I never understood why it was extended across the San Rafael Bridge from the East Bay.
Quote from: voyager on February 23, 2009, 04:49:27 PM
The 580-80 multiplex seems fairly useless. I never understood why it was extended across the San Rafael Bridge from the East Bay.
Since California doesn't duplicate route numbers, 180 (the preliminary FHWA designation for that former segment of Route 17 between San Rafael and Richmond, which was being upgraded to Interstate/freeway standards in the late 80s) could not be used. So I-580 was extended west to US 101 instead
They could have just used a state route though.
or an interstate business route ;-) (ala Sacramento)
Lots of them in OK...US 377/OK 99, OK 15/74, US 60/OK 51, OK 9/US 59-271, US 64/US 169 are but a few.
Quote from: voyager on February 23, 2009, 05:00:27 PM
They could have just used a state route though.
The freeway replacement for Route 17/Hoffman Boulevard however was entirely built with Interstate funds; California's only hidden interstate (I-305) was originally signed as a portion of I-80 (with the segment from Jefferson Boulevard to Route 99 built as such).
I-82/US 12/US 97
Originally, US 12/97 were on a different road, currently SR 22
12/97 (and 410 for that matter) were never on SR 22. They followed what is now known as Yakima Valley Hwy and Wine Country Road on the east side of the Yakima, which very closely parallel I-82, so there would be no reason to have both alignments as state highways
Pre 1964 SR 22 was SSH 3A and 97/410 was PSH 3
Oh...thanks for correcting me there, Corco!
I see no reason why I-694 is multiplexed with I-94 north of Minneapolis. Then again I have no idea why it's necessary to have two 3 digit interstates (I-694 and I-494) assigned to the beltway around the twin cities. Why didn't they just number the entire roadway either I-494 or I-694?
Terry Shea: Probably due to the fact that the loop makes a "rectangle" as opposed to a perfect square/circle. Similar example occurs in the San Francisco Bay Area, with I-280 and I-680.
If I recall, wasn't I-94 to take a more direct route between downtown and it interchange on the beltway? I believe it died of NIMBY complications.
How about US 264 from Zebulon (IIRC) west to Raleigh? Why doesn't it end at US 64 like it used to, and like it does at Mann's Harbor now?
Likewise US 117 near Wilson. It's apparently multiplexed with US 264 to I-95 (nice road, though, south of US 264)
Quote from: froggie on March 29, 2009, 08:34:03 AM
QuoteI see no reason why I-694 is multiplexed with I-94 north of Minneapolis. Then again I have no idea why it's necessary to have two 3 digit interstates (I-694 and I-494) assigned to the beltway around the twin cities. Why didn't they just number the entire roadway either I-494 or I-694?
Can't answer the former, but can answer the latter: it's because the two parts of the Twin Cities beltway serve completely different travelsheds. I-694 is a true "central cities bypass", while I-494 is a standard southern loop/beltway.
Well, I don't really understand that explanation or why it would make a difference. It's all the same loop around the twin cities metro area so why shouldn't it all have the same highway number?
Quotefrom OracleUsr: How about US 264 from Zebulon (IIRC) west to Raleigh? Why doesn't it end at US 64 like it used to, and like it does at Mann's Harbor now?
Likewise US 117 near Wilson. It's apparently multiplexed with US 264 to I-95 (nice road, though, south of US 264)
US 117 is now I-795 along the freeway section north of US 70 in Goldsboro and US 117 was supposed to be moved onto its old alignment, but AASHTO and NCDOT can't understand each other. Also US 117 is still signed on BGS's and I-795 uses US 117 exit numbers as of December 2008. :poke: :-D
QuoteIf I recall, wasn't I-94 to take a more direct route between downtown and it interchange on the beltway? I believe it died of NIMBY complications.
In the very early planning, yes there was consideration to take I-94 along the "Northwest Arterial" (which would've roughly paralleled or followed West Broadway and County 81). However, by 1959 (only 3 years after Congress officially created the Interstates), I-94 was planned more or less along its present-day alignment.
QuoteWell, I don't really understand that explanation or why it would make a difference. It's all the same loop around the twin cities metro area so why shouldn't it all have the same highway number?
It makes a difference because one half of the loop (i.e. I-694) is considerably shorter than the other half (i.e. I-494). Much easier to tell I-94 drivers...
"if you want to bypass the downtowns, take I-694". If the loop were all one number, you'd have potential confusion from folks following the loop number to bypass the downtowns, but potentially in the wrong direction. Sure, they'd eventually make it back to I-94, but only after adding 10 miles to their trip (I-694 is 31 miles, vice 41 miles for I-494) and going through the most congested part of the Beltway (I-494 through Bloomington).
Quote from: froggie on March 29, 2009, 07:57:19 PM
QuoteIf I recall, wasn't I-94 to take a more direct route between downtown and it interchange on the beltway? I believe it died of NIMBY complications.
In the very early planning, yes there was consideration to take I-94 along the "Northwest Arterial" (which would've roughly paralleled or followed West Broadway and County 81). However, by 1959 (only 3 years after Congress officially created the Interstates), I-94 was planned more or less along its present-day alignment.
QuoteWell, I don't really understand that explanation or why it would make a difference. It's all the same loop around the twin cities metro area so why shouldn't it all have the same highway number?
It makes a difference because one half of the loop (i.e. I-694) is considerably shorter than the other half (i.e. I-494). Much easier to tell I-94 drivers..."if you want to bypass the downtowns, take I-694". If the loop were all one number, you'd have potential confusion from folks following the loop number to bypass the downtowns, but potentially in the wrong direction. Sure, they'd eventually make it back to I-94, but only after adding 10 miles to their trip (I-694 is 31 miles, vice 41 miles for I-494) and going through the most congested part of the Beltway (I-494 through Bloomington).
I'm sorry, but that explanation still doesn't make any sense to me. Anyone consulting a map or atlas can plainly see which route is shorter regardless of what the highway number is, and those not consulting a map or atlas and not familiar with the area are likely to stay on I-94 through the Twin Cities. If they're astute enough to realize that I-494 and I-694 are bypasses, they still won't know which route is shorter unless it's signed which way thru traffic is supposed to go, which once again means that the loop having 2 distinct route numbers would have no bearing whatsoever on travelers.
The whole Twin Cities metro area looks confusing as far as the highway numbering goes. You have I-35E and I-35W which is confusing enough in itself. Then it appears as if many freeway numbers in the area (especially I-35W) exit onto other freeway segments several different times and serpentine through town.
I could understand the necessity of having the dual loop designation if I-94 followed the routing of I-394 to the west and then north along the I-494 routing. The bypass wouldn't make a complete loop in that case, except they'd probably multiplex I-494 with I-94 like they did with I-694 and I-94. Actually I could understand the dual loop designation if I-694 wasn't multiplexed with I-94, because in that case the bypass wouldn't be making a full loop either, but they did multiplex it, so I see no reason why a continuous bypass loop needs 2 separate 3 digit interstate designations.
The I-696 and Mound Road stacker interchange is now useless. Designed for a full fledged interstate, now just for local traffic. What a waste!
Quote from: Hellfighter06 on March 30, 2009, 02:43:12 PM
The I-696 and Mound Road stacker interchange is now useless. Designed for a full fledged interstate, now just for local traffic. What a waste!
I agree, but what does that have to do with useless multiplexes?
These are my favorite useless multiplexes:
1) US 69, US 96, US 287 AT Beaumont, Texas - It should just be US 69. US 96 should not be a north-south highway; should be renamed US 559. US 287 should end at US 69 north of Beaumont.
2) US 50/400- One of them needs to go.
3) US 25, US 301, US 341 in Georgia- Perhaps US 25 should end at Statesboro.
4)US 1/23/301- US 301 should end in Georgia and US 23 should take over US 301's route in Florida.
5) I-64 with I-55/70- Interstate 64 should end at the jct. with I-55/70 in Illinois unless Interstate 64 should take over 44's route in Missouri and Oklahoma.
6) US 6 with US 50 and 191 in Nevada and Utah- US 6 should end in Colorado and the US 6 in Nevada and California should be renamed US 450.
7) In Ohio: US 250/SR 60, US 23/ SR 199, US 20A/SR 2 , I-90/SR 2
8) US 19/98 in Florida. If I had my way US 98 would not even enter Florida.
The highway system is not perfect.
QuoteI'm sorry, but that explanation still doesn't make any sense to me. Anyone consulting a map or atlas can plainly see which route is shorter regardless of what the highway number is, and those not consulting a map or atlas and not familiar with the area are likely to stay on I-94 through the Twin Cities. If they're astute enough to realize that I-494 and I-694 are bypasses, they still won't know which route is shorter unless it's signed which way thru traffic is supposed to go, which once again means that the loop having 2 distinct route numbers would have no bearing whatsoever on travelers.
It
is signed which way thru traffic is supposed to go. There are signs all over the place saying "Twin Cities Bypass Follow [I-694]". If there were only one number for the beltway they would have to say "Follow [I-x94] Northbound then Westbound" or whatever.
I think the real reason that there are two separate numbers is that someone at MHD back in the 1950s, before any actual beltways had been built anywhere by anyone, decided to do it that way. It doesn't have to be any more complicated than that, and it's obvious that changing the numbers now would be a lot more trouble than it's worth.
QuoteThen it appears as if many freeway numbers in the area (especially I-35W) exit onto other freeway segments several different times and serpentine through town.
I have no idea what you mean by this. 35W does twist and turn quite a bit, but at no point does it "exit onto other freeway segments". It's more or less a straight shot, with a couple of 90-degree curves thrown in to keep you awake.
Quote from: Coelacanth on March 31, 2009, 01:34:43 PM
QuoteThen it appears as if many freeway numbers in the area (especially I-35W) exit onto other freeway segments several different times and serpentine through town.
I have no idea what you mean by this. 35W does twist and turn quite a bit, but at no point does it "exit onto other freeway segments". It's more or less a straight shot, with a couple of 90-degree curves thrown in to keep you awake.
According to the 2009 Rand McNally atlas, northbound I-35W goes about straight north to exit 9, then it exits onto another freeway segment multiplexing with SR-62 eastward, then exits onto another freeway segment heading northerly into the city of Minneapolis, then exits onto another freeway segment multiplexing with I-94 again running easterly, then exits onto another freeway segment which runs northeasterly with a big hook in the middle of the segment, then exits onto one final long segment that heads about straight north and then turns northeasterly where it eventually rejoins I-35E. That's what I'm talking about. Instead of being 1 continuous freeway through the area it follows, by my count, 6 different freeway segments to get where it's going. Never having been there, that may not exactly be the case, but that is how it looks according to the atlas.
Quote from: froggie on March 31, 2009, 05:21:23 PM
QuoteNever having been there, that may not exactly be the case, but that is how it looks according to the atlas.
See my post right before yours...
In a nutshell, I-35W is a continuous freeway all the way through. It does not multiplex with I-94 (each route has separate carriageways). Likewise, when the Crosstown Commons reconstruction (I-35W/MN 62) is completed next year, I-35W and MN 62 will have separate carriageways. But even before then, I-35W was the "through freeway" through the I-35W/MN 62 area.
But you do have to exit several times to stay on I-35W do you not?
How about I-99 almost all of it's length is multiplexed with US-220.
M-44 being multiplexed with M-37 south of I-96 is useless and redundant. M-44 is an east-west route along Belding Road then turns south along Northland Dr and East Beltline, even though it is still signed as East/West. At I-96, M-44 is multiplexed with M-37 southward to M-11 where M-44 ends. M-37 continues along the same roadway (now called Broadmoor Ave) southerly through Caledonia, Middleville and Battle Creek before ending at I-94. MDOT had removed the M-44 designation along the multiplexed portion of the East Beltline for a period of time and then later resigned it. Useless, redundant and a waste of taxpayer money too.
Quote from: TheStranger on February 19, 2009, 05:25:24 PM
In most places, the multiplex is shown with seperate shields; the one notable exception out here (if it hasn't been mentioned already) is US 1/US 9 in New Jersey. (There's also a I-55/I-70 shield somewhere in downtown St. Louis I've seen on the web somewhere...)
There are combo US 56/412 signs in New Mexico. Also, there's a 44/55/65/70 combo shield somewhere in St Louis.
US 79 and US 80 have combo shields in Shreveport and Minden, LA.
Quote from: leifanderwall2) I-55/I-70/I-64 Multiplex at St. Louis unless I-64 takes over the I-44 route.
Strongly disagree; I-64's presence in Missouri provides an alternate source for three digit interstates. I-70 is already low on available three digit routes and it is very easy to find places to use up the remaining ones.
I've seen a 65/70 combo sign in Indianapolis.
Sykotyk
(former, removed 2006)
US 197 and SR 14, The Dalles to Maryhill (US 97)
Some more VA ones(this could be important to some): US 522/VA 3 and VA 3/VA 14(why does VA 3 have to go to Gloucester in the wrong direction than the rest of its route)
OK 51 is concurrent with US 60 for 61 miles from the TX State Line to Seiling, then is concurrent for another 9 miles with US 270, US 281 & OK 3.
How about US 23 in Florida! US 23 should end in Waycross, GA!
US 319 with US 98 in the Florida Panhandle!
OK 3 shouldn't exist at all northwest of Oklahoma City.
I think US-36 in Illinois should be transfered to the two-lane road instead of on I-72 (I also think former US highways 12 and 16 in Michigan could have been saved if MDOT didn't sign the US highway on the new interstates)
US-12 has not been truncated in Michigan. You mean US-10?
I think that's old US 12, aka Michigan Avenue, which followed the same Kalamazoo-Jackson-Ann Arbor path that I-94 now takes. Part of it is known today as M-96, from Kalamazoo to Marshall. The current US 12 used to be US 112 until I-94 was built.
Quote from: leifvanderwall on March 31, 2009, 12:54:40 PM
These are my favorite useless multiplexes:
2) US 50/400- One of them needs to go.
5) I-64 with I-55/70- Interstate 64 should end at the jct. with I-55/70 in Illinois unless Interstate 64 should take over 44's route in Missouri and Oklahoma.
6) US 6 with US 50 and 191 in Nevada and Utah- US 6 should end in Colorado and the US 6 in Nevada and California should be renamed US 450.
The highway system is not perfect.
2)I'm suggesting US 400 should be truncated back to Dodge City KS, because US 50 was always there, back in 1926.
5) Why? I-64 would meet US 64 in Oklahoma.
6) The loop of US 6 from Green River UT to Spanish Fork to Delta should be renumbered US 450 (II), while the western section of US 6 from US 93 at Ely NV, to US 395 at Bishop CA should be renumbered US 650 (II).
Since Wyoming is the state of multiplexes, I'll analyze them:
1) US 14/16/20 It should be US 20 only, US 14 should end in Greybull and US 16 should end in Worland.
2) US 26/89/189/191 US 189 should end at Daniel Jct at US 191. There is no need for US 189 to go up US 191 & US 26/89 into Jackson.
3) WY 789/US 310, WY 789/US 14/16/20 WY789/US 16/20, WY 789/US 20, WY 789/US 287, WY 789/I-80/US 30 Too many multiplexes for WY 789. I don't know why WY 789 is duplexed all the way to the MT border with US 310.
In fact, let US 310 take over WY 789 and CO 13 all the way to I-70 at Rifle. Plus WY 789 could take a more direct route along WY 135 between Riverton & Jeffrey City.
4) US 18/85, US 18/20The only reason US 18 exists between Mule Ck Jct and Orin is so that it can reach I-25. US 18 should head NORTH on US 85 and turn west at Newcastle onto US 16 west, and then take WY 450 to Wright, then WY 59 north for a short duplex and then west on WY 387 to meet I-25/US 87 at Exit 227, west of Edgerton.
Or, better yet, just end US 18 at US 85.
Pretty much all of ME-100, and most of ME-9 south/west of Bangor can be removed.
Quote from: ausinterkid on March 27, 2011, 05:24:11 AM
3) WY 789/US 310, WY 789/US 14/16/20 WY789/US 16/20, WY 789/US 20, WY 789/US 287, WY 789/I-80/US 30 Too many multiplexes for WY 789. I don't know why WY 789 is duplexed all the way to the MT border with US 310.
In fact, let US 310 take over WY 789 and CO 13 all the way to I-70 at Rifle. Plus WY 789 could take a more direct route along WY 135 between Riverton & Jeffrey City.
I seem to remember some discussion on this forum (or maybe elsewhere) that WY 789 was planned to be part of a multi-state Highway 789, but the other states involved either didn't get on board with the idea or discontinued their portions.
I-296 and US-131 in Grand Rapids, but I-296 hasn't been signed for 30 years or more. IMHO, I-296 should take over M-6 around Grand Rapids.
M-37 and M-44 between I-96 and M-11 in Grand Rapids and Kentwood. M-44 was shortened to end at I-96, then was re-extended to M-11 just recently. Maybe MDOT has plans to reroute M-37 along I-96 and M-6 and extend M-44 along Broadmoor Ave (current M-37) to M-6.
I-96 and I-275 west of Detroit. IMHO, I-275 should end at the interchange with I-96 and M-14.
M-22 and M-72 in Traverse City. M-22 continues from the intersection at M-72 to the intersection at US-31/M-37. IMHO, M-22 should be scaled back to M-72.
Quote from: ftballfan on March 27, 2011, 08:08:11 PM
I-296 and US-131 in Grand Rapids, but I-296 hasn't been signed for 30 years or more. IMHO, I-296 should take over M-6 around Grand Rapids.
M-37 and M-44 between I-96 and M-11 in Grand Rapids and Kentwood. M-44 was shortened to end at I-96, then was re-extended to M-11 just recently. Maybe MDOT has plans to reroute M-37 along I-96 and M-6 and extend M-44 along Broadmoor Ave (current M-37) to M-6.
I-96 and I-275 west of Detroit. IMHO, I-275 should end at the interchange with I-96 and M-14.
M-22 and M-72 in Traverse City. M-22 continues from the intersection at M-72 to the intersection at US-31/M-37. IMHO, M-22 should be scaled back to M-72.
I-296 hasn't been signed since about 1979 or 1980, but as long as it is part of the Interstate Highway System, an Interstate number, hidden or not, will remain on that stretch of roadway. MDOT could have asked for an Interstate number for M-6, but they didn't feel the need. If they did, they could have asked to have I-296 moved to the South Beltline and redesignated the freeway near downtown as I-896.
M-44 was supposed to be retruncated last year, but the signs are still up. I like Barry Camp's suggestion to truncate M-37 at I-96 in Walker and reroute M-44 down Plainfield Avenue, replacing the CONN M-44 designation. Then East Beltline Avenue could be designated M-87 and replace M-37 south to Battle Creek.
I-39 is multiplexed with US-51 for its entire length in Illinois, and again north of Portage, WI...
I-393 in New Hampshire.
It's concurrent with 4, 9, and 202.
IL/MO 110 :)
Quote from: roadfro on March 27, 2011, 06:05:49 PM
Quote from: ausinterkid on March 27, 2011, 05:24:11 AM
3) WY 789/US 310, WY 789/US 14/16/20 WY789/US 16/20, WY 789/US 20, WY 789/US 287, WY 789/I-80/US 30 Too many multiplexes for WY 789. I don't know why WY 789 is duplexed all the way to the MT border with US 310.
In fact, let US 310 take over WY 789 and CO 13 all the way to I-70 at Rifle. Plus WY 789 could take a more direct route along WY 135 between Riverton & Jeffrey City.
I seem to remember some discussion on this forum (or maybe elsewhere) that WY 789 was planned to be part of a multi-state Highway 789, but the other states involved either didn't get on board with the idea or discontinued their portions.
Actually, I think it was planned to be a border-to-border US-789 (Montana-Wyoming-Colorado-New Mexico-Arizona), but was ultimately rejected by AASHTO because too much of its length ran concurrent with other U.S. Routes.
Missouri has several. 96 and 571 comes to mind, as does 39 and 265.
QuoteActually, I think it was planned to be a border-to-border US-789 (Montana-Wyoming-Colorado-New Mexico-Arizona), but was ultimately rejected by AASHTO because too much of its length ran concurrent with other U.S. Routes.
Right. Wyoming presumably kept it because it gives a logical north south number to a bunch of east-west highways that run north-south in a populated part of the state. It's a lot easier to give somebody directions from Rawlins to Worland or something with 789 in place. (though why 789 isn't routed up WYO 135 is another discussion)
Quote from: corco on August 10, 2013, 11:59:36 PM
QuoteActually, I think it was planned to be a border-to-border US-789 (Montana-Wyoming-Colorado-New Mexico-Arizona), but was ultimately rejected by AASHTO because too much of its length ran concurrent with other U.S. Routes.
Right. Wyoming presumably kept it because it gives a logical north south number to a bunch of east-west highways that run north-south in a populated part of the state. It's a lot easier to give somebody directions from Rawlins to Worland or something with 789 in place. (though why 789 isn't routed up WYO 135 is another discussion)
Is Lander very important to the route? Maybe 135 wasn't in good condition at the time WY 789 was commissioned.
QuoteI-393 in New Hampshire.
It's concurrent with 4, 9, and 202.
I-393 is also the only reason that segment of freeway was built to begin with. I doubt NHDOT would have fronted the funds for it if they didn't have access to Interstate construction money.
US 202 in Delaware, practically, ends at I-95, but the number follows I-95 and DE 141 to end at US 40.
Even weirder, and certainly causing a bit of confusion, DE 202 (once part of the US route) continues along the road south of I-95 to end at US 13 in Wilmington.