Inspired by the "Pointless Termini" thread, what signed route designations would you consider pointless in themselves? This can be Interstate, US highway, state route, whatever.
Is the infamous "bridge to nowhere" part of Alaska's state highway system?
VA-337. It is almost always multiplexed with other routes, and pretty much goes in one big loop.
I-664. Just make the whole I-64/I-664 loop the Hampton Roads Beltway and be done with it.
VA-278. It is nothing but a short stretch of King St. here, that serves no real purpose other than connecting US-258 with downtown Hampton (which can barely even be considered a downtown).
VA-169. It's almost a complete loop over a ton of different roads, all of which are known by locals solely by their names, i.e. Fox Hill Rd.
I can probably think of more...
How about the highway to no where in Nunavut... One of Nunavut's longest highways (and most pointless)
VA 296 and VA 298 in West Point are complelety useless town routes in residential areas without lines and US 460 in Chesapeake and in Norfolk south of downtown(basically US 460 should follow US 460 Alt as the whole route is multiplexed with state routes or US 13).
State Route 503 spur in Washington State, up near Mt. St. Helens. As long as it is, they may as well make it an actual separate state route. Actually, most "Spur" Routes, imo, are pointless. I'm also not keen on "Alt" routes, either. There's enough numbers to go around.
-Alex (Tarkus)
Quote from: DrZoidberg on February 18, 2009, 07:53:15 PM
Is the infamous "bridge to nowhere" part of Alaska's state highway system?
Although the Bridge to Nowhere was never constructed, the three-mile approach road to it was built (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/24/palin.road.to.nowhere/index.html).
Florida 145 between U.S. 98 and Florida 85 in Fort Walton Beach has no real value of being a state maintained route. It's only 0.51 miles in length and only acts as a shortcut for those heading west on U.S, 98 to northbound Florida 85. Plus given the fact that Florida 145 doesn't fit into the Florida state road numbering scheme. Florida 145 should really be located somewhere in the northern part of Florida somewhere south of Florida 100 and north of Florida 200, preferably in the vicinity of Lake City or somewhere nearby.
Texas Route 354.
Just south of Dumas.
Sykotyk
I-790; multiplexed its entire length, only a little over a mile long. The DOT wants to reroute it to Rome, so hopefully it will get some purpose soon (AASHO has already approved, but they want it to go all the way to Rome, so an at-grade railroad crossing needs to be removed first).
Arkansas has too many
AR 180 at Fayetteville:
- Originally a loop to the local United Methodist retreat. Maybe AHTD felt justified in having a state maintained road (though it isn't anymore)
-Another section was about 2 miles in length and connected US 71 in the north-central part of town to AR 112 in the NW side of town. This was in the pre-bypass days so maybe it served a purpose. In the 1990's it was rerouted from an E-W, N-S, E-W road to simply E-W and N-S. AHTD just dropped a bunch of money the last two years to widen the road, then gave it to the city to maintain.
Also AR 60 near Rudy. It begins at AR 282 and heads north about 5 miles before becoming a county road. There are no businesses here, just houses and farmland.
Rogers has a 1/2 mile section of AR 102 which is little more than a state maintained spur to the Tyson chicken plant. The rest of the road is a city street. Arkansas has a lot of state maintained factory access roads.
Quote from: Sykotyk on February 18, 2009, 08:42:11 PM
Texas Route 354.
Just south of Dumas.
Well, Dumas is pretty pointless in itself :-D
I think VA 356 is pointless unless it is extended to US 250 or VA 6; it's a neighborhood street with no apparent purpose, plus the VA 3XX routes nowadays are mainly intended to serve state facilities.
Also pointless: VA 4, VA 270, VA 278, VA 283, VA 290, VA 300 and most of the I-81 to US 11 connector routes.
I know quite a few SR's in VA that should be primary, but that's not the focus of this thread. :P
I have got the ultimate pointless route. How about the proposed I-66 through Kentucky? It doesn't connect to anything outside of the state. It doesn't connect major population centers within Kentucky. Most of the route is already constructed as four-lane limited access parkways anyway (and don't have much traffic on them to this day). Even the route number is ridiculous. It doesn't fit in the grid and the entire length of this route is south of I-64. And does anybody really believe that this route will ever connect with existing I-66 in Virginia? I know I-66 was at one time envisioned to be a new transcontentinal route. But that is only a pipe dream now, and somehow, I think the country can get by without a new interstate connection between Summerset and London.
The money spent on I-66 would be better spent on completing the I-69 extension.
All secondary state highways. Not every road over 2 blocks in length needs a state highway number.
VT F-5. DE 24A (which only seems to exist on the official state map). DE 9A. DE 1D (entirely multiplexed). NJ 413 (entirely county-maintained). NJ 13, 59, 62, 64, 152, 162 - just because a bridge was built by the state doesn't mean it has to be a state route. NJ 26 and 91 - parallel and useless. NJ 163, 167, 324 - just because the state once owned it doesn't mean it has to be a route after it's made into a dead end. NJ 165 - entirely concurrent with 29 now. NJ 444S - make it part of 36.
In California...
- Route 229 (decomissioned? but still partially signed) northeast of Santa Margarita
- Route 213 in Los Angeles along Western Avenue (interestingly, unbuilt Route 258 corresponds with Western Avenue north of 213's terminus - making me wonder why the seperate designation)
- Route 244 in Sacramento - since the segment connecting Auburn Boulevard with US 50 will never be built, the remainder (a ramp from I-80) is rather useless as an official (unsigned) state route
- Route 164 in the San Gabriel Valley, which with the exception of a never-built ramp to I-605 was originally Route 19 and still signed as such (was supposed to be part of a freeway realignment which never ocurred - why change the route number in any case, given that the signage has never been adjusted?)
Quote from: froggie on February 18, 2009, 10:02:31 PM
As for other "pointless routes", I'd add VA 246, VA 223, VA 404 (yes it still exists), VA 166 south of downtown Norfolk, ALT VA 337, and VA 216 to the list (amongst others in Virginia).
The thought of VA 166 being "pointless" goes back to my earlier posting of that US 460 should be moved onto US 460 ALT between the current US 58 and US 460 split and Downtown Norfolk, which would allow VA 166 to be more important without the multiplex and US 460 take a more direct route to Downtown Norfolk.
Isn't KY 80 between Sommerset and London already a four-lane facility, although not a freeway? Whether there is a need for a freeway between those two towns or not, my point is that designating an interstate highway across the entire southern lenght of Kentucky that doesn't really connect large population centers or fills in gaps within the existing interstate system seems pointless.
I don't think I-66 in Kentucky is completely useless. There really needs to be a cutoff between the Natcher Parkway and I-65 at Bowling Green.
Quote from: Revive 755 on February 19, 2009, 04:13:06 PM
I don't think I-66 in Kentucky is completely useless. There really needs to be a cutoff between the Natcher Parkway and I-65 at Bowling Green.
Unfortunately, the official state maps I've seen have the proposed I-66 simply taking the Natcher to its end then duplex with I-65 until it gets to the Louie B. Nunn (Cumberland) Parkway.
But, I haven't been following it that closely since it seems to be a renumbering exercise in most of the state. (and a way to pay for the parkways now that the tolls are gone)
Therefore, Revive 755, please let me apologize in advance if you've seen information I haven't on a different routing for "Future I-66" around Bowling Green.
Quote from: froggie on February 18, 2009, 10:02:31 PM
QuoteVA-337. It is almost always multiplexed with other routes, and pretty much goes in one big loop.
I disagree with you on this one. First off, it's one of two main routes between downtown Norfolk and the Naval Base, and the only one that goes directly to NOB. Second, it serves a rapidly growing area of northern Chesapeake and eastern Suffolk. Thirdly, of the roughly 36 miles of VA 337 that exist, only about 5 miles are actually duplexed with other routes.
Yes VA-337 does travel up Hampton Blvd., doesn't it... I'm so used to using 564 to get to the Naval Base/NIT area that I forgot 337 even went up there. And the multiplexing through the Midtown tunnel and MLK Freeway plus with 58 in Portsmouth is only 5 miles? As for it reaching suffolk, I've never noticed it reaching that far... I can never figure out where exactly that route goes... back to Google Earth.
QuoteQuoteI-664. Just make the whole I-64/I-664 loop the Hampton Roads Beltway and be done with it.
If anything, I'd extend I-664 along the southern half of the Beltway and have the "I-64/264/664" interchange be the existing 64/264 interchange in eastern Norfolk.
I still think that cutting 664 out completely and calling the whole thing simply the beltway (instead of signing it as both) would be so much simpler...
QuoteQuoteVA-278. It is nothing but a short stretch of King St. here, that serves no real purpose other than connecting US-258 with downtown Hampton (which can barely even be considered a downtown).
Actually, that part of King St isn't part of VA 278, which only exists north of US 258/Mercury Blvd. VA 278's main purpose is to connect US 258 with the King St. Gate into Langley AFB. That said, there's no reason why such a connection requires a state highway route, especially considering that the city is in charge of all non-Interstate roads to begin with...
Oops! :-P You're right. I always think that sign at the bottom of the Mercury offramp says South 278 not north. But it's still pointless!
QuoteQuoteVA-169. It's almost a complete loop over a ton of different roads, all of which are known by locals solely by their names, i.e. Fox Hill Rd.
One could make a similar argument for VA 152.
Yes I meant to include that on my list... Cunningham/Todd's Lane really does not deserve a route number.
I didn't see I-180 in Illinois yet, I don't think. So there. I-180 in Illinois. One of the most lightly travelled interstates in the country. Connects 80 with Hennepin 'cuz of some government/military contract. Meh.
I-180 could become slightly less pointless if extended to I-74/I-474 in Peoria via current IL 6 and IL 29. However, since there's virtually nothing out there and no real benefit in doing so, it would still be pointless (and would need to be renumbered, maybe I-480).
I'm not entirely sure what the point is to I-155 in IL, either. It needs to be renumbered, for one, since it begins and ends at an interstate (I-455, maybe?). Peoria and Bloomington aren't exactly very large cities (Springfield is larger in terms of population, but isn't served by any 3dis - current IL 4 could have been one).
Quote from: froggie on February 19, 2009, 07:31:45 PM
QuoteAnd the multiplexing through the Midtown tunnel and MLK Freeway plus with 58 in Portsmouth is only 5 miles?
Actually, VA 337 follows down Brambleton, Tidewater, across the Berkley Bridge, down 464, and across the now-closed Jordan Bridge. You're thinking of one of the two ALT VA 337's.
Well stupid Google Earth then! :-P All my maps just show it as VA-337, no ALT.
QuoteQuoteAs for it reaching suffolk, I've never noticed it reaching that far... I can never figure out where exactly that route goes... back to Google Earth.
Or you could look here (http://www.vahighways.com/route-log/va321-340.htm#va337)... :nod:
Thanks! I can trace it now... you just have to zoom in really close for it to show up on Nansemond Pkwy. and Portsmouth Blvd.
QuoteQuoteI still think that cutting 664 out completely and calling the whole thing simply the beltway (instead of signing it as both) would be so much simpler...
Not gonna happen. First off, that's Interstate mileage so it's not going to go without a number. Second, the Southside (and Norfolk in particular) would raise a stink of I-64 didn't cross over from the Peninsula.
Yes but I can dream can't I? :rolleyes:
I should have mentioned this earlier but the ultimate pointless route in VA outside of West Point is VA 13 due to US 13 out east and that this route has nothing to do with it. Besides VA 13 should probably either be a VA 260 or an SR. Also VA 360 is completely pointless due to its proximity to US 360 as well.
Quote from: froggie on March 05, 2009, 10:23:52 PM
I'll agree on VA 13, which has been a numbering violation for the 76 years it's existed.
VA 360, while a numbering violation, could only be considered a "pointless route NUMBER". The route itself is valid. Easy fix would be to extend VA 344 along it.
I agree with that for all except the portion with VA 293(which I could throw into the useless multiplexes or pointless termini thread) and have VA 344 end at VA 293.
As far as Washington, I'd say SR 515 and SR 181 are the only really pointless routes.
Idaho has one of the most, if not the most efficient state highway systems in the country.
Hmm...state highways in Wyoming that serve no visible purpose (not even serving bridges, or state parks):
WYOs
10, 12, 33, 35, 36, 37, 71, 73, 76, 90, 91, 93, 94, 114, 133, 137, 138, 139, 153, 157, 158, 159, 170, 171, 172, 173, 175, 190, 211, 218, 221, 233, 236, 237, 238, 239, 241, 251, 252, 253, 256, 272, 291, 294, 310, 311, 314, 315, 330, 335, 336, 340, 341, 350, 351, 352, 354, 370, 374, 375, 390, 391, 411, 435, 436, 451
:/
Business Spur 196 (Chicago Drive), at exit 72 in Grand Rapids makes no sense whatsoever. I thought business routes were supposed to have restaurants, gas stations and the like along them. This business spur has none of that, it just runs through a very old industrial part of town and some bad neighborhoods. Why they even built an exit here is unfathomable. Chicago Drive doesn't even intersect the freeway here...it runs parallel to I-196 and is about a mile away, so they had to build very long exit ramps just to make the connection. Furthermore there is an exit to Chicago Dr just 3 miles back at exit 69 and it can also be accessed at exit 70 (28th St). And then to top it all off it was built as just a partial interchange. You can only access the business spur from eastbound I-196 and you can only enter the freeway westbound from the business spur. Weird!
Is there really any point to I-175 and I-375 in Tampa? Granted, they probably do a decent job of directing traffic into downtown...but as for signing them...is there a point? They're basically long offramps.
I was on both I-175 and I-375 down there, they really don't need to be signed.
Another pointless route (or at least upgrade) would be PA-8 from I-80 towards Franklin, PA. No need to be limited access four-lane freeway.
Sykotyk
Quote from: Sykotyk on March 06, 2009, 01:01:51 AM
I was on both I-175 and I-375 down there, they really don't need to be signed.
Another pointless route (or at least upgrade) would be PA-8 from I-80 towards Franklin, PA. No need to be limited access four-lane freeway.
Sykotyk
They both have use, and I'm happy with them being Interstates, as 175 would be unused otherwise and 375 would be a number I've never seen yet. Having said all of that, there are a few off-ramps on both, and they have some benefit to Tropicana Field that sits between them, and provide high-speed access to downtown St. Petersburg and its attractions. When I lived in St. Pete, I used them often when heading to/fromdowntown, and it made it a fast trip at just 5-7 minutes. Though I will say that St. Pete's street grid system is equally efficient.
Quote from: froggie on February 20, 2009, 08:35:39 PM
QuoteI'm not entirely sure what the point is to I-155 in IL, either.
One could argue that it should've been an even x55, but it does serve a purpose: providing an Interstate connection from Springfield (the state capital) to not only Peoria but to the Quad Cities. One could also argue that it provides an Interstate connection from St. Louis to the Quad Cities.
It does provide the fastest route between St. Louis and the Quad Cities, at least until Illinois finishes four-laning most of US 67 (even then I'm not sure the US 67/US 34/I-74 will be much faster given all the curves in the alignment and having to cut east over to I-74 at Galesburg). I think it should have instead started near Springfield and roughly followed IL 29 to Peoria.
OK 96 is the most pointless I can think of. If it really needs to exist (not likely!), it should be OK 32A. And OK 42 has no business tying up a two-digit number.
I-894 seems pointless - considering it piggybacks US 45 and I-43 (split between)
What about I-172? It doesn't really seem to be necessary, IMHO.
I-275 for the Detroit Area is now pointless, except to get people to the airport. After that, it ends halfway in it's journey. Also, since it was never completed back to I-75 in the Clarkston area, it should be a odd 3-digit, ie. I-775 or even I-975.
QuoteI-894 seems pointless - considering it piggybacks US 45 and I-43 (split between)
I like the freeway, but....one could make the same argument of I-39 in Wisconsin. :biggrin:
Quote from: Hellfighter06 on March 06, 2009, 11:04:53 AM
I-275 for the Detroit Area is now pointless, except to get people to the airport. After that, it ends halfway in it's journey. Also, since it was never completed back to I-75 in the Clarkston area, it should be a odd 3-digit, ie. I-775 or even I-975.
Technically, no, it doesn't have to be an odd 3di as it does end at another two digit interstate, namely Interstate 96 (as well as Interstate 696 via the overlap I-275 has with I-96). And though it may seem pointless, Interstate 275 does provide an alternative for those wishing to get to either Interstate 94 or 96 without having to endure Detroit traffic. The only "pointless" section of Interstate 275 in my opinion is the overlap with Interstate 96. I don't think it would really hurt anything if I-275 were truncated to the I-96 interchange southwest of Livonia, though I normally do not like the truncation of Interstate highways unless they really serve no greater purpose.
Quote from: DrZoidberg on March 06, 2009, 11:21:49 AM
QuoteI-894 seems pointless - considering it piggybacks US 45 and I-43 (split between)
I like the freeway, but....one could make the same argument of I-39 in Wisconsin. :biggrin:
Before I-43 was extended and even before it existed, the highway was only multiplexed with US 45 on the west (north-south) leg.
I disagree on the numbering because the highway is an alternate route to I-94 and, as such, the 894 designation as valid. If you removed I-894, it would be harder to tell that the freeway was an alternate to I-94 without a roadmap.
Quote from: flaroadgeek on March 06, 2009, 12:08:42 PM
Quote from: Hellfighter06 on March 06, 2009, 11:04:53 AM
I-275 for the Detroit Area is now pointless, except to get people to the airport. After that, it ends halfway in it's journey. Also, since it was never completed back to I-75 in the Clarkston area, it should be a odd 3-digit, ie. I-775 or even I-975.
Technically, no, it doesn't have to be an odd 3di as it does end at another two digit interstate, namely Interstate 96 (as well as Interstate 696 via the overlap I-275 has with I-96). And though it may seem pointless, Interstate 275 does provide an alternative for those wishing to get to either Interstate 94 or 96 without having to endure Detroit traffic. The only "pointless" section of Interstate 275 in my opinion is the overlap with Interstate 96. I don't think it would really hurt anything if I-275 were truncated to the I-96 interchange southwest of Livonia, though I normally do not like the truncation of Interstate highways unless they really serve no greater purpose.
Actually, there is a dispute between FHWA and MDOT on where I-275 ends. FHWA says it ends at the I-96/M-14 interchange, but MDOT insists that it will end at I-96/I-696/M-5.
Quote from: DrZoidberg on March 06, 2009, 11:21:49 AM
QuoteI-894 seems pointless - considering it piggybacks US 45 and I-43 (split between)
I like the freeway, but....one could make the same argument of I-39 in Wisconsin. :biggrin:
and Illinois :)
Many highways in the central valley are useless, I still can't figure out why some of them are signed.
I-270 was REALLY pointless when CDOT built it; it wasn't connected correctly to the entrance of Stapleton Airport to make it useful, and it ended AT I-76! Now that I-270 is connected to I-25 and US36, its main purpose is to be a more direct freeway connection from Boulder to DIA without having to pay a toll. :clap:
In that spirit, I-270 needs to be renumbered as US36. No way it can be, for example, I-570 (170 and 370 are already SH numbers), because Boulder would NEVER ACCEPT ANYTHING with an Interstate number leading to their town. :crazy:
I-270 is fine if they would also sign US-36. For through traffic (Kansas City to Salt Lake) it is good to have that interstate number but they really need to do a better job of signing US-36 along with I-270
Quote from: voyager on March 06, 2009, 09:50:15 PM
Many highways in the central valley are useless, I still can't figure out why some of them are signed.
Which ones in particular? It seems some of them were designed to provide state hghway links between larger communities in the area.
Quote from: Urban Prairie Schooner on February 18, 2009, 07:49:48 PM
Inspired by the "Pointless Termini" thread, what signed route designations would you consider pointless in themselves? This can be Interstate, US highway, state route, whatever.
Most of the GA 300 series routes come readily to mind. Many of those literally go nowhere and were basically an attempt at farm-to-market roads that were stopped dead in 1963 due to the deteriorating condition of the existing state highways. Many of the most pointless 300 series routes (e.g. GA 336 and 342) were purged in the Great Decommissioning of 1982.
TN has a ton of pointless routes...apparently when they created the secondary system, route additions were a tad random. TN 422 takes the cake...a corkscrew route that goes into Alabama as Jackson CR 93. Jackson CR 93 eventually does connect to AL 73, but just go a couple miles down the road and take TN 377...much faster. And the TN connection to Jackson CR 91 seems like a more logical choice for a state route since that is a lengthy river road.
Small state route systems are not immune, either. Think of AL 257 that extends up to the Winston County line only to become a county road...mind you that was a secondary state route when that highway was commissioned to the south of it, but still...what's the point?
Quote from: froggie on March 05, 2009, 10:23:52 PM
I'll agree on VA 13, which has been a numbering violation for the 76 years it's existed.
VA 360, while a numbering violation, could only be considered a "pointless route NUMBER". The route itself is valid. Easy fix would be to extend VA 344 along it.
VA 157 in Henrico County would be considered a "'pointless route' ROUTING". It should only follow Gaskins Rd and Hungary Rd(don't know how important this road is though) as both are more direct to US 33 from VA 6 and do not travel through residential areas compared to Springfield Rd.
Quote from: AlpsROADS on February 19, 2009, 11:47:25 AM
VT F-5. DE 24A (which only seems to exist on the official state map). DE 9A. DE 1D (entirely multiplexed). NJ 413 (entirely county-maintained). NJ 13, 59, 62, 64, 152, 162 - just because a bridge was built by the state doesn't mean it has to be a state route. NJ 26 and 91 - parallel and useless. NJ 163, 167, 324 - just because the state once owned it doesn't mean it has to be a route after it's made into a dead end. NJ 165 - entirely concurrent with 29 now. NJ 444S - make it part of 36.
You forgot 159, 62, and 166
Also, here's some Pennsylvania routes I find to be pointless:
PA 226- Only real connection to another highway is US 6N, and even then it still goes nowhere
I-180- Should not be an Interstate designation, probably just a PA 147 extension.
I-283- Why?
Business I-83- Only instance that PA does this with an Interstate. Why stick out?
PA 739- Not a whole lot back there to merit a state route designation
I'm not sure that there's really a need for both I-70 and I-670 in Kansas City. One just parallels the other for a few miles and the numbering seems strange. You'd think I-70 would be the straight thru route, but it's not. Likewise you'd think I-670 would be given a different number, since it's such a short straight route. Even 3-digit routes usually loop around a city, not spur straight through the heart of town for about 3 miles. The whole setup seems odd. It's almost like it's one highway with I-670 serving as the "express lanes" and I-70 serving "local" lanes, just with about a half mile wider gap than you'd normally see along with streets and buildings in between.
Quote from: njroadhorse on March 11, 2009, 05:07:21 PM
I-180- Should not be an Interstate designation, probably just a PA 147 extension.
Until it ties into an extended I-99.
Quote
I-283- Why?
Why not? It connects two 2di's and completes an eastern bypass of Harrisburg. I could though see renumbering it to I-183 and replacing PA 283 to Lancaster.
Quote
Business I-83- Only instance that PA does this with an Interstate. Why stick out?
Didn't I-83 used to have a parallel US 111 that was decommissioned? Other than I-78, I don't believe any other 2di's in Pennsylvania run along former US Route alignments.
Pennsylvania could always add a few more business loops, like a BL 70 for Washington (using Chestnut St, the Lincoln-College one-way pair, and PA 136), a BL 78 for Hamburg, BL 81 through Carlisle. and probably a few for I-99.
Quote from: Revive 755 on March 11, 2009, 06:29:54 PM
Quote from: njroadhorse on March 11, 2009, 05:07:21 PM
I-180- Should not be an Interstate designation, probably just a PA 147 extension.
Until it ties into an extended I-99.
Before the I-180 designation, the road was simply PA 147 to the US 220 North Halls-Pennsdale exit. After that it was simply US 220. Both US 220 and PA 147 were signed as North going to that exit. So, when you went toward Williamsport, you went from North PA 147 to South US 220 and vice versa.
My educated guess is that the powers that be in that area wanted a single route from I-80 to Williamsport.
In any case, odd starting digit auxilliaries only need to connect to another interstate at one end. I-176 in PA goes from it's parent to ending at US 422. Alabama I-759, South Dakota I-190, only connect with another interstate at one end. I-390 in New York was the same way at its south end until I-86 was created. So, I don't see the problem here.
Quote from: njroadhorse on March 11, 2009, 05:07:21 PM
I-180- Should not be an Interstate designation, probably just a PA 147 extension.
It already was before I-180 was signed. I don't see a problem with giving Williamsport a spur off I-80.
Quote from: njroadhorse on March 11, 2009, 05:07:21 PMI-283- Why?
Follows the Interstate numbering plan in an even digit route ending at another Interstate.
Quote from: njroadhorse on March 11, 2009, 05:07:21 PMBusiness I-83- Only instance that PA does this with an Interstate. Why stick out?
The former route through York was decommissioned completely, so an Interstate Business Loop was the simplest choice to keep a north-south route in the city. This won't be the only one in Pennsylvania once I-376 replaces PA 60 as Business PA 60 will become IBL-376.
Quotefrom PAHighways
Quote from: njroadhorse on March 11, 2009, 05:07:21 PM
Business I-83- Only instance that PA does this with an Interstate. Why stick out?
The former route through York was decommissioned completely, so an Interstate Business Loop was the simplest choice to keep a north-south route in the city. This won't be the only one in Pennsylvania once I-376 replaces PA 60 as Business PA 60 will become IBL-376.
Business I-83 could easily be PA 111(as US 111 used it anyhow) and Business I-376 could just be PA 60. MD 3 Business in Glen Burnie also should just be an extension of MD 3. However, I-40 CONN in NC is extremely pointless as US 117 could esily take over I-40 CONN and multiplex with I-40 from I-40 CONN to the US 117 exit in the Warsaw area. Current US 117 through Warsaw would be US 117 Business.
from 74/171FAN
MD 3 Business in Glen Burnie also should just be an extension of MD 3.
MD 3 Business does not even connect with MD 3 any longer, since I-97 overtook it. It should be renumbered as another state route.
Quote from: 74/171FAN on March 17, 2009, 07:46:23 PMBusiness I-83 could easily be PA 111(as US 111 used it anyhow) and Business I-376 could just be PA 60.
Why use the PA 111 designation for a five-mile-long route when IBL-83 does a fine job as it is?
No need to move PA 60 back to its former route when it will be truncated at US 22/US 30 and the other segment near Sharon will become a PA x18.
The only state highway in Missouri I can think of as truly useless is Spur 185: A state highway to a subdivision. If it connected to another bridge across the Meramec, I would consider it useful, but right now it should be turned over to Franklin County - which has a somewhat decent system of county roads unlike a lot of Missouri counties.
A lot of the other lettered routes in Missouri just need to be extended to another state road, and they'd be much more useful.
Quotefrom akotchi: from 74/171FAN
MD 3 Business in Glen Burnie also should just be an extension of MD 3.
MD 3 Business does not even connect with MD 3 any longer, since I-97 overtook it. It should be renumbered as another state route.
MD 3 could be multiplexed with I-97 up to MD 3 Business before taking it over.
Quotefrom PAHighways:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: 74/171FAN on Today at 07:46:23 PM
Business I-83 could easily be PA 111(as US 111 used it anyhow) and Business I-376 could just be PA 60.
Why use the PA 111 designation for a five-mile-long route when IBL-83 does a fine job as it is?
No need to move PA 60 back to its former route when it will be truncated at US 22/US 30 and the other segment near Sharon will become a PA x18.
I believe that all green/business interstates are pointless as most are multiplexes with US Routes throughout and that(possibly biased because VA does not have green interstates) most are not even freeways but are surface streets which should really have a different number(and if it is important enough for to be a green interstate it must have some number).
Quote from: 74/171FAN on March 17, 2009, 10:24:06 PMI believe that all green/business interstates are pointless as most are multiplexes with US Routes throughout and that(possibly biased because VA does not have green interstates) most are not even freeways but are surface streets which should really have a different number(and if it is important enough for to be a green interstate it must have some number).
They are not supposed to be limited-access routes but loops like any auxiliary route. If signing a route with a green Interstate shield is pointless, then using any state route number for a small run would also be pointless.
The premise between the "green Interstate" routes is that they are business routes through the town whereas the Interstate bypasses the town. Same premise as for any business route. And as Jeff said there is no requirement for business routes to be limited access.
Quote from: froggie on March 11, 2009, 08:43:12 PM
The reason I-670 was built is because of substandard geometry on I-70...in particular tight curves and a single eastbound lane at the interchnage with US 24 West and the Fairfax Trafficway (Exit 423C-D), as well as a lack of shoulders on the "Intercity Viaduct" (between US 24 West and I-35 South). So I-670 was built to bring a modern 6-lane connection into the south side of downtown from the west.
So why was the direct, through route given the I-670 designation instead of I-70?
Quote from: 74/171FAN on March 11, 2009, 03:45:25 PM
VA 157 in Henrico County would be considered a "'pointless route' ROUTING". It should only follow Gaskins Rd and Hungary Rd(don't know how important this road is though) as both are more direct to US 33 from VA 6 and do not travel through residential areas compared to Springfield Rd.
Hungary Rd is a fairly busy artery between VA 157 and US 33. It quickly loses importance east of US 33. However, routing VA 157 along Hungary would create a directional issue (granted, it could be worse - VA 157 currently has a segment where the route is going in the opposite direction from how it is signed).
Gaskins Rd is built to fairly high standards and would easily make a good primary route corridor.
Quotefrom Synthetic Dreamer: Quote from: 74/171FAN on March 11, 2009, 03:45:25 PM
VA 157 in Henrico County would be considered a "'pointless route' ROUTING". It should only follow Gaskins Rd and Hungary Rd(don't know how important this road is though) as both are more direct to US 33 from VA 6 and do not travel through residential areas compared to Springfield Rd.
Hungary Rd is a fairly busy artery between VA 157 and US 33. It quickly loses importance east of US 33. However, routing VA 157 along Hungary would create a directional issue (granted, it could be worse - VA 157 currently has a segment where the route is going in the opposite direction from how it is signed).
Gaskins Rd is built to fairly high standards and would easily make a good primary route corridor.
Well VA 157 could be signed east-west north of I-64 if not east of Springfield Rd and Hungary Rd doesn't go very far south
Quote from: froggie on March 29, 2009, 07:49:05 PM
Probably because I-70 existed 25 years before I-670 did...
That may be, but most people traveling through town probably think I-70 is the most direct route when in fact I-670 is. You'd think they would have changed the routing of the 2 highways.
Well, when you head east, there's a brief stretch of I-670 in Kansas City where you're forced onto one lane (near I-35) to stay on I-670. That's probably the reason. And I figure, mostly, it is to keep the uninformed on I-70 that has, although still a bottleneck, much easier a time handling the traffic than I-670 would through town.
And yes, I was one of those that the first time through town never looked at the map to realize how I-670 interacted with I-70 through downtown.
Sykotyk
Quote from: Sykotyk on March 29, 2009, 11:53:11 PM
Well, when you head east, there's a brief stretch of I-670 in Kansas City where you're forced onto one lane (near I-35) to stay on I-670. That's probably the reason. And I figure, mostly, it is to keep the uninformed on I-70 that has, although still a bottleneck, much easier a time handling the traffic than I-670 would through town.
And yes, I was one of those that the first time through town never looked at the map to realize how I-670 interacted with I-70 through downtown.
Sykotyk
I wonder how I-670 ever got an interstate designation then if some of it is only 1 lane. Weird.
I got one from Western WA: SR 529 from Marysville to I-5...just take I-5 and add 2 ramps and SR 529 isn't needed.
SR 529 is great- it's a lot easier to get from downtown Marysville to the Port of Everett via SR 529 then to take SR 528 to I-5 to SR 529.
It's not a route of important statewide significance, but as a local freight corridor that stretch is highly valuable
Hmm...it also costs a lot to fix those bridges..
Yeah...most bridges in Washington State are state maintained and funded even if they don't have a state highway designation
As far as I can tell the only truly useless SR in Washington state is SR 181
Like the Manette Bridge in Bremerton..
Okay a non-american road here...
The A8 (M) in Northern Ireland, probably the most pointless motorway ever. The mile-long doesn't even connect to another motorway it connects to 2 multi-purpose roads...
I've gone through this thread and I do not think anyone has mentioned U.S. 311 in North Carolina. Thanks to truncations over the years, the route has become and orphan completely severed from its parent route and has no interaction with its siblings. Plus given the fact that it is an "intrastate" route makes it that much more of a pointless route. Given its current routing, it really acts as a sort of western loop for nearby U.S. 220 (Future I-73/I-74), serving the cities of High Point and Winston-Salem while U.S. 220 serves Greensboro. And how has it survived the gavels of AASHTO since it is definitely less than 300 miles in length (I am positive it doesn't even stretch over 100 miles)? My hunch is once Interstate 74 comes to fruition (if/when) we may see the end of this U.S. highway, as I really see no use for it.
US 220 doesn't reach it's parent or siblings either. It ends in Waverly, NY. I have read that it was once planned to extend north to meet US 20. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Route_220 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Route_220).
Well, maybe when I-99 and I-73 are complete, they'll decommission US 220.
It will at least give some useful purpose for I-99's existence! :sombrero:
Maybe US 311 could take over US 220 up to Roanoke before following VA/WV 311(US 311's state route extension from before 311 was truncated)
QuoteMaybe US 311 could take over US 220 up to Roanoke before following VA/WV 311(US 311's state route extension from before 311 was truncated)
How about all the way up to Bedford, PA where I-99 starts? :sombrero:
How about just to overtake both US 220 and I-99? :-D
US 266 is only about 30 miles long, the biggest town it goes through is Checotah (best known as a major Carrie Underwood-producing center), and its parent route was decommissioned! Kill it already!
Two other pointless US routes:
1. C'mon CDOT and NDOR: Decommission US138 already. US38 hasn't been around since the '30s (when it got changed to an extension of US6), and it mainly serves as a frontage road for I-76. And besides, neither state is using the number 138 on any other road.
2. And while you're at it, CDOT, it's time to kill US350. It can just as easily be renumbered as an extension of SH71.
I got one for WA:
US 730...useless link...it serves Wallula and Walla Walla...which are also served by US 12 and SR 125/OR 11.
Totally disagree again on US-730. I find myself on that road a LOT coming from Lewiston/Clarkston/Walla Walla to Portland. It's a very and important valuable link on the US-12 (US-12 still being an important interstate route from the Tri-Cities all the way to Helena, Montana) to Portland/Hermiston (and Umatilla, both of which are major agricultural processing areas for the region) corridor and is a very important Oregon-Washington freight corridor (in experience I'd say roughly 50% of the vehicles on that road are semitrucks).
You'd add about 45 minutes to the Lewiston/Clarkston/Walla Walla to Portland/Hermiston drive if you had to go through Pendleton and about 30 minutes going through the Tri-Cities.
Washington State has one of the most trimmed down and efficient state highway systems anywhere. There's very little fat and almost all the routes serve a very clear and significant purpose
All of them...except SR 339. :sombrero: Its a passanger-only ferry!
Haha- yeah- but don't forget that is actually "maintained" by King County now, so I expect it to be decommissioned since it no longer exists :D
Another pointless route: ID-1. It goes from US 95 to the border, which US 95 also does. Its US 95 Spur basically..
You're trying to find fish in a dried up lake CG- ID-1 leads to Creston BC and Lake Kootenay, which is a major recreational area for Idahoans, as well as being part of the Selkirk International Loop. It's also an important enough route to warrant being a state highway.
Idaho's state highway system makes Washington's look fat- there's absolutely no useless state highways in Idaho- in fact there's several roads that really should be state highways but aren't (the Banks-Lowman Road being an obvious example)
Hmmm..I have to find a bad state route somewhere here...
WA 433? Its only a bridge long....the other side isn't even a state route!
SR 433 is a state route on the Oregon side. It's Columbia River Hwy #2Y (US-30 Spur for those of you not privvy with the Oregon system, also there's no AAHSTO approval there, but functionally that's what it is), but it's so short there's no point in signing it
But yeah, that one also should be a state route for sure for tourists going from the I-5 corridor to Astoria (to get from PDX to Astoria it's much faster to go that way then up US-30).
I'd argue that the whole thing acutally should be signed as 30 Spur ( a la 95 Spur on the Oregon-Idaho border), but the SR 432/SR 433 corridor is VERY well signed as TO US-30, so it works.
I agree that actually signing the "SR 433" designation may be a bit pointless (TO US-30 would suffice), but the route itself is very useful.
Also, an argument could be made that the entire route IS SR 433. The first northbound SR 433 marker is actually in Oregon. On my site I consider the whole thing to just be SR 433 to simplify matters.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2Fsr433oregon.JPG&hash=a709602ac204613e4f517ed6cf232473f034b5d7)
I sorta agree on that part...US 30 is slower than SR 433-SR 432-SR 4-SR 401-US 101 to Astoria..
A good renumbering also could be SR 432 Spur on the WA side only.
I'd be against numbering it as SR 432 Spur- that seems to accomplish nothing. I'm usually against signing spurs off minor routes (SR 105 Spur, for instance, connects people to SR 105, which is the major road through the Westport area, so its OK) because from a tourist side there's no significance to SR 432. I'd wager most people going from North Portland to Astoria are going to head up I-5 and then pay attention to the signs that say "TO US-30" rather than SR 432. Unless you've got an official WSDOT map you probably don't have a Longview inset, and without one of those it's hard to tell what route to take to get to US-30 from I-5.
So I'd either leave it signed as-is (SR 432 and SR 433 signed VERY liberally from I-5 clear to Oregon as TO US-30 (and TO I-5 going the other direction)), or sign it as US-30 Spur, because then you know when you turn on SR 433 you're going to US-30. Knowing that you're going to SR 432 has no real value.
Also- how could it possibly be faster to get from Longview to Astoria via SR 4? That's about 30 miles longer which doesn't make up for the 5 MPH speed limit difference. What I was referring to is that the fastest way to get from Portland to Astoria is to take I-5 North to SR 432, SR 432 West to SR 433, SR 433 South to US-30, US-30 West to Astoria. Taking the Sunset Hwy up to the PCH also works, but a lot of tourists will start in Astoria and work their way south down the coast and avoid doubling back. If you're going from PDX Airport then taking I-5 to US-30 is definitely the fastest way to go.
Oh...I see, I don't drive there everyday anymore.
Well...you could extend SR 433 along SR 432 west to SR 4 and have SR 432 end at 433...this would be a map:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi272.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fjj195%2FComputerGuy890100%2F433.png&hash=17d4735d9da6657bf786b742f7e0f4f0f446d693)
Shields and map layout from Wikimedia Commons.
That seems pointless, plus you'd be ditching SR 433's north south orientation
Hmm...but there are rule-breakers (e.g. SR 531, odd going west-east).
The ultimate in useless-- US 63's southern extension from Memphis to Ruston, LA. X-(
Speaking of US 63, US 163 doesn't have much point anymore either, besides being a numbering violation
How about I-74 east of Rockingham, NC. First of all it is duplexed with the same US route number. Then it goes east and then turns southwest to go where another planned interstate is to join it again for the third time!
Why not build another interstate from Charlotte to Wilmington along the US 74 corridor as that is a major route that proposed I-74 will only relieve some of this through traffic and call it I-32?
Have I-73 go to Myrtle Beach ONLY!
Have I-74 go east of Cincinatti to meet up with (and end) at I-73 north of Portsmouth. I-73 all the way! In NC the rest could be three digits of I-40 or I-77.
Secondary Route AE north of Springfield, MO. Distance: less than 10 miles. Communities served: none. It's a former segment of MO 13. North terminus is at MO 13, south terminus is a dead-end. It's not even posted along 13 at all (no junction signs).
Why are two-year old threads being bumped?
Because of roadman65!!!
- CA-77
- CA-153
- CA-164
- CA-173
- CA-183
All of these routes are pointless to me because either a) they exist wholly within other, longer routes, b) they are extremely short (less than 1 mile) or c) they have no design standard. (CA-173 is a dirt road and usually in terrible condition.)
I'd also like to throw in US-48 and US-96. Both are located wholly within one state and are both under 300 miles. They both could easily be state highways instead.
US 96 could be US 359 (or US 459 if you are confused with TX 359)
Any state (coughcoughOhiocough) that uses a highway number for a short 1-2 mile segment either as an extended connector ramp from a freeway to another highway (I forget the route number, but it was used as a connector between I-70 & US-40 near Cambridge, OH), or just for a bridge crossing over a significant river (in the case of Ohio, going across the Ohio River into another state).
In either case, my recommendation should be just signing the connector/bridge as "TO I/US/SR x". The state could always give it a secret route number that would fit their inventory or route designation needs, but it eliminates the need for a route that takes longer to make one sign for it than it does to travel it.
I've always thought that a number of the Interstate designations in the New York City area were (and are) unnecessary, most notably I-895 and I-695 in the Bronx (yes, I know that I-695 isn't officially an Interstate). Both seem like throwaway uses of an Interstate number, sort of like throwing up an Interstate number just for the sake of doing it, though I guess in view of I-95's limited mileage in New York it was never all that likely that there would be a lot of need for those numbers elsewhere. I-295 doesn't seem necessary either, though I guess because it ties I-95 to I-495 it's more reasonable. (I guess even New York agreed that I-878 was unnecessary.)
I've also long thought that I-370 in Maryland was an unnecessary designation, even more so now that it leads directly into MD-200 such that you have to exit to stay on I-370.
No interstate designation is pointless. But there are definitely some short 3dis that are signed which really don't need to be. 695 in New York and 370 in Maryland are good examples of this.
Michigan has more roads that aren't state highways that should be (I'm looking at you, 68th Ave) than state highways that shouldn't be (many of those have been decommissioned in recent years, such as M-107, M-108, M-110, M-168, etc.).
Nevada has (had?) a bunch of useless ones in urban areas. there are several that are just a few blocks long in Las Vegas, for example.
for pointless interstates: I-175 and I-375 in Tampa are my usual example.
Quote from: Duke87 on May 16, 2011, 07:33:09 PM
No interstate designation is pointless. But there are definitely some short 3dis that are signed which really don't need to be. 695 in New York and 370 in Maryland are good examples of this.
I-180, Wyoming?
While Michigan does need more state highways (I should be living on an eastern extension of M-34), I don't understand why it seems like every other road in Ohio is a state highway.
You ever been to Kentucky, JC?
Quote from: Brandon on May 17, 2011, 08:39:48 AM
I-180, Wyoming?
it might fit the spirit of numbering spurs into downtown with an odd-number prefix, so I'd call it useless simply because I do not want interstate routes which are shorter than, say, I-476 in Pennsylvania, but in general most people would call it useful, if it were built as a freeway ... but how the Hell did it get added to the system when it has
traffic lights on it???
why was it not called Business Spur 80?
it isn't a pointless number; it is simply a route that got the red, white, and blue shield despite not being anywhere near up to standard. who granted that exemption, and why?
Quote from: JCinSummerfield on May 17, 2011, 08:58:55 AM
While Michigan does need more state highways (I should be living on an eastern extension of M-34), I don't understand why it seems like every other road in Ohio is a state highway.
On the Fictional forum, I posted my idea for expanding the Michigan state highway system, which includes an eastern extension of M-34 through Deerfield, Petersburg, Summerfield, and Ida to Monroe.
M-185 in Mackinac Island is one of the most pointless routes I've ever seen...the only motor vehicle allowed is an ambulance!
A close second, third, and fourth would be the US-400, 412, and 425 (I'm surprised they haven't been mentioned in these two years)
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 16, 2011, 12:18:56 PM
I've always thought that a number of the Interstate designations in the New York City area were (and are) unnecessary, most notably I-895 and I-695 in the Bronx (yes, I know that I-695 isn't officially an Interstate). Both seem like throwaway uses of an Interstate number, sort of like throwing up an Interstate number just for the sake of doing it, though I guess in view of I-95's limited mileage in New York it was never all that likely that there would be a lot of need for those numbers elsewhere. I-295 doesn't seem necessary either, though I guess because it ties I-95 to I-495 it's more reasonable. (I guess even New York agreed that I-878 was unnecessary.)
Since I-295, I-695, and I-895 are all intended to be loop highways, the numbers are appropriate. Plus, I-295 was the terminus of I-495 until it was extended along the rest of the Long Island Expressway in the 1980's.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on May 17, 2011, 07:39:24 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 16, 2011, 12:18:56 PM
I've always thought that a number of the Interstate designations in the New York City area were (and are) unnecessary, most notably I-895 and I-695 in the Bronx (yes, I know that I-695 isn't officially an Interstate). Both seem like throwaway uses of an Interstate number, sort of like throwing up an Interstate number just for the sake of doing it, though I guess in view of I-95's limited mileage in New York it was never all that likely that there would be a lot of need for those numbers elsewhere. I-295 doesn't seem necessary either, though I guess because it ties I-95 to I-495 it's more reasonable. (I guess even New York agreed that I-878 was unnecessary.)
Since I-295, I-695, and I-895 are all intended to be loop highways, the numbers are appropriate. Plus, I-295 was the terminus of I-495 until it was extended along the rest of the Long Island Expressway in the 1980's.
I didn't say they were "inappropriate," as they do conform to the numbering rules. I said I see no reason for them to be designated as Interstates. That's a different statement.
Quote from: pianocello on May 17, 2011, 05:42:26 PM
M-185 in Mackinac Island is one of the most pointless routes I've ever seen...the only motor vehicle allowed is an ambulance!
Well, it is a state-maintained highway on an island that has prohibited cars for nearly a century. There's nothing that says a highway is exclusively for motor vehicles. Beyond that, there are two other vehicles on Mackinac Island: the police car and the fire truck, and various construction equipment is allowed by permit.
M-185 also gives an easy path for people bicycling around Mackinac Island to follow. And yes, I have clinched it on bike.
Basically it's a choice between signing it with the internal designation or creating a new shield to represent it. MDOT went with the simpler option of prettying up M-185 shields.
Quote from: NE2 on May 18, 2011, 09:15:06 AM
Basically it's a choice between signing it with the internal designation or creating a new shield to represent it. MDOT went with the simpler option of prettying up M-185 shields.
Which includes the mile number within the shield. According to Wikipedia, the signs are created by the Mackinac Island State Park Commission.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fd%2Fd0%2FM-185_%2528MISPC%2529.svg%2F500px-M-185_%2528MISPC%2529.svg.png&hash=8da593e4a8b321a2bfc1780877bddf1076027490)
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 16, 2011, 08:07:52 PM
Nevada has (had?) a bunch of useless ones in urban areas. there are several that are just a few blocks long in Las Vegas, for example.
Has and had. NDOT has gotten rid of a few urban state routes over the last few years that were especially pointless. Many of these were extremely short routes that didn't follow major arterials, and didn't serve any major transportation purpose--the state just owned the road. However, there are still some pointless routes out there that don't make sense to keep in the system.
A good example of this purging is in Carson City, the state has relinquished ownership of SR 511, 512, part of 513, 516, 520, part of 529 (old US 395) and 530 (old US 50) since about 2009--leaving only part of SR 513, SR 518, SR 525, part of SR 529 and SR 531. Most of what was relinquished were two-lane residential roads that didn't really take people anywhere. In exchange for the city taking on the roads, NDOT has reduced Carson City's financial obligations toward expediting construction of existing segments of the Carson City Freeway.
Another pointless route I was glad to see relinquished was SR 646 in Sparks. It comprised 0.090 miles of Prater Way at the intersection of McCarran Blvd...that amounts to about 475 feet.
Quote from: roadfro on May 20, 2011, 02:45:38 AM
the state just owned the road.
and
that is justification for spending tax dollars on signing the bloody things? what a waste. remember my first rule of transportation: nobody cares who maintains the road!
I don't think many of them were signed.
On the other hand, 'begin state maintenance' and 'end state maintenance' signs are useful so you know who to report a pothole to.
Quote from: NE2 on May 20, 2011, 01:38:05 PM
I don't think many of them were signed.
On the other hand, 'begin state maintenance' and 'end state maintenance' signs are useful so you know who to report a pothole to.
the average taxpayer does not care which government agency ignores him most efficiently.
Post Merge: May 20, 2011, 10:30:04 PM
and besides, begin/end state maintenance signs are some of the lowest in the food chain as far as update policy goes. I've seen 1920s "begin state route" signs in Massachusetts on roads that have not been a state highway since the 1940s.
yeah, when you call up the appropriate government agency, make sure to dial ALL FIVE DIGITS.
I think NY I-695 is really an interstate now; it was in the AASHTO minutes a few years back.
The fact that US highways in Alabama are duplexed with state highways for their entireties...
Quote from: Chicagosuburban on July 15, 2011, 03:15:05 PM
The fact that US highways in Alabama are duplexed with state highways for their entireties...
That's an old way of doing things. Georgia is that way, IIRC, and many other states were like that in the past, including Illinois.
US 400. US-8 (WI-29 would be a much better US-8). Those stupid short US routes in the NE. US-57.
<rant>
Kansas has 2D state routes that are just spurs to serve small towns less than a mile off the road and end at the city limit. Those could be turned back over the county or should be renumbered with a 3-digit number (examples, K-89 is 1.5 miles; there's also K-22, K-30, K-41, K-43, K-46, K-67*, K-71, K-74, K-76, K-78, K-79, K-80, K-84, K-85, K-86, K-87** and K-88). A lot of these are less than a mile long. I'd only keep the ones longer than one mile and assign them new 3-dK numbers.
* - Does K-67 even serve a town?
** - Even though it's 9 miles, it should still be 3 digits.
K-60 doesn't fit the "spur to a city limit" issue I have with the other highways above but it's odd to me in that it's a 4-mile link between two other highways. This ought to be a 3-dK, too. K-64, considering the purpose it serves, should also have three digits.
</rant>
Ending at or going through state parks is something I can handle and why K-95 doesn't bug me so much.
Former K-38 was meant to have a point but never did. It ended at a county line and it's surprising it was commissioned as long as it was. The only sign on it that I saw was one that said "K-38 ENDS 13," meaning essentially that it's own end was its "control city."
A lot of K-57's former routing was pointless at one time. From it's south junction with U.S. 59 up to Colony, it was duplexed with another highway the entire way. That was also the case a lot from K-99 south of Emporia to K-4. Truncating it was a good thing.
I also never understood swapping the majority of K-13's routing with K-177 and it bugs me that K-177 and K-181 are both much longer routes than all those pointless 2-dKs.
U.S. 400, OTOH, isn't pointless for most of its route. It's just a dumb number and it serves no purpose west of Garden City (really west of Dodge City to be honest) other than force Colorado to sign a route it has no use for, I'm sure. It should be an X50 or X54. If the "ending in 0" thing is so damn important, it could have been U.S. 450.
IL-7 is pointless. It switches roads too much and doesn't have a real corridor.
Quote from: Chicagosuburban on July 17, 2011, 01:02:43 PM
IL-7 is pointless. It switches roads too much and doesn't have a real corridor.
At one time, IL 7 was not so pointless. Years ago before the great Chicago purge, a webpage that Rich Carlson has so neatly put together, IL 7 did actually go into Chicago along Southwest Hwy and Columbus Ave and was one of a couple of ways to get from Joliet to Chicago along with IL 171 and US 66 prior to the Interstates. However, I think nowadays, IL 7 should be rerouted to a Joliet-Naperville-Wheaton corridor along Larkin Ave, Weber Rd, Naper Blvd, Naperville-Wheaton Rd. It could even go all the way to barrington along County Farm Rd and Barrington Rd.
Quote from: hobsini2 on July 17, 2011, 02:14:24 PM
Quote from: Chicagosuburban on July 17, 2011, 01:02:43 PM
IL-7 is pointless. It switches roads too much and doesn't have a real corridor.
At one time, IL 7 was not so pointless. Years ago before the great Chicago purge, a webpage that Rich Carlson has so neatly put together, IL 7 did actually go into Chicago along Southwest Hwy and Columbus Ave and was one of a couple of ways to get from Joliet to Chicago along with IL 171 and US 66 prior to the Interstates. However, I think nowadays, IL 7 should be rerouted to a Joliet-Naperville-Wheaton corridor along Larkin Ave, Weber Rd, Naper Blvd, Naperville-Wheaton Rd. It could even go all the way to barrington along County Farm Rd and Barrington Rd.
Again, I completely agree.
Quote from: hobsini2 on July 17, 2011, 02:14:24 PM
Quote from: Chicagosuburban on July 17, 2011, 01:02:43 PM
IL-7 is pointless. It switches roads too much and doesn't have a real corridor.
At one time, IL 7 was not so pointless. Years ago before the great Chicago purge, a webpage that Rich Carlson has so neatly put together, IL 7 did actually go into Chicago along Southwest Hwy and Columbus Ave and was one of a couple of ways to get from Joliet to Chicago along with IL 171 and US 66 prior to the Interstates. However, I think nowadays, IL 7 should be rerouted to a Joliet-Naperville-Wheaton corridor along Larkin Ave, Weber Rd, Naper Blvd, Naperville-Wheaton Rd. It could even go all the way to barrington along County Farm Rd and Barrington Rd.
Agreed. Remove it from Theodore St, but make a new route (an IL-x06) along 159th St from Wolf Rd to IL-53.
U.S. 400, OTOH, isn't pointless for most of its route. It's just a dumb number and it serves no purpose west of Garden City (really west of Dodge City to be honest) other than force Colorado to sign a route it has no use for, I'm sure. It should be an X50 or X54. If the "ending in 0" thing is so damn important, it could have been U.S. 450.
[/quote]
Maybe I meant US-412
Quote from: texaskdog on July 17, 2011, 06:59:10 PM
Maybe I meant US-412
412 is a lot more iffy. What exactly does it connect? Tulsa to where, exactly, in either direction? It's more like a connection of multiple small regions to each other than to two important cities.
At least part of the purpose of 400 is a Joplin to Wichita route. Now, just exactly how many people are trying to get to Wichita from Joplin (or Springfield), I don't know. And if they were going to St. Louis, that's not the way they'd go, anyway.
I don't like that U.S. 400 multiplexes with U.S. 54 for so long. But I don't know how you'd get around it and it does give the route from Wichita to Dodge City and Garden City a single number instead of three (50, former 154, and 54). Again, though, that number could have been 450. (Add in that no sign indicates Dodge City as a destination along the way until you get to where 54 and 400 split at Mullinville; likewise, there's no indication you'll reach Wichita on 400 until the other side of Pratt). And it should end no farther west than at U.S. 83 in Garden City. The rest of the 400 designation to Granada
is pointless.
Quote from: Chicagosuburban on July 17, 2011, 01:02:43 PM
IL-7 is pointless. It switches roads too much and doesn't have a real corridor.
IL 7 does serve Homer Glen and the bridge in Lockport carries heavy traffic, but it isn't long enough for much else. If it were me, I'd decommission it and realign US 6 to follow 159th/Renwick west to Weber Road and turn south until it hits US 6's current alignment.
Quote from: apeman33 on July 17, 2011, 10:44:08 PM
412 is a lot more iffy. What exactly does it connect? Tulsa to where, exactly, in either direction? It's more like a connection of multiple small regions to each other than to two important cities.
Tulsa to Jackson, TN (and on to Nashville and beyond via I-40). About one-third to one-half of the way across Arkansas is now four lanes, and AHTD has plans to widen the rest, as well as build a Springdale bypass. Missouri is about half four-lane, and Oklahoma and Tennessee (west of Jackson) are complete.
Quote from: NE2 on July 21, 2011, 08:59:57 PM
Quote from: apeman33 on July 17, 2011, 10:44:08 PM
412 is a lot more iffy. What exactly does it connect? Tulsa to where, exactly, in either direction? It's more like a connection of multiple small regions to each other than to two important cities.
Tulsa to Jackson, TN (and on to Nashville and beyond via I-40). About one-third to one-half of the way across Arkansas is now four lanes, and AHTD has plans to widen the rest, as well as build a Springdale bypass. Missouri is about half four-lane, and Oklahoma and Tennessee (west of Jackson) are complete.
anyone want to argue the asinine numbering?
No, since numbering does not make a route.
WA-501 - Unless they can figure out how to connect its northern segment in Ridgefield, WA to downtown Vancouver, WA, then it just seems pointless. I can connect the two cities with WA-501 to give it purpose and justify its existence. But again, I don't see the need for two segments of WA-501.
WA-503 Spur - Aside from connecting to Mount St. Helens, this road really has no purpose.
WA-500 should be shortened from Interstate 5 to NE Fourth Plain Rd as its for the most part, a four lane expressway that will be upgraded to a freeway. It does serve the Orchards area of Vancouver, WA. But outside of that, I don't see much use for it.
OH 710. I guess it's there for the brewery or something -- probably just so Columbus gets maintenance reimbursement mileage from ODOT -- but it's quite pointless from a navigational standpoint. Its U shape makes its directionality confusing when not vague. I say it should be changed to an unsigned OH 161C.
And yes, Ohio actually has a fair number of unsigned state routes. Some of them are logical connectors (like US 33F) but others don't have such an obvious reason to exist (OH 315C).
Quote from: vtk on July 26, 2011, 11:47:36 AM
OH 710. I guess it's there for the brewery or something -- probably just so Columbus gets maintenance reimbursement mileage from ODOT -- but it's quite pointless from a navigational standpoint. Its U shape makes its directionality confusing when not vague. I say it should be changed to an unsigned OH 161C.
And yes, Ohio actually has a fair number of unsigned state routes. Some of them are logical connectors (like US 33F) but others don't have such an obvious reason to exist (OH 315C).
Oh 710 (and Busch Blvd) was created for Anheuser-Busch and the Budwesier Brewery there on the northside back in 1965/66. Originally, there was to be an interchange between I-71 and Schrock Road as part of the project, Alas that never came about.
Oh 315C - The connector road between 315 and I-670. Or, as they would call it in Indiana, I-870.
Quote from: NE2 on July 21, 2011, 10:08:11 PM
No, since numbering does not make a route.
Asinine routes with asinine numbers, it all fits together.
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on July 26, 2011, 11:47:47 PM
Oh 315C - The connector road between 315 and I-670. Or, as they would call it in Indiana, I-870.
I think you're mistaken about OH 315C's location. Its mileage increases as one travels westbound. (I'm not sure eastbound OH 315C exists -- if it did, the mileage would probably increase as one travels east, like other E-W state routes...) The route begins with the I-670 WB ramp to Goodale St, follows Goodale west to Olentangy River Road, then north onto the ramp to OH 315 SB. This description, based on the straight line diagram accessed today, is distinct from the connecting ramps that Indiana might call I-870. (Or would it be I-970, as the Olentangy Freeway isn't also an Interstate?)
Anyway, my theory on that one has to do with when there was a gap in I-670. I was one of probably thousands of Columbus drivers who would use some combination of city streets to bridge the gap, rather than going around the far side of downtown. I suspect the creation of this route was to add some state highway mileage, increasing what ODOT pays to Columbus for maintaining the state routes, to make up for the extra wear and tear on Goodale St. But since I-670 was finished in 2003, this purpose no longer exists.
Looks like originally that was the thru route, and then the connecting ramps as we know them now were later shoehorned in when 670 was completed.
http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=39.96850,-83.02394&z=15&t=O
IMO the end product is a lot more sensible and natural-looking than the original
Quote from: yakra on July 30, 2011, 11:39:43 PM
Looks like originally that was the thru route, and then the connecting ramps as we know them now were later shoehorned in when 670 was completed.
http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=39.96850,-83.02394&z=15&t=O
IMO the end product is a lot more sensible and natural-looking than the original
In that 1994 imagery, the interchange was already beginning to change. A new segment of Olentangy River Road was nearly complete, open to southbound traffic, and the SB entrance from Olentangy River Road and SB exit to Goodale Street had vanished. The stubs of the present-day SB exit and entrance ramps were already there in 1994. Those new connecting ramps from SB 315 to EB 670 and WB 670 to NB 315 opened circa 2000, give or take a year. (This was at the same time OH 315 was first closed to through traffic at Spring-Sandusky. Anyone know the date with better precision? Hot Rod?)
The current route of 315C does make some sense in the context of the original Spring-Sandusky Interchange design – though it would have used a different ramp on its west end – but that still leaves it without purpose today.
The ODOT straight line diagram I saw for 315c showed it running along Goodale St. from Olentangy River Rd to Neil Ave.
That, was the southern terminus for 315 in the 60s and 70s, after 315 was extended south from 161 to the innerbelt (to be routed along Olentangy Freeway/Olentangy River Rd Expressway) and before I-71 was "removed" from the west and north halves of the innerbelt (and I-670 was signed).
Now that ODOT's map archive is accessable again, go see the C-bus insert from the 1976 map for proof.
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on July 31, 2011, 11:54:59 AM
The ODOT straight line diagram I saw for 315c showed it running along Goodale St. from Olentangy River Rd to Neil Ave.
That, was the southern terminus for 315 in the 60s and 70s, after 315 was extended south from 161 to the innerbelt (to be routed along Olentangy Freeway/Olentangy River Rd Expressway) and before I-71 was "removed" from the west and north halves of the innerbelt (and I-670 was signed).
Now that ODOT's map archive is accessable again, go see the C-bus insert from the 1976 map for proof.
I have all those maps saved on my own computer, so I didn't even notice that they weren't available online for a while...
Well that's just strange. I always thought, when the entire Innerbelt was I-71, that 315's southern end was at the Spring-Sandusky Interchange, not the North Innerbelt / Neil Avenue interchange. That would have made more sense to me. But I suppose this way, OH 315 had access to and from both directions of I-71 via simple ramps, rather than merging with one direction of I-71 and requiring a length of connecting streets for the other direction...
So the lesson of the day is that OH 315C is actually
old 315, slightly modified due to and made entirely pointless by the changes to the Spring-Sandusky Interchange. I still don't see a reason to keep it on the books. Also, before it was the Columbus Health Department but after it was the Ohio Asylum for the Blind, apparently the building at Parsons & Main was the Highway Safety Building.
Quote from: vtk on July 31, 2011, 01:51:05 PM
Also, before it was the Columbus Health Department but after it was the Ohio Asylum for the Blind, apparently the building at Parsons & Main was the Highway Safety Building.
Yes it was. For many years there used to be Ohio Highway Patrol sign there on Parsons in front of that building.
KY-144.
Here are some from Utah. The some were also mentioned in the meeting I had with UDOT (starred):
UT-168: Used to serve the north gate of Hill AFB, but the north gate has been closed.
UT-144: Serves Tibble Fork Reservior from UT-92; was a forest service road that was turned over to state maintainence in the 1970s. Similar to the UT-3xx series which serves state parks (many of which are reserviors).
UT-174: Serves a power plant (Intermountain Power Plant in Millard County).
UT-45*: Goes south from US-40 near Vernal to Bonanza; seems to serve no other purpose.
UT-88: Similar to UT-45, but if oil production warrants it, it could be extended south to I-70/US-6/50 and could be a future US-191 alignment.
With the "route consolidation" discussed in the UDOT meeting last week, here are some suggestions I've sent to UDOT, with the help of concurrencies (or at least the Utah State Route version of them):
UT-103 to UT-107: UT-103 is the shortest signed Utah state route, and a short concurrency with UT-126 could make this a part of UT-107.
UT-110 to UT-127 (or Vice Versa): UT-127 was once the Antelope Island Causeway (across the Great Salt Lake), but that portion has been cut back to the mainland. UT-127 and UT-110 both share a common end point, and it would make sense to make them the same route.
UT-248 to UT-150 (or Vice Versa): The southwest end of UT-150 is only 2 blocks north of the east end of UT-248. A short concurrency with UT-32 would make these routes the same. Perhaps you could absorb UT-224 from Park City to I-80 as well.
UT-8 and UT-34: A 1-mile concurrency with UT-18 would make St. George and Sunset Blvds. into the same state route. UT-8 could become part of the St. George Beltway, however (as UT-7 is the first portion of it).
UT-141 and UT-147: Northbound UT-141 becomes Northbound UT-147 at the same point; I say make it all UT-147.
UT-72 to UT-10*: Talked about in UDOT meeting. It only seems to make sense that a single route number would be used between Loa and Price.
UT-56 to UT-14*: Like UT-72 and UT-10, discussed in meeting. Only separated by two blocks.
UT-153 to UT-21*: Similar to UT-72/UT-10, UT-56/UT-14, except that UT-153 is unpaved and closed in winter.
Has I-180 been mentioned yet?
I-180 isn't pointless- the road is just substandard
Quote from: texaskdog on August 02, 2011, 02:03:32 PM
Has I-180 been mentioned yet?
which one?
the one in Illinois is useless.
the one in Wyoming is substandard.
the one in California is misnumbered.
not a good showing by this number. at least the one in Nebraska has a button copy sign remaining at its junction with 80.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 02, 2011, 05:08:52 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on August 02, 2011, 02:03:32 PM
Has I-180 been mentioned yet?
which one?
the one in Illinois is useless.
the one in Wyoming is substandard.
the one in California is misnumbered.
not a good showing by this number. at least the one in Nebraska has a button copy sign remaining at its junction with 80.
180 can be this board's number for "obsolete"
Quote from: texaskdog on August 02, 2011, 05:32:25 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 02, 2011, 05:08:52 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on August 02, 2011, 02:03:32 PM
Has I-180 been mentioned yet?
which one?
the one in Illinois is useless.
the one in Wyoming is substandard.
the one in California is misnumbered.
not a good showing by this number. at least the one in Nebraska has a button copy sign remaining at its junction with 80.
180 can be this board's number for "obsolete"
Is there even an I-180 in CA?
No, they are talking about I-238 being 'I-180'.
I am not saying it is pointless but why was I 470 built around wheeling?
Quote from: US12 on August 03, 2011, 08:45:14 PM
I am not saying it is pointless but why was I 470 built around wheeling?
As an alternative to the tunnel.
Quote from: national highway 1 on August 02, 2011, 11:04:14 PM
No, they are talking about I-238 being 'I-180'.
Not necessarily. The I-580 extension (former Route 17) to San Rafael was proposed as I-180 in the early 1980s, before CalTrans told the FHWA they did not want to renumber state route 180 (an original 1934-era state route that is the major east-west freeway in Fresno now) due to the state's conventions against duplicated route numbers, thus this road was added to I-580's length instead.
I wasn't specifically thinking of a single reason why "I-180" in CA is misnumbered - but yes, the existence of 238, the awkward sections of 580, and the fact that CA-180 was not renumbered (while CA-5, CA-10, CA-15, etc all were) ... all good reasons why "I-180" is a misnumbering.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 04, 2011, 01:17:05 AM
I wasn't specifically thinking of a single reason why "I-180" in CA is misnumbered - but yes, the existence of 238, the awkward sections of 580, and the fact that CA-180 was not renumbered (while CA-5, CA-10, CA-15, etc all were) ... all good reasons why "I-180" is a misnumbering.
I'm fascinated by the fact that 5/10/15 were renumbered (to 35, 42, and 7) respectively...yet was no room ever considered for 3dis?
The State Route 215 that existed briefly after the renumbering (not the later current I-215) was a former segment of Route 71 that was to be bypassed by the Orange Freeway, as one example of the lack of foresight in the 1964 numbering project.
California's initial numbering choices though probably had to do with why 180 and 215 weren't expected to be "needed" - at the time, the only 3dis for I-80 that were proposed were 280, 480, and 680 (380 created in the late 1960s, 580 only created during the renumbering and likely gaining its number as a derivation of the old I-5W designation, 780 came about in 1976 and 980 soon after that), and I-15 ended at I-10 in San Bernardino along what was then US 395/91, what later became I-15E and what is now the northern segment of I-215.
The road is not pointless, but I feel the moniker of US-223 should be abolished. For what the road does, I think a state route serves just as sufficient. It is in MI for all but 1/4 mile of its' current existence, and OH doesn't even sign it!
Quote from: JCinSummerfield on August 04, 2011, 07:22:12 AM
The road is not pointless, but I feel the moniker of US-223 should be abolished. For what the road does, I think a state route serves just as sufficient. It is in MI for all but 1/4 mile of its' current existence, and OH doesn't even sign it!
US-223 is signed plenty in Ohio.
I agree that at 47 mile 3dus is silly, but the road should be signed as something. Lenawee and especially Monroe Counties are not known for their smooth undesignated roads.
US-223 is signed plenty in OH? If you don't know where it is, you will never find it! The only sign for it is on the US-23 exit ramp to Monroe St, indicating the end of the route. Nowhere else in OH is there a hint of US-223.
And I did indicate that the route between US-23 & US-127 should be a state highway. Many race fans use this route. I didn't suggest at all that the road be turned back to local authority.
Quote from: JCinSummerfield on August 04, 2011, 07:22:12 AM
The road is not pointless, but I feel the moniker of US-223 should be abolished. For what the road does, I think a state route serves just as sufficient. It is in MI for all but 1/4 mile of its' current existence, and OH doesn't even sign it!
There was a discussion of this on Great Lakes Roads back in the day. The prevailing opinion there seemed to be that the road should indeed be a US route, and AASHTO's rule against short US routes was the problem.
My solution would be to extend US 250 west from Sandusky along OH 2 through Toledo and then into Michigan, absorbing US 223. Seems like a natural extension to me. Maybe I should bring it up on the Fictional Highways section of the forum.
Quote from: InterstateNG on August 04, 2011, 08:13:54 AM
Quote from: JCinSummerfield on August 04, 2011, 07:22:12 AM
The road is not pointless, but I feel the moniker of US-223 should be abolished. For what the road does, I think a state route serves just as sufficient. It is in MI for all but 1/4 mile of its' current existence, and OH doesn't even sign it!
US-223 is signed plenty in Ohio.
I agree that at 47 mile 3dus is silly, but the road should be signed as something. Lenawee and especially Monroe Counties are not known for their smooth undesignated roads.
I think the idea of a 1,000+ mile 3dus is silly (see US-191). US-223 fits the original intent of 3duses as connecting routes. US-191 should have a 2dus number.
For US-191, just drop the leading 1 (making it US-91) south of central Utah.
For US-223, extend it northwest from its current terminus to end at US-31 between Grand Haven and Holland (via US-127, M-50, I-96, I-196, and M-45).
Quote from: JCinSummerfield on August 04, 2011, 01:39:43 PM
US-223 is signed plenty in OH? If you don't know where it is, you will never find it! The only sign for it is on the US-23 exit ramp to Monroe St, indicating the end of the route. Nowhere else in OH is there a hint of US-223.
There are 223 shields all over the BGS's on Alexis Road.
QuoteAnd I did indicate that the route between US-23 & US-127 should be a state highway. Many race fans use this route. I didn't suggest at all that the road be turned back to local authority.
If you'll re-read, you'll note that I agree with you.
Quote from: ftballfan on August 04, 2011, 09:41:08 PM
For US-191, just drop the leading 1 (making it US-91) south of central Utah.
All of 191 should just be 91. Whats left of 91 is not too significant, can be a branch of 89 if anyone thinks its really necessary.
I would agree that some 3dus are excessively long. Spurs, auxiliaries, whatever you want to call them, should be just that: used to provide access to smaller towns or communities the main route doesn't touch. It's especially silly today with several 3dus, like US-281, being border-to-border and longer than their primaries.
I-195 to Old Orchard Beach and I-395 to Brewer, both off of I-95 Maine.
I still ask myself why?
To serve Saco/Old Orchard Beach and Bangor/Brewer, respectively. (Duh.)
Before 195, all the turnpike traffic for OOB being squeezed through Saco on routes 112, 1 & 5 was hell. Especially in summa turist season. It's local bypass that's really needed.
As is 395... Without it, all traffic would have to use city streets & the two downtown crossings between Bangor & Brewer. Ugh. It neatly connects US1A and Ellsworth, Downeast & Acadia to the main highway network. It handles a lot of truck traffic to/from the Maritimes, dumping enough of it out onto routes 1A & 46 en route to 9 that they're studying extending it (http://www.i395-rt9-study.com/home.html).
I can see the need, I guess why sign them as interstates. I should have been clearer, sorry!!
KY-7 in eastern Kentucky is over 200 miles of winding road. It runs mainly north-south, but turns east-west at Deane and then turns north-south again (actually south-north) at Cornettsville. Its southern terminus is at KY-15, a road that it meets again about 20 miles east at Isom.
Quote from: ftballfan on August 08, 2011, 06:04:52 PM
KY-7 in eastern Kentucky is over 200 miles of winding road. It runs mainly north-south, but turns east-west at Deane and then turns north-south again (actually south-north) at Cornettsville. Its southern terminus is at KY-15, a road that it meets again about 20 miles east at Isom.
Hardly pointless. Between Grayson and West Liberty it's built to high standards, forming part of a regional corridor to London (the KY 30 relocation is not yet complete northeast of Annville).
Quote from: NE2 on August 08, 2011, 07:07:25 PM
Quote from: ftballfan on August 08, 2011, 06:04:52 PM
KY-7 in eastern Kentucky is over 200 miles of winding road. It runs mainly north-south, but turns east-west at Deane and then turns north-south again (actually south-north) at Cornettsville. Its southern terminus is at KY-15, a road that it meets again about 20 miles east at Isom.
Hardly pointless. Between Grayson and West Liberty it's built to high standards, forming part of a regional corridor to London (the KY 30 relocation is not yet complete northeast of Annville).
It may be pointless south of Garrett (KY-80), but then again, almost every road in Kentucky is a state highway.
Quote from: mhallack on August 06, 2011, 05:33:32 PM
I can see the need, I guess why sign them as interstates. I should have been clearer, sorry!!
Full freeway spurs from the interstate system, constructed with federal interstate $$. I'd point to the second item as being the key here. 395 was planned from the early days of the interstate system, with the first bits (The Bangor (Brewer?) Industrial) Spur, west of the river) built before much of I-95 in the area.
They'd have to have a new route number anyway*, so why not go with the interstate shield.
*Well, US2 & 1A coulda been rerouted to "bump" at I-395 Exit 3, but that wouldn't have been very elegant, would it?Edit: Quoted the post I was replying to. I should have been clearer too!
Quote from: yakra on August 11, 2011, 03:13:39 PM
Full freeway spurs from the interstate system, constructed with federal interstate $$. I'd point to the second item as being the key here. 395 was planned from the early days of the interstate system, with the first bits (The Bangor (Brewer?) Industrial) Spur, west of the river) built before much of I-95 in the area.
They'd have to have a new route number anyway*, so why not go with the interstate shield.
*Well, US2 & 1A coulda been rerouted to "bump" at I-395 Exit 3, but that wouldn't have been very elegant, would it?
I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Your example doesn't really apply here, because it has an interstate shield. Do you mean like I-270 Spur (MD)?
I was replying to mhallack, about ME I-195 & 395 specifically.
Sorry about the lack of context; I should have been clearer there.
OK that makes much more sense. I agree that the spurs may be needed, just not the interstate designation. Especially in NY, CA, TN, or NC where 3di numbers are running low.