If you're on I-55 or I-20 through Jackson, you'll see an overhead sign guiding you to US 51 (State Street). However, once you're on 51, there is no signage. About a couple of decades ago, US 51 was decommissioned from State Street. One would think it would've simply been duplexed with I-55 (maps and atlases show that it does). However, when you're on I-55, there is no signage on the highway. In fact, US 51 doesn't show up again until the Hinds-Madison county line. What gives here? I know there's lots of missing state highway signs (I made a thread about that before), but not seeing signage for a US highway is weird.
Isn't US-85 and US-87 barely signed at all in Colorado, as they are fully concurrent with I-25 through the entire state?
I believe there is a similar case with US-6 and I-70.
And also US 40/I-70 in CO, US 50/I-70 in UT, US 70/180/I-10 in NM & US 189/I-80 in UT/WY.
Texas is usually good (they sign US 85 all the way to New Mexico), but US 67 and US 77 are unsigned where they overlap I-30 and I-35E in the Dallas area.
Quote from: Quillz on August 06, 2011, 01:51:31 AM
Isn't US-85 and US-87 barely signed at all in Colorado, as they are fully concurrent with I-25 through the entire state?
I believe there is a similar case with US-6 and I-70.
Ridiculous duplex of US-85 just to cross a bridge in El Paso. I believe MN gave up on US-52 after Saint Paul, just says "follow I-94"
From Google Street View, it looks like US 11 used to be unsigned through Syracuse. They must have improved since then, because every time I've been on the road, signage has been minimal rather than not existing.
Memphis did a poor job of signing US-51 when I was traveling through in 2007.
So who's going to mention the Indianapolis beltway?
Quote from: InterstateNG on August 06, 2011, 11:04:19 AM
Memphis did a poor job of signing US-51 when I was traveling through in 2007.
There's a difference between not taking the effort to maintain signage and making a decision not to post signs. The former is laziness; the latter is a purposeful decision for whatever reason.
Quote from: Quillz on August 06, 2011, 01:51:31 AM
Isn't US-85 and US-87 barely signed at all in Colorado, as they are fully concurrent with I-25 through the entire state?
85 does have significant portions separate from I-25 (i.e. in Greeley) - it's New Mexico where it is not acknowledged at all, only to restart for a brief segment in Texas.
There is no indication that U.S. 400 passes through Cimarron, Kan. It's never been signed inside the city limits. I got some shots of the signs at the intersection with K-23 on one of my trips back to Garden City earlier this summer.
Looking east on U.S. 50/400 at K-23 (also note the peeling "50"):
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/283151_10150706738075331_507710330_19568349_1917843_n.jpg)
Looking at the signs on the signal facing K-23:
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/270489_10150706738385331_507710330_19568355_697015_n.jpg)
First reassurance sign east of the intersection:
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/263038_10150706738585331_507710330_19568359_4229748_n.jpg)
In CT, US 6 tags along with I-84 through portions of western and central Connecticut, though you'll be lucky to find a reassurance shield tagged on every I-84 shield. And US 6 will never appear on any overheads. US 202 is in the same boat with I-84 and US 6 through Danbury, but there's almost no mention of it on I-84 as well, except when it exits the interstate.
Quote from: texaskdog on August 06, 2011, 09:09:10 AMRidiculous duplex of US-85 just to cross a bridge in El Paso. I believe MN gave up on US-52 after Saint Paul, just says "follow I-94"
The last time we had a thorough discussion of the practicalities of truncating US 85 to its southernmost independent segment outside Texas, NE2 made a convincing case that US 85 could be eliminated altogether in Texas without transferring mileage out of the state highway system through appropriate re-routings of US 180. The only issue with NE2's suggested US 180 plan is that it would involve moving US 180 off I-10, where it is at present, and onto city streets which parallel I-10 and are at present used by US 62 and US 85. The established norm is for US highway designations to be moved onto new and more direct routes when those are built (e.g. from city streets to I-10), while this re-routing would be an example of the opposite (from more direct route to city streets). I am not saying this hasn't been done elsewhere, but I struggle to think of specific examples.
Quote from: J N Winkler on August 07, 2011, 11:14:24 AM
I am not saying this hasn't been done elsewhere, but I struggle to think of specific examples.
I seem to remember AASHTO throwing a fit (but eventually giving in) when NC wanted to move US 117 from what had become I-795 back onto the old route.
I think an extension of Loop 375 would be more likely, with a short one-block connector route on Paisano. US 85's portion of Paisano is a similar type of road to the rest of Loop 375.
I honestly don't understand why Texas doesn't show US 77 on I-35E or US 67 on I-30 especially since those highways split off and are their own highways. US 287 is duplexed and signed on 35W in Fort Worth, although its a considerably shorter distance.
In Georgia, US 278 hitches a ride on I-20 between Lithonia and Covington. US 278 is signed from the surface roads that have interchanges with I-20, but there is little or no mention of the US route on the freeway itself.
Just like the US 67 and US 77 disappearances in the Dallas area, US 90 isn't signed with I-10 in Houston from the east loop I-610 (where US 90 WB merges with I-10) westward through town. Haven't been along there to see where US 90 'reappears' (Katy? Sealy? further?).
I've never understood the sporadic/disappearing sign routes. Either sign a route *in full* or don't sign it at all.
I don't know about 90 heading westbound, but 90 heading eastbound disappears at the split off I-10 near Katy. There is no signage for that split off the freeway (I know this because I meant to drive it a few months ago and made the really rookie roadgeek mistake of assuming the route would be signed and then missed the exit). When it pops back on near SH-99 it's unsigned.
Quote from: txstateends on August 12, 2011, 07:05:34 PM
Just like the US 67 and US 77 disappearances in the Dallas area, US 90 isn't signed with I-10 in Houston from the east loop I-610 (where US 90 WB merges with I-10) westward through town. Haven't been along there to see where US 90 'reappears' (Katy? Sealy? further?).
I've never understood the sporadic/disappearing sign routes. Either sign a route *in full* or don't sign it at all.
I suppose the rationale is that, where you've got half a dozen route numbers following the same road, it might be distracting or confusing to drivers to sign all of them. If you're trying to follow US 40 across Indiana, and you're paying attention, a "US 40 follow I-465 south" at the point where you reach 465, and a sign where you have to exit on the other side of town, ought to be enough for you. And US 40 signage at junctions along that stretch. I suppose we can live without it on the reassurance shields.
European countries post multiplexes very sparingly, if at all. For what it's worth. (Except for the European Route system that's superimposed on domestic numbers, and even then there are exceptions like Belgium deciding to post only European numbers on its freeways, thus reducing the domestic numbers to hidden ones....)
In practical terms, nobody would really try to follow US 40 across Indianapolis anyway. Most non-roadgeeks would tend to think of it as getting off US 40 and getting on I-465.
Quote from: txstateends on August 12, 2011, 07:05:34 PM
I've never understood the sporadic/disappearing sign routes. Either sign a route *in full* or don't sign it at all.
This has been bugging me, but I didn't bring this part up until now. Isn't a decision not to sign a portion of a U.S. Highway, or any other numbered highway, for that matter, a decision not to follow MUTCD standards? Section 2D.10 states, "All numbered highway routes shall be identified by route signs and auxiliary signs."
I know there are many hidden numbered routes, but I'm considering those separately for now. Besides, one could perhaps make the case that a hidden route is a numbered route on paper but not on the ground. But once a numbered route has an identifying sign somewhere, it's definitely a numbered route, either way one looks at it. Does the MUTCD say anywhere when it is permissible not to sign a numbered route? If so, I haven't found that part.
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 12, 2011, 08:24:02 PM
In practical terms, nobody would really try to follow US 40 across Indianapolis anyway. Most non-roadgeeks would tend to think of it as getting off US 40 and getting on I-465.
In practical terms, US 40 was replaced by I-70 across most of the country, and nobody follows it anywhere (except when travelling very short distances). It should be eliminated or demoted to state routes, except for the few segments which are still relevant, such as Denver to Salt Lake.
Quote from: flowmotion on August 14, 2011, 01:42:35 AM
...[US 40] should be eliminated or demoted to state routes, except for the few segments which are still relevant, such as Denver to Salt Lake.
The reason that hasn't happened yet is because the few segments that are relevant are on opposite ends of the country (Denver-Salt Lake, Wilmington-Atlantic City).
And because most states don't have this urge to renumber an independent route, which US 40 is east of the Mississippi.
Quote from: stridentweasel on August 13, 2011, 04:38:50 PMI know there are many hidden numbered routes, but I'm considering those separately for now. Besides, one could perhaps make the case that a hidden route is a numbered route on paper but not on the ground. But once a numbered route has an identifying sign somewhere, it's definitely a numbered route, either way one looks at it. Does the MUTCD say anywhere when it is permissible not to sign a numbered route? If so, I haven't found that part.
It is somewhere in the front and the language goes like this (loose paraphrase)--"Nothing in this manual shall be construed as requiring the erection of a sign."
I think the real intent of § 2D.10 is not to require the signing of hidden routes, or the provision of continuity of signing, but rather to prevent agencies from using something other than a route marker as the sole means of identifying a numbered highway. An example of this might be using an isolated sign reading "You are now on Route No. 2" as the
only means of identifying Route 2.
Quote from: NE2 on August 14, 2011, 04:30:01 PM
And because most states don't have this urge to renumber an independent route, which US 40 is east of the Mississippi.
However, through Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio, it might as well not be an independent route. It's extremely close to I-70, and at times is I-70.
My point is that for most people, including those at the state DOTs, replacing US 40 shields with SR 40 shields is about as useful as learning to burp the national anthem.
My point is that they could simply be moved to I-70 a la Colorado or New Mexico with the old route turned back to the counties and municipalities. (Actually, that's one of my ideas of cleaning up Illinois's routes in the Fictional forum.)
Quote from: NE2 on August 14, 2011, 08:13:31 PM
My point is that for most people, including those at the state DOTs, replacing US 40 shields with SR 40 shields is about as useful as learning to burp the national anthem.
Sure, DOTs have far more important things to worry about. However, if AASHTO changed their policy regarding the continuity of US routes, the DOTs would find plenty of US40 segments that didn't need to be state highways at all. (Especially in states like Indiana, where there apparently is a cap on highway mileage.)
I imagine that when the Interstate system was being built, towns had a fear of being "bypassed", and the old US roads were left put to mollify them. Thirty-Forty years later, I doubt anyone cares.
^^Isn't there a certain amount of tourist promotion of 40 through Ohio and Indiana because of its historicity (the National Road)? Like 66 or the Lincoln Highway?
I'm surprised Arkansas has not been mentioned yet in this thread. US 63 following I-40 and I-55 anyone?
Quote from: Michael in Philly on August 15, 2011, 07:49:37 AM
^^Isn't there a certain amount of tourist promotion of 40 through Ohio and Indiana because of its historicity (the National Road)? Like 66 or the Lincoln Highway?
I didn't think "historicity" was even a word, but sure enough, it means "historical authenticity." You learn something new every day, I guess!
And you're probably right, as there has been a lot of interest in signing or promoting historic US Routes lately in several states. You might as well leave US 40 and promote it this way instead of short-sightedly removing it. I wonder if they would've been so eager to decommission US 66 back in the 70's and 80's if they would've envisioned the rejuvenated interest in it as a tourist attraction only a few years later.
Also, there's no point to removing US 40 from its parallel segments to I-70. I doubt if those segments get less traffic than remote stretches of US Routes in the west, and I don't think the distinction between local and through traffic is all that significant. Unlike AASHTO, I don't see a lot of sense in duplexing US Highways with interstates when viable parallel routes exist.
Quote from: flowmotion on August 15, 2011, 02:21:49 AM
However, if AASHTO changed their policy regarding the continuity of US routes, the DOTs would find plenty of US40 segments that didn't need to be state highways at all. (Especially in states like Indiana, where there apparently is a cap on highway mileage.)
You say that like they don't do it anyway. US 40 through Terre Haute was just recently moved onto I-70.
Quote from: J N Winkler on August 14, 2011, 05:23:16 PM
Quote from: stridentweasel on August 13, 2011, 04:38:50 PMI know there are many hidden numbered routes, but I'm considering those separately for now. Besides, one could perhaps make the case that a hidden route is a numbered route on paper but not on the ground. But once a numbered route has an identifying sign somewhere, it's definitely a numbered route, either way one looks at it. Does the MUTCD say anywhere when it is permissible not to sign a numbered route? If so, I haven't found that part.
It is somewhere in the front and the language goes like this (loose paraphrase)--"Nothing in this manual shall be construed as requiring the erection of a sign."
I think the real intent of § 2D.10 is not to require the signing of hidden routes, or the provision of continuity of signing, but rather to prevent agencies from using something other than a route marker as the sole means of identifying a numbered highway. An example of this might be using an isolated sign reading "You are now on Route No. 2" as the only means of identifying Route 2.
Thanks. I found it. It's in Section 1A.09: "This Manual describes the application of traffic control devices, but shall not be a legal requirement for their installation."
Quote from: Michael in Philly on August 15, 2011, 07:49:37 AM
^^Isn't there a certain amount of tourist promotion of 40 through Ohio and Indiana because of its historicity (the National Road)? Like 66 or the Lincoln Highway?
A lot of the interest in Route 66 was driven by the fairly well-preserved "roadside architecture" present along the southwestern segment of the route. (And of course the famous song.) I'm not sure how much of this stuff is still there, but there were still plenty of vintage motels and tourist traps still around in the late 1980s, most with easy access from the freeway.
Bumping into small town stoplights across Indiana might not carry that same romantic appeal. I'm sure a few brown signs here and there could suffice for whatever tourist demand exists.
Minnesota doesn't sign US 52 (along I-94) or US 12 along I-94/I-394 except to say US 52 North follow I-94 West or similar on a BGS. Yet they sign short concurrencies along interstates. When you get to North Dakota, US 52 magically reappears on I-94 - but not consistently (mostly on BGS's). There's also a many cases of missing US 81's on I-29 in North Dakota. Fargo is a big exception to this.
Quote from: flowmotion on August 15, 2011, 09:13:04 PM
A lot of the interest in Route 66 was driven by the fairly well-preserved "roadside architecture" present along the southwestern segment of the route. (And of course the famous song.) I'm not sure how much of this stuff is still there, but there were still plenty of vintage motels and tourist traps still around in the late 1980s, most with easy access from the freeway.
Bumping into small town stoplights across Indiana might not carry that same romantic appeal. I'm sure a few brown signs here and there could suffice for whatever tourist demand exists.
The National Road is signed: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22national%20road%22%20signs&tbm=isch
Quote from: codyg1985 on August 15, 2011, 09:13:44 AM
I'm surprised Arkansas has not been mentioned yet in this thread. US 63 following I-40 and I-55 anyone?
What about US 67/70 following I-30 through southwest Little Rock, or US 65/167 following I-30 through downtown LR?
Quote from: NE2 on August 15, 2011, 12:37:16 PM
Quote from: flowmotion on August 15, 2011, 02:21:49 AM
However, if AASHTO changed their policy regarding the continuity of US routes, the DOTs would find plenty of US40 segments that didn't need to be state highways at all. (Especially in states like Indiana, where there apparently is a cap on highway mileage.)
You say that like they don't do it anyway. US 40 through Terre Haute was just recently moved onto I-70.
Indiana is the exception, not the rule. Heck, they're in the wrong time zone!
US routes paralleling Interstates are useful when the Interstate is blocked or congested.
Quote from: ftballfan on August 18, 2011, 10:14:47 PM
US routes paralleling Interstates are useful when the Interstate is blocked or congested.
I always thought it would have been nice to do this for all obsolete US Routes, rather than just delete them entirely (66, 99, etc).
The main problem there is that many states get bugs up their asses about putting numbered routes on non-state-maintained roads.
QuoteUS routes paralleling Interstates are useful when the Interstate is blocked or congested.
In my experience, it doesn't necessarily have to be a US route paralleling the Interstate in order to perform this function when the Interstate is blocked. Any signed route will do just fine.
Going back to the OP's original question, MDOT isn't exactly the greatest with signage to begin with, and US 51 in Jackson is an excellent example of what happens when you have a DOT that doens't do good route signage combined with a state legislature that adds/removes segments of road to/from the state highway system on a regular basis. When I inquired about this with someone at MDOT (as part of Clinched Highway Mapping), I got what basically was an endless loop of E-mail confusion.
With the limited information I had, and the lack of help from MDOT, my conclusion was as such: "mainline" US 51 follows I-55 all the way from MS 27/Crystal Springs to County Line Rd on the north side of Jackson, and that signed bit of US 51 from the I-20/55 interchange onto State Street is a Spur route.
Quote from: apeman33 on August 06, 2011, 06:26:20 PM
There is no indication that U.S. 400 passes through Cimarron, Kan. It's never been signed inside the city limits. I got some shots of the signs at the intersection with K-23 on one of my trips back to Garden City earlier this summer.
Looking east on U.S. 50/400 at K-23 (also note the peeling "50"):
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/283151_10150706738075331_507710330_19568349_1917843_n.jpg)
Looking at the signs on the signal facing K-23:
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/270489_10150706738385331_507710330_19568355_697015_n.jpg)
All of the signs on the traffic signal arms at this intersection were replaced between the last week of July and last weekend when I made another trip to Garden City. All with Series D. And
still no U.S. 400 signs.
That's because nobody, not even KDOT, really gives a rat's ass about US 400 :P
I think US-400 is a worse violation of the numbering grid than I-99. Somebody explained the reasoning behind US-400, US-412 and a couple others had something to do with dividing the nation into equal strips of twelfths or something. But it's just a mystery to me why the number was ever approved when there were plenty of unused 3dus left.
Quote from: stridentweasel on August 15, 2011, 04:34:10 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on August 14, 2011, 05:23:16 PM
Quote from: stridentweasel on August 13, 2011, 04:38:50 PMI know there are many hidden numbered routes, but I'm considering those separately for now. Besides, one could perhaps make the case that a hidden route is a numbered route on paper but not on the ground. But once a numbered route has an identifying sign somewhere, it's definitely a numbered route, either way one looks at it. Does the MUTCD say anywhere when it is permissible not to sign a numbered route? If so, I haven't found that part.
It is somewhere in the front and the language goes like this (loose paraphrase)--"Nothing in this manual shall be construed as requiring the erection of a sign."
I think the real intent of § 2D.10 is not to require the signing of hidden routes, or the provision of continuity of signing, but rather to prevent agencies from using something other than a route marker as the sole means of identifying a numbered highway. An example of this might be using an isolated sign reading "You are now on Route No. 2" as the only means of identifying Route 2.
Thanks. I found it. It's in Section 1A.09: "This Manual describes the application of traffic control devices, but shall not be a legal requirement for their installation."
Right. There is always room for engineering judgment. Especially when it comes to guide signs, which, theoretically, omitting them will not cause safety problems....the requirements are much looser for guide signs than for regulatory and warning signs.
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 07, 2011, 02:52:08 AM
That's because nobody, not even KDOT, really gives a rat's ass about US 400 :P
It matters to KDOT (which
wanted the designation :banghead:)to the point that it's posted
above the U.S. 54 shields in some parts of Wichita (although I think that's in anticipation of moving U.S. 54 to a proposed northwest bypass and on to K-254 someday).
I think Cimarron itself may be responsible for the signage and why would Cimarron care about U.S. 400? I think it's the same deal in Garden City where for years, the "Business" tab didn't appear anywhere on Fulton Street (Business 50) except at junctions. Even now, the business route signage for 50 and 83 as well as for K-156 is pretty inconsistent inside the city limits. Heck, if KDOT had it's way and Garden City wasn't paying for the signs, they may have added a "Business 400" to the whole deal.
US 30 mysteriously vanishes from I-84 between Troutdale and exit 35... but that's because OR 100's gone to the costume ball as Hist US 30. (US 30's really on the freeway down by the river, not up in the hills by the waterfalls)
Quote from: apeman33 on September 08, 2011, 12:07:59 AMIt matters to KDOT (which wanted the designation :banghead:)to the point that it's posted above the U.S. 54 shields in some parts of Wichita (although I think that's in anticipation of moving U.S. 54 to a proposed northwest bypass and on to K-254 someday).
Where in Wichita is US 400 posted above US 54? I personally can't remember seeing any such sign installations within the city limits (and Kellogg, incidentally, has a number of pull-throughs with just a US 54 shield).
KDOT did moot the idea of moving US 54 off its current alignment and onto the Northwest Bypass, but almost nobody in Wichita liked that idea and the plan is now dead. The Northwest Bypass is being developed under a 254-87 (route K-254, county 87 = Sedgwick) designation rather than a 54-87 one.
QuoteI think Cimarron itself may be responsible for the signage and why would Cimarron care about U.S. 400? I think it's the same deal in Garden City where for years, the "Business" tab didn't appear anywhere on Fulton Street (Business 50) except at junctions. Even now, the business route signage for 50 and 83 as well as for K-156 is pretty inconsistent inside the city limits. Heck, if KDOT had it's way and Garden City wasn't paying for the signs, they may have added a "Business 400" to the whole deal.
I don't think either city is to blame for the signing irregularities. KDOT is responsible for state route signing in cities, even on streets which are signed as state routes but are otherwise within the jurisdiction of cities. I think what is going on here is that the signing is handled at district level and the district office is far from the purists in Topeka.
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 08, 2011, 11:26:37 AM
Quote from: apeman33 on September 08, 2011, 12:07:59 AMIt matters to KDOT (which wanted the designation :banghead:)to the point that it's posted above the U.S. 54 shields in some parts of Wichita (although I think that's in anticipation of moving U.S. 54 to a proposed northwest bypass and on to K-254 someday).
Where in Wichita is US 400 posted above US 54? I personally can't remember seeing any such sign installations within the city limits (and Kellogg, incidentally, has a number of pull-throughs with just a US 54 shield).
KDOT did moot the idea of moving US 54 off its current alignment and onto the Northwest Bypass, but almost nobody in Wichita liked that idea and the plan is now dead. The Northwest Bypass is being developed under a 254-87 (route K-254, county 87 = Sedgwick) designation rather than a 54-87 one.
QuoteI think Cimarron itself may be responsible for the signage and why would Cimarron care about U.S. 400? I think it's the same deal in Garden City where for years, the "Business" tab didn't appear anywhere on Fulton Street (Business 50) except at junctions. Even now, the business route signage for 50 and 83 as well as for K-156 is pretty inconsistent inside the city limits. Heck, if KDOT had it's way and Garden City wasn't paying for the signs, they may have added a "Business 400" to the whole deal.
I don't think either city is to blame for the signing irregularities. KDOT is responsible for state route signing in cities, even on streets which are signed as state routes but are otherwise within the jurisdiction of cities. I think what is going on here is that the signing is handled at district level and the district office is far from the purists in Topeka.
The newest exits off Maize and Tyler roads on the west side of Wichita for one. Maize Road is the exit to my friend's house, so I see that one every time. I haven't seen yet if 400 is above 54 at any of the new exits between Woodlawn and Rock.
Edit: Proof that I'm not crazy!
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgallery.route56.com%2Falbums%2F2008%2FJul08%2F070309%2F33517.jpg&hash=b59efcc4b1f38ee15e68422ceac285dc43ccbb5c)
According to Richie, that's the one off Tyler.
Technically speaking. Post-2002, it should be Route 100, but instead, Hist US 30 is taking up the signage.
Quote from: Bickendan on September 10, 2011, 03:50:48 PM
Technically speaking. Post-2002, it should be Route 100, but instead, Hist US 30 is taking up the signage.
Except that ODOT hasn't defined a Route 100.
Quote from: US71 on September 10, 2011, 09:20:55 PM
Doesn't Highway 100 = Route 100 ? :hmmm:
Not in Oregon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_highways_in_Oregon#Highways_and_routes
Also recall that Hwy 100 is applied to all of the discontinuous segments of the Historic Highway, and three of those (Cascade Locks, Hood River, and Mosier-The Dalles) were already signed as US 30 before 2002, so designating that Highway as OR 100 would've forced removing or cosigning US 30 on those and resulted in a state route with 4 discontinuous segments. Probably why it didn't get the route 100 and possibly a reason for the HIST 30 signage, although that's not what I read in the HCRH Commission minutes as being the reason.
Quote from: NE2 on September 10, 2011, 09:28:48 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on September 10, 2011, 03:50:48 PM
Technically speaking. Post-2002, it should be Route 100, but instead, Hist US 30 is taking up the signage.
Except that ODOT hasn't defined a Route 100.
Quote from: US71 on September 10, 2011, 09:20:55 PM
Doesn't Highway 100 = Route 100 ? :hmmm:
Not in Oregon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_highways_in_Oregon#Highways_and_routes
Yes it has. It's on the internal maps -- and a quick look now implies that Hwy 100 is now US 30. http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TDATA/rics/docs/NumRouteMap_enl.pdf?ga=t
Quote from: Bickendan on September 11, 2011, 03:12:34 AM
Quote from: NE2 on September 10, 2011, 09:28:48 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on September 10, 2011, 03:50:48 PM
Technically speaking. Post-2002, it should be Route 100, but instead, Hist US 30 is taking up the signage.
Except that ODOT hasn't defined a Route 100.
Yes it has. It's on the internal maps -- and a quick look now implies that Hwy 100 is now US 30. http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TDATA/rics/docs/NumRouteMap_enl.pdf?ga=t
Which internal maps? I don't see OR 100 on:
http://egov.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TDATA/gis/docs/citymaps/Troutdale.pdf
http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TDATA/gis/docs/countymaps/Mult2.pdf
http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TDATA/gis/docs/districtmaps/dist2c.pdf
I didn't say OR 100. I said Hwy 100. Which the map I linked to shows; which the second map you linked to shows; which the third map you linked to shows.
Per 2002 route numbering, Hwy 100 should be OR 100, but remained signed only with the Historic Columbia River Hwy shields until Hist. US 30 got signed onto Hwy 100 last year. And, as far as I can recall, US 30 hasn't been signed on I-84 between exits 17 and 35, even though it's officially routed there.
Quote from: Bickendan on September 08, 2011, 03:43:08 AM
US 30 mysteriously vanishes from I-84 between Troutdale and exit 35... but that's because OR 100's gone to the costume ball as Hist US 30. (US 30's really on the freeway down by the river, not up in the hills by the waterfalls)
Quote from: Bickendan on September 12, 2011, 12:30:19 AM
I didn't say OR 100. I said Hwy 100.
:confused:
Quote from: NE2 on September 12, 2011, 04:53:40 AM
Quote from: Bickendan on September 08, 2011, 03:43:08 AM
US 30 mysteriously vanishes from I-84 between Troutdale and exit 35... but that's because OR 100's gone to the costume ball as Hist US 30. (US 30's really on the freeway down by the river, not up in the hills by the waterfalls)
Quote from: Bickendan on September 12, 2011, 12:30:19 AM
I didn't say OR 100. I said Hwy 100.
:confused:
Oregon has a separate system for signed routes and internal highway designations, very similar to California's 1934-1964 legislative route number vs. signed route number divergence (though not organized the same way, IIRC) -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_(Oregon)
I know that...
Quote from: NE2 on September 12, 2011, 04:53:40 AM
Quote from: Bickendan on September 08, 2011, 03:43:08 AM
US 30 mysteriously vanishes from I-84 between Troutdale and exit 35... but that's because OR 100's gone to the costume ball as Hist US 30. (US 30's really on the freeway down by the river, not up in the hills by the waterfalls)
Quote from: Bickendan on September 12, 2011, 12:30:19 AM
I didn't say OR 100. I said Hwy 100.
:confused:
Meaning, per the 2002 establishments of routes in Oregon, the portion of Hwy 100 where US 30 is NOT routed onto (from Troutdale to I-84 exit 35) should have been signed in the field as OR 100. Instead, eight years of no signage go by (with US 30 NOT being signed on I-84 from Exits 17-35, where it IS routed) until last year, when Hist. US 30 is created. Meanwhile, US 30 is still defined as being concurrent with I-84 through the western portion of the Gorge, and Hwy 100 is still defined without an external route number. Therefore, Hwy 100 -> OR 100 with Hist. US 30 superceding that signage.
QuoteMeaning, per the 2002 establishments of routes in Oregon, the portion of Hwy 100 where US 30 is NOT routed onto (from Troutdale to I-84 exit 35) should have been signed in the field as OR 100. Instead, eight years of no signage go by (with US 30 NOT being signed on I-84 from Exits 17-35, where it IS routed) until last year, when Hist. US 30 is created. Meanwhile, US 30 is still defined as being concurrent with I-84 through the western portion of the Gorge, and Hwy 100 is still defined without an external route number. Therefore, Hwy 100 -> OR 100 with Hist. US 30 superceding that signage.
I can't remember when I researched this in-depth, but I know I did at some point and have been operating under the assumption that this is correct for several years now.
Quote from: Bickendan on September 12, 2011, 07:18:40 PM
Meaning, per the 2002 establishments of routes in Oregon, the portion of Hwy 100 where US 30 is NOT routed onto (from Troutdale to I-84 exit 35) should have been signed in the field as OR 100. Instead, eight years of no signage go by (with US 30 NOT being signed on I-84 from Exits 17-35, where it IS routed) until last year, when Hist. US 30 is created. Meanwhile, US 30 is still defined as being concurrent with I-84 through the western portion of the Gorge, and Hwy 100 is still defined without an external route number. Therefore, Hwy 100 -> OR 100 with Hist. US 30 superceding that signage.
ODOT defined each new route individually; you can see the different dates of establishment in http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/TRAFFIC-ROADWAY/docs/pdf/Descriptions_of_US_and_Oregon_Routes.pdf. There was no general order that Highway x should become Route x.
Quote from: Greybear on August 16, 2011, 02:23:43 AM
Quote from: codyg1985 on August 15, 2011, 09:13:44 AM
I'm surprised Arkansas has not been mentioned yet in this thread. US 63 following I-40 and I-55 anyone?
What about US 67/70 following I-30 through southwest Little Rock, or US 65/167 following I-30 through downtown LR?
That seems to be the exception rather than the rule.
Quote from: NE2 on September 13, 2011, 04:36:52 AM
Quote from: Bickendan on September 12, 2011, 07:18:40 PM
Meaning, per the 2002 establishments of routes in Oregon, the portion of Hwy 100 where US 30 is NOT routed onto (from Troutdale to I-84 exit 35) should have been signed in the field as OR 100. Instead, eight years of no signage go by (with US 30 NOT being signed on I-84 from Exits 17-35, where it IS routed) until last year, when Hist. US 30 is created. Meanwhile, US 30 is still defined as being concurrent with I-84 through the western portion of the Gorge, and Hwy 100 is still defined without an external route number. Therefore, Hwy 100 -> OR 100 with Hist. US 30 superceding that signage.
ODOT defined each new route individually; you can see the different dates of establishment in http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/TRAFFIC-ROADWAY/docs/pdf/Descriptions_of_US_and_Oregon_Routes.pdf. There was no general order that Highway x should become Route x.
As of 2002, Hwy xx without a route number became OR xx, unless OR xx already existed. In that case, Hwy xx became OR 5xx, with the exception of Hwy 69 becoming OR 569 after briefly existing as OR 69.
Quote from: Bickendan on September 13, 2011, 11:26:53 PM
Quote from: NE2 on September 13, 2011, 04:36:52 AM
Quote from: Bickendan on September 12, 2011, 07:18:40 PM
Meaning, per the 2002 establishments of routes in Oregon, the portion of Hwy 100 where US 30 is NOT routed onto (from Troutdale to I-84 exit 35) should have been signed in the field as OR 100. Instead, eight years of no signage go by (with US 30 NOT being signed on I-84 from Exits 17-35, where it IS routed) until last year, when Hist. US 30 is created. Meanwhile, US 30 is still defined as being concurrent with I-84 through the western portion of the Gorge, and Hwy 100 is still defined without an external route number. Therefore, Hwy 100 -> OR 100 with Hist. US 30 superceding that signage.
ODOT defined each new route individually; you can see the different dates of establishment in http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/TRAFFIC-ROADWAY/docs/pdf/Descriptions_of_US_and_Oregon_Routes.pdf. There was no general order that Highway x should become Route x.
As of 2002, Hwy xx without a route number became OR xx, unless OR xx already existed. In that case, Hwy xx became OR 5xx, with the exception of Hwy 69 becoming OR 569 after briefly existing as OR 69.
For the most part, but a few highways such as 100 and 372 did not get route numbers.
Never having been on Hwy 372, I can only conditionally agree, as Hwy 100 was at least signed with special (unnumbered Historic Columbia River Highway shields until the Hist. US 30 shields went up. Makes me wonder if Hwy 372 had a special shield as well, but I doubt it.
Quote from: Bickendan on September 16, 2011, 05:06:00 AM
Never having been on Hwy 372, I can only conditionally agree, as Hwy 100 was at least signed with special (unnumbered Historic Columbia River Highway shields until the Hist. US 30 shields went up. Makes me wonder if Hwy 372 had a special shield as well, but I doubt it.
I don't ever remember seeing any special signage on Hwy 372, and I've been on it several times over the last 3 decades.
It mystifies me that they designated routes on so many less significant of the unsigned highways but not 372, one that actually connects to a popular destination in the Bachelor ski facilities. It's also especially strange since it has appeared as a State Route on the official state highway map twice -- a couple of years in the 90's, and in the latest edition (2011-2013) -- when it has never officially been a State Route.
As for the point that started this discussion: while US 30 is missing from the reassurance assemblies between Troutdale and exit 35, I think this was just an oversight when those shields were replaced awhile back and not intentional. 30 is still signed at the ramps of nearly all the interchanges through this stretch. I certainly don't think it was because the route was considered to be shifted onto the historic highway. In fact, the brand new signage at the Troutdale on-ramp specifically shows US 30 as being coincident with I-84 and different than HIST 30:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FHistoric%2520Columbia%2520River%2520Highway%2FUS30HISTTroutdale1.jpg%3Ft%3D1293209476&hash=2c421ab0c9ebd7eb4966b1b9640999529e5554e3)