AARoads Forum

Other than Interstate 238, which other highways have oddities in them, or are oddities in themselves?

Interstate 84 in Oregon and Connecticut is one example.

why is 84 an oddity? because it appears twice?  or because Conn I-84 in the western half of the state goes back to 1952 and is comically substandard?

Just because they have the same number and they were never connected. Like the two interstate 76's. Interstate 99 is a good example.

I-95 strikes me as a better example of that sort of oddity... here it is, 2009, and its two parts are still unconnected through Jersey.

(//www.aaroads.com/wp-content/uploads/blog_images/southeast/cr-425_end_cr-427_begin.jpg)

This doesn't happen too often, where a road changes numbers without intersecting anything.

similarly, I-290 changes to I-395 at the Mass Pike, but without intersecting it.

Here is another highway oddity:

(//www.aaroads.com/wp-content/uploads/blog_images/southeast/AL_55_AND_FL_85_SB.jpg)
Shield assembly showing Florida 85 co-signed with Alabama 55 in Florala, Alabama

More on this odd find here (https://www.aaroads.com/blog/?p=191).

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.westcoastroads.com%2Fcalifornia%2Fimages075%2Fi-080_wb_exit_011_02.jpg&hash=35d2bd5c8cd02d3c8acaabfd3613c4ff8938ad34)

Not only do they contradict each other, but they're both going south here.

Quote from: voyager on January 20, 2009, 02:43:57 AM
[80/580]

*shudder*

There have been times where I've had to stop at the on-ramps and consult the map because I could not, for the life of me, remember which way was "south".

Quote from: Darkangel on January 20, 2009, 02:36:38 AM
I-95 strikes me as a better example of that sort of oddity... here it is, 2009, and its two parts are still unconnected through Jersey.

I've read they want to construct an interchange with the I-276 Pennsylvania Turnpike and divert the I-95 south of Trenton to the NJ Turnpike. I wonder which number the existing part west and north of Trenton would get.

Don't forget the OK 20/AR 43 (mis-signed as MO 43) oddity.

As for layout oddities, I present US 77 in Ardmore, OK, aka Commerce Street. Four lane divided street with service roads and on and off ramps. Yes, you heard that correctly.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.denexa.com%2Fforum_img%2Fcommerce.png&hash=2811f1954d626f77dd64b554f3bde04ce4078c4d)

Arrows show the preferred method of making turns onto the cross street for northbound traffic and turns onto Commerce for westbound traffic on the cross street.

Here's a Google Street View (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Commerce+St.,+Ardmore,+OK&sll=37.200544,-93.279906&sspn=0.009999,0.022745&ie=UTF8&ll=34.180637,-97.142959&spn=0.010385,0.022745&z=16&layer=c&cbll=34.180544,-97.142966&panoid=72ZwaJhbjsXpet9xEB4WIA&cbp=12,192.51849048549147,,0,1.246285184946214) shot of how it looks from the ground. I need to get a better shot of it, but my camera is lost...maybe next time I go down there.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhome.pacbell.net%2Fhywaymn%2Fimages%2FAnaheim_Street_at_110.jpg&hash=5d8dbb29f1a5449ce7498c77a17beb97bb8d2e5c)

that 11 green sign is long gone, right?

Nope, last I heard it was still there.

I've read they want to construct an interchange with the I-276 Pennsylvania Turnpike and divert the I-95 south of Trenton to the NJ Turnpike. I wonder which number the existing part west and north of Trenton would get.
[/quote]
At first, it was supposed to be an extension of I-295 from its current end at U.S. 1.  The latest is that it would be an extension of I-195 from the existing I-195/I-295 interchange, overtaking the northerly 8 miles of I-295.

Personally, considering the cardinal direction changes and the similarity between "295" and "to 95" that the Trenton Loop has experienced in the last 20-odd years, it should be given its own number (such as 895) rather than an extension of an existing number.

Well all states want to do is extend existing numbers rather than make new ones, so I see Interstate 195 being extended.  :-/

really?  at what cross street?

Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 20, 2009, 11:11:30 PM
really?  at what cross street?

You're referring to the road I mentioned, correct?

no, I refer to this photo:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhome.pacbell.net%2Fhywaymn%2Fimages%2FAnaheim_Street_at_110.jpg&hash=5d8dbb29f1a5449ce7498c77a17beb97bb8d2e5c)

the title of the image is Anaheim Street at 110, and I looked there about two years ago and found nothing.  But this is Joel we're talking about, so he may very well have biffed the cross street.

Most of Joel's images (and webpages) are severely outdated, so expect all of those errors to have long since been corrected. He was going to start http://www.goldenstatehwys.net/ in more recent times, but as you can see by clicking, it still states opening soon (been that way since 2006!)

sweet technological Jesus, what font is he using??

I got a weird highway oddity. None of the 3dis of I-78 east of NYC actually interchange with I-78 itself. The closest any of them come is I-478, whose terminus, the Brooklyn-battery tunnel is just a little way down NY-9A from I-78's terminus, the Holland Tunnel. But they never actually meet. I wonder who's genuis idea it was to do that...

was 78 supposed to be extended?  495 was supposed to go under Manhattan.  Here is an optimistic trailblazer on the west side of the island!

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.artistjake.com%2Flj%2Fw53523.jpg&hash=ff22c7d391f463220dba104e0113f1a7e3c25c97)

Well, they don't have an I-478 for nothing. I believe it was supposed to run all the way on Long Island.

WA-100 ends at itself, about 2 miles south of its western terminus! It is also the only highway in Washington not to use a cardinal direction (north, south, east, west), but uses the direction "LOOP".

I have a Triborough Bridge Authority map in storage (at Andy's?) that shows several of the unconstructed expressways in NYC. Interstate 78 (http://www.northeastroads.com/i-078_ny.html) was to follow the Lower Manhattan Expressway to the Williamsburg Bridge and then southeastward along the Bushwick Expressway to the Nassau Expressway. There are remnants of the expressway concept along Conduit Avenue (http://www.northeastroads.com/ny-027b.html) From the Nassau, Interstate 78 was to turn northward along the unconstructed portion of the Clearview Expressway to the Throgs Neck Bridge and the Interstate 295/695 split (which was originally the Interstate 78/78 Spur split).

Interstate 478 (http://www.northeastroads.com/i-478_ny.html) existed as three concepts, one in its current form along the Battery Tunnel. A second was to follow the Manhattan Bridge between the Lower Manhattan Expressway and Interstate 275 (BQE). The third was heading northward along the now defunct West Side Highway (perhaps to Interstate 95?).

Interstate 278 (http://www.northeastroads.com/i-278_ny.html) was to take a different path in the Bronx than it does today. Current I-278 ends at the Bruckner Interchange along what was originally a stretch of Interstate 878. Interstate 278 was to follow what is now Interstate 895 (Sheridan Expressway) north to Interstate 95 and northeast along an unconstructed segment to Interstate 95 at one of its Hutchinson River Parkway interchanges.

Interstate 878 (http://www.northeastroads.com/ny-878.html) was moved to New York 878 after Interstate 78 was officially decommissioned in Queens and made an unsigned Interstate (the shortest of them all). The Nassau was only built in the eastbound direction between Conduit Avenue and Interstate 678 btw.

Interstate 678 (http://www.northeastroads.com/i-678_ny.html) was signed in the 1970s in its current form. There was a previous planned version along the unconstructed Astoria Expressway that included a section of the GCP.

I've done a lot of research on NYC Interstates and have a bunch more photos to add. Much of my information comes from Steve Anderson's super detailed nycroads.com (http://www.nycroads.com/).

Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 21, 2009, 04:35:19 AM
was 78 supposed to be extended?  495 was supposed to go under Manhattan.  Here is an optimistic trailblazer on the west side of the island!

Hmm... yeah, I see it in google earth. I-495 comes from the east through the Queens-Midtown Tunnel, directly across Manhattan from the Lincoln Tunnel, which is signed as NJ-495. Were there originally plans to build an freeway across Manhattan?

Quote from: aaroadsI have a Triborough Bridge Authority map in storage (at Andy's?) that shows several of the unconstructed expressways in NYC. Interstate 78 was to follow the Lower Manhattan Expressway to the Williamsburg Bridge and then southeastward along the Bushwick Expressway to the Nassau Expressway. There are remnants of the expressway concept along Conduit Avenue From the Nassau, Interstate 78 was to turn northward along the unconstructed portion of the Clearview Expressway to the Throgs Neck Bridge and the Interstate 295/695 split (which was originally the Interstate 78/78 Spur split).

Hmm... Lower Manhattan Expressway? Was that another planned one across Manhattan? I-78's Holland Tunnel reaches Manhattan directly across from the Williamsburg Bridge.

Quote from: deathtopumpkins on January 21, 2009, 01:03:14 PM
Hmm... yeah, I see it in google earth. I-495 comes from the east through the Queens-Midtown Tunnel, directly across Manhattan from the Lincoln Tunnel, which is signed as NJ-495. Were there originally plans to build an freeway across Manhattan?

Yes, Interstate 495 was to travel the unconstructed Mid-Manhattan Expressway between the Lincoln and Queens-Midtown Tunnel. There may still be an Interstate 495 sign on the New Jersey stretch of freeway leading east from the NJ Turnpike. Here's a photo of it from 2000:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.northeastroads.com%2Fnew_jersey200%2Fnj-495_eb_begin.jpg&hash=12ff3cbc1188e091c884ee7529b19a381d3b822c)

Quote from: deathtopumpkins on January 21, 2009, 01:03:14 PMHmm... Lower Manhattan Expressway? Was that another planned one across Manhattan? I-78's Holland Tunnel reaches Manhattan directly across from the Williamsburg Bridge.

Lower-Manhattan Expressway would have joined the Holland Tunnel with the Williamsburg Bridge.

don't recall seeing that I-495 green sign. 

what's the half cut off US shield?  Is it the 1/9 pair with buttons?

U.S. 1 & 9, which I took back in 2000 in an effort to turn around. To see that sign you have to take the NJ Turnpike exit; its not on the New Jersey 3 freeway.

Now that sign shows 495 as a state route, at least on street view. That's where I saw that it was signed as NJ-495.

Quote from: deathtopumpkins on January 21, 2009, 02:59:36 PM
Now that sign shows 495 as a state route, at least on street view. That's where I saw that it was signed as NJ-495.

Are you sure its in street view? I went to look and they did not show that area of freeway covered.

You in Google Earth of Maps? That might be the difference... Nah, same in both. OK, I looked again and it was actually on NJ-3 right here. (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=nyc&sll=37.066608,-76.306866&sspn=0.012259,0.019312&g=128+River+Walk+Ct,+Hampton,+VA+23669&ie=UTF8&ll=40.781474,-74.046948&spn=0.001454,0.002414&t=h&z=19&iwloc=addr&layer=c&cbll=40.781595,-74.046985&panoid=LTEhQuR2JdT7X4ByLOscBQ&cbp=12,163.6794901491569,,0,10.194840142084708)

Right that is not the same sign bridge, the sign bridge is on the connecting ramp from the NJ Turnpike east, which is the NJ-495 mainline, at its partition with the ramp to NJ-3 southbound.

http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCP&cp=qswn518twgdz&style=b&lvl=2&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=23720454&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&encType=1

Ahhhh... And so it is.

Just remembered. OK 63A has three termini. And OK 77S has four.

Thank goodness we don't devote separate articles to the Oklahoma lettered spur routes on Wikipedia. Expressing that in an infobox would be a nightmare.

I-710 in Long Beach has three southern termini.  It then has a northern terminus at Valley Blvd, and two termini in Pasadena (as unsigned CA-710).  They never quite finished the section in between, but a bunch of the northbound southern segment has Pasadena as its control city.

The houses that sit empty with Caltrans "No Trespassing" signs within the unconstructed I-710 right of way are what's creepy. The rest of it is just an overly tagged with graffiti, industrialized freeway.

They kicked people out of their houses with eminent domain and then didn't build the highway?  :confused: Caltrans is starting to sound a bit like VDOT here...

I have a couple thoughts for this thread.

The state of Arizona uses an odd mileposting system where a new route starts with the milepost of the route from which it starts, such that AZ 67 (leading to the north rim of the Grand Canyon) starts in the 400's, when the road is only about 30 miles long.  (I don't remember specifics, because it was 7 years ago that I was there.)  Does anyone know why they use this system rather than starting at 0?

Along U.S. 1 in Lawrenceville, NJ, the southbound approach to the highway loop around Trenton provides an unusual situation.  At this interchange, both I-295 and I-95 end (the latter temporarily).  So, the signing for the soouthbound approach leads one direction to I-95 SOUTH, the other direction to I-295 SOUTH, and through to U.S. 1 SOUTH.  (I'll try to get a picture or two, since this has been reconfigured recently.)  Almost feels like you are on the north pole, because all roads lead south.  Are there other places where this phenomenon occurs?

I-81 and I-77 are both cosigned, but they're both going the opposite direction.

The mileage based exits for Interstate 17 in Arizona are explained on the Interstate 17 page of Rocky Mountain Roads (https://www.aaroads.com/west/i-017_az.html):

The mileposts on Interstate 17 begin at Milepost 194. Interstate 17's mileposts came from Arizona 69, which began at mile 201 of U.S. 89 originally (where the Grand Avenue overpass of Interstate 17 is today). Since Interstate 19's mileposts also correspond to U.S. 89, it has led to some speculation that Interstate 17 and 19 were supposed to be one freeway, which has never been in state highway system plans.

That is one of the most confusing explanations ever.

Quote from: akotchi on January 24, 2009, 11:19:34 AM
Along U.S. 1 in Lawrenceville, NJ, the southbound approach to the highway loop around Trenton provides an unusual situation.  At this interchange, both I-295 and I-95 end (the latter temporarily).  So, the signing for the soouthbound approach leads one direction to I-95 SOUTH, the other direction to I-295 SOUTH, and through to U.S. 1 SOUTH.  (I'll try to get a picture or two, since this has been reconfigured recently.)  Almost feels like you are on the north pole, because all roads lead south.  Are there other places where this phenomenon occurs?

And Interstate 95 was extended east to U.S. 1 in the early 1990s from its end at nearby U.S. 206. This was done after they realized that unconstructed Interstate 95 between Trenton and New Brunswick would never come to fruition.

Quote from: voyager on January 24, 2009, 11:28:09 PM
That is one of the most confusing explanations ever.

Read the whole page, it helps.

Quote from: aaroads on January 24, 2009, 11:29:08 PM

Quote from: akotchi on January 24, 2009, 11:19:34 AM
Along U.S. 1 in Lawrenceville, NJ, the southbound approach to the highway loop around Trenton provides an unusual situation.  At this interchange, both I-295 and I-95 end (the latter temporarily).  So, the signing for the soouthbound approach leads one direction to I-95 SOUTH, the other direction to I-295 SOUTH, and through to U.S. 1 SOUTH.  (I'll try to get a picture or two, since this has been reconfigured recently.)  Almost feels like you are on the north pole, because all roads lead south.  Are there other places where this phenomenon occurs?

And Interstate 95 was extended east to U.S. 1 in the early 1990s from its end at nearby U.S. 206. This was done after they realized that unconstructed Interstate 95 between Trenton and New Brunswick would never come to fruition.

It was about 1993 when the extension occurred.  I-95 ended and I-295 began between the NJ 31 and Federal City Road exits (a bit west of U.S. 206).  There is a widening median between the two exits where the I-95 mainlines were to turn north.  A third lane was added in each direction between the exits in the mid-1990's to make the roadway a continuous freeway.

Where does US 101 begin and I-80 end on the skyway?

I had always thought I-80 starts at the split that is just north of 17th street.  I don't know for sure; I figure one can dead-reckon from the postmiles on I-80 ... it starts one mile away from the 1.00 postmile, or two from the 2.00, or wherever from whichever one is available.

Quote from: voyager on January 24, 2009, 08:31:20 PM
I-81 and I-77 are both cosigned, but they're both going the opposite direction.

I've seen a number of cosigned routes with opposite directions on the reassurance signs.

In my home town of Bloomsburg, PA; US 11 and PA 487 duplex for a few blocks but have opposite directions on the signs.  Going one way, (compass NNW) it's US 11 South, PA 487 North.  Naturally, the other way (compass SSE) is US 11 North and PA 487 South.

In Berwick, PA you have:
compass ENE: US 11 north and PA 93 South
compass WSW: US 11 South and PA 93 North

In W. Nanticoke, PA, US 11 does it again for a couple of miles:
compass East: US 11 North and PA 29 South
compass West: US 11 South and PA 29 North

Going the other way, there is another short couple block stretch in Northumberland, PA where US 11 (yet again!) and PA 147 do the opposite direction dance.

In all, four "wrong way" duplexes in a 56 mile stretch of highway!

In Williamsport, PA there's a couple mile stretch of I-180 that is cosigned with US 15 and US 220.  The highway and I-180 run east/west, but the reassurance signs are as follows:
I-180 West, US 15 North, US 220 South
I-180 East, US 15 South, US 220 North

BTW The west end of this stretch is where future I-99 will go from US 220 to US 15.

My holy grail were is to find a reassurance sign assembly with all four cardinal directions!  :banghead:

US 119 and PA 36 in downtown Punxsautawney is a "wrong way" multiplex:  US 119 North/PA 36 South and vice-versa.

Quote from: PAHighways on January 30, 2009, 01:17:30 AM
US 119 and PA 36 in downtown Punxsautawney is a "wrong way" multiplex:  US 119 North/PA 36 South and vice-versa.

I guess we can safely say that PENNDOT is not sure of which way it's going!  :-D :D

 Just an interesting note on the US 1 / US 9 shield in New Jersey ( 1&9).  It's seen on the opening credits of The Sopranos, and for the longest time I thought it was a US 169 shield. 

Quote from: voyager on January 29, 2009, 04:50:25 AM
Where does US 101 begin and I-80 end on the skyway?

Quote from: agentsteel53 on January 29, 2009, 08:59:12 AM
I had always thought I-80 starts at the split that is just north of 17th street.  I don't know for sure; I figure one can dead-reckon from the postmiles on I-80 ... it starts one mile away from the 1.00 postmile, or two from the 2.00, or wherever from whichever one is available.

There's already a thread on this, but to summarize, signage begins at the interchange with 101, but it actually begins/ends at the west end of the Bay Bridge.

Speaking of U.S. 1&9 shields, in recent years, New Jersey has been using one three-digit shield for the route pair, using "1-9" or "1&9" as the route number, rather than having separate two-digit shields.  Saves space on the guide signs.

Oh I almost forgot...the planned freeway that goes along Sir Francis Drake blvd that was never build makes the interchange with US 101 a definite oddity.

That is an odd and dangerously substandard interchange. North 101's exit ramps have a stack like configuration, and there is a left exit for Sir Francis Drake west to 101 south, but the rest is a diamond. That freeway would have been horrible though; it would have met up with a CA-1 freeway at the Pacific and Mill Valley up to Pt. Reyes was going to be a huge suburb.

Nobody has mentioned "I" 180 in Wyoming yet.  That's a big oddity IMHO.

The I-85 and US 311 interchange is definitely not what I'd expect. Are they planning on upgrading it?

Quote from: voyager on February 11, 2009, 12:29:12 AM
The I-85 and US 311 interchange is definitely not what I'd expect. Are they planning on upgrading it?

There is already construction of a new high speed interchange with the future Interstate 74 (and future syphoned U.S. 311) north of the current diamond interchange.

Quote from: PAHighways on January 30, 2009, 01:17:30 AM
US 119 and PA 36 in downtown Punxsautawney is a "wrong way" multiplex:  US 119 North/PA 36 South and vice-versa.

Blame Phil for that one I guess :-P

Wisconsin's got its share
I-894 is cosigned with something for the entire route.  (I-43 or US 45) I-894 flew solo along the east-west portion prior to I-43's extension.

I've seen enough wrong-way concurrencies in WI.

4 US routes on a single road, Beltline in Madison

A long stretch of a triplex of Interstates

I-39 is alone for only 5 miles.

US 18 ends at a city street

Several routes are extended along concurrences and end at a point (even if the concurrent number continues - such as WIS 32 at the Michigan Border (concurrent with US 45)

LEVEL railroads crossings on freeways (one left - US 151 Beaver Dam bypass, there used to be one on the West Madison Beltline Highway)

Diamond interchange connecting freeways in Wausau (practically gone now with reconstruction though  :D :) :biggrin: )

The freeway mainline that connects northbound Route 99 with eastbound Business 80 in midtown Sacramento has at least two of its own exits - Broadway (Route 99 exit 298B) and T Street (supposedly Business 80 Exit 6C, which doesn't make any sense) - but it's not clear if that is actually Route 99 or the start of hidden Route 51!  On the other hand, thanks to the 1970s freeway cancellations, all that exists of the proposed Route 244 bypass is a giant offramp from I-80 to Auburn Boulevard up near Del Paso Park.

Route 160 in Sacramento has a huge gap (due to the transfer of the portion from the North Sacramento Freeway to I-5 back to local jurisdiction) with no clear signage to connect the two portions.

The triple-concurrency of Business 80, US 50, and Route 99 in midtown/downtown Sacramento - which represents the most routes in one signed concurrency in the state - technically also involves two more routes as well, the paper I-305 and an implied Route 16.

California's numbering system is an oddity in itself.

I-81 at the St. Lawrence River has a few signage oddities in addition to being one lane each way (separated by a double yellow line) over the Thousand Islands Bridge.  As you head north, around exit 50N all signage for I-81 disappears (it's only signed as Thousand Islands Bridge/Wellesley Island/Canada).  Around exit 51 the signage for I-81 appears again.  I don't think anything like this happens when you head south.

VA 156 is signed very weirdly in the Hopewell area.  In Prince George VA 156 is signed along VA 106(while it is supposed to be VA 156 BYP???).  However VA 156 Business is signed along presumably the real VA 156 up to Hopewell.  However in Hopewell VA 156 Business???? is known as VA 156 and the business route into Hopewell is not even posted at VA 10, VA 106, and VA 156 intersection east of Hopewell.

I always thought that CA 33 was an oddity, with respect to how it interacts with I-5 through the Central Valley of California.  This highway intersects I-5 a total of 5 times!

Does anyone else find US 13 to be an oddity, considering is runs entirely east of US 1

Quote from: mapman on March 10, 2009, 12:57:47 AM
I always thought that CA 33 was an oddity, with respect to how it interacts with I-5 through the Central Valley of California.  This highway intersects I-5 a total of 5 times!

Just look at US 11/I-81.  They intersect 16 times in New York alone (source (http://www.upstatenyroads.com/i81.shtml))!  This doesn't count exits for a route that goes to US 11.

Quote from: Michael on March 10, 2009, 10:14:04 AM

Quote from: mapman on March 10, 2009, 12:57:47 AM
I always thought that CA 33 was an oddity, with respect to how it interacts with I-5 through the Central Valley of California.  This highway intersects I-5 a total of 5 times!

Just look at US 11/I-81.  They intersect 16 times in New York alone (source (http://www.upstatenyroads.com/i81.shtml))!  This doesn't count exits for a route that goes to US 11.

It's more prolific than that in Virginia.  I think its upwards of 20 times!  :wow:

Such is the nature of building interstates along existing US route corridors. I-95 and US 1 intersect about 50 times or so.

Quote from: froggie on March 10, 2009, 01:14:36 PM
none in NC, SC, or GA.

When both 95 and 1 go far away from the coast/eastern shoreline areas, which they pretty much hug in most of their other states.  1 more so is an offender of this, which is a major oddity in my book.  If it's US 1, then it should be closest to the coast.

Quote from: froggie on March 10, 2009, 01:14:36 PM

QuoteJust look at US 11/I-81.  They intersect 16 times in New York alone (source)!  This doesn't count exits for a route that goes to US 11.

Actually (and speaking from experience here, as Meaghan lived in Syracuse for 2 years and I could drive the I-81 corridor in my sleep), I-81 intersects US 11 a total of 11 times in New York.  2 of those crossings do not have any interchange ramps.  3 others are only partial interchanges.  In addition, there are 4 other locations (the northern Exit 8, southbound Exit 9, northbound Exit 14, and northbound Exit 15) where I-81 has direct ramps to or from US 11, but where the two routes do not cross.

njroadhorse is close...there are 17 locations where I-81 and US 11 cross in Virginia...if you count the two I-81/US 11 duplexes in Virginia as one crossing each.

Meanwhile, a quick atlas search suggests 41 crossings between I-95 and US 1 nationwide, with a large number of those...14...in Connecticut alone, counteracted by only 1 in Maine and none in NH, NC, SC, or GA.

I didn't bother going into that much detail!

Quote from: njroadhorse on March 10, 2009, 01:23:19 PM
When both 95 and 1 go far away from the coast/eastern shoreline areas, which they pretty much hug in most of their other states.  1 more so is an offender of this, which is a major oddity in my book.  If it's US 1, then it should be closest to the coast.

The reason it deviates from the coast in the Mid-Atlantic is because in that region the major cities are further inland. If it followed the closest to coast route, its routing would be completely different all the way from Jacksonville to Woodbridge, NJ... following US Routes 17, 13, 113, and 9.

Which it could have. But think about something here. If it did that, it would hit these major cities:

- Atlantic City, NJ (sort of)
- Ocean City, MD (sort of)
- Norfolk, VA
- Wilmington, NC
- Charleston, SC
- Savannah, GA

but would miss all of these, which the existing route does hit:

- Trenton, NJ
- Philadelphia, PA
- Baltimore, MD
- Washington, DC
- Richmond, VA
- Raleigh, NC
- Columbia, SC
- Augusta, GA

That's why it deviates inland. It's an "oddity" so far as the numbering grid may be concerned, but it makes perfect sense practically.
Besides, US routes have always followed more of a general trend than a strict grid with their numbering anyway. US 44 and US 46 are both entirely north of US 22. US 12 and US 20 are near entirely north of US 6. US 10 and US 8 both are actually entirely north of it. And on and on and on.

And yet people raise a huge stink over I-99's number, one minor little offense in comparison.

Quote from: Duke87 on March 10, 2009, 03:04:15 PM

Quote from: njroadhorse on March 10, 2009, 01:23:19 PM
When both 95 and 1 go far away from the coast/eastern shoreline areas, which they pretty much hug in most of their other states.  1 more so is an offender of this, which is a major oddity in my book.  If it's US 1, then it should be closest to the coast.

You make a very valid point

The reason it deviates from the coast in the Mid-Atlantic is because in that region the major cities are further inland. If it followed the closest to coast route, its routing would be completely different all the way from Jacksonville to Woodbridge, NJ... following US Routes 17, 13, 113, and 9.

Which it could have. But think about something here. If it did that, it would hit these major cities:

- Atlantic City, NJ (sort of)
- Ocean City, MD (sort of)
- Norfolk, VA
- Wilmington, NC
- Charleston, SC
- Savannah, GA

but would miss all of these, which the existing route does hit:

- Trenton, NJ
- Philadelphia, PA
- Baltimore, MD
- Washington, DC
- Richmond, VA
- Raleigh, NC
- Columbia, SC
- Augusta, GA

That's why it deviates inland. It's an "oddity" so far as the numbering grid may be concerned, but it makes perfect sense practically.
Besides, US routes have always followed more of a general trend than a strict grid with their numbering anyway. US 44 and US 46 are both entirely north of US 22. US 12 and US 20 are near entirely north of US 6. US 10 and US 8 both are actually entirely north of it. And on and on and on.

And yet people raise a huge stink over I-99's number, one minor little offense in comparison.

This could easily go into the rave category considering that VA 171 is my favorite Virginia state route(hence half of my user name).  Here is I-64 West one mile east of the VA 171 interchange  (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi622.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt304%2F24DIDNOTWIN%2FI-64WEST1MILEEASTOFVA171EXITS256B-A.jpg&hash=ac31e177b77c18a6b125764c36bffed13bbea4ba)  However, VA 171 continues west to VA 143(even though it could easily be extended to US 60) as shown by exit guide sign 1/4 mile west  (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi622.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt304%2F24DIDNOTWIN%2FI-64WEST75MILESEASTOFVA171EXITS256B.jpg&hash=daa50541a5c529bc0ddfbc460dcec21d9013c3e4)  However at both VA 171 exits VA 171 is only posted as going east on Victory Blvd even though it goes west onto Oyster Point Rd  (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi622.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt304%2F24DIDNOTWIN%2FI-64WESTATVA171EASTEXIT256B.jpg&hash=9df5b65b204003d2840735cd7fe3a35037e494ea)   (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi622.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt304%2F24DIDNOTWIN%2FI-64WESTATVA171WESTEXIT256B.jpg&hash=36607701c99271f8f35b7084deaa1d43ce5df91d)

Fixed image sizes -DTP

Quotefrom Froggie:  As I recall, those new Clearview signs are also examples of that "carbon copy signage" that Alex has been complaining about.  I saw them on New Year's Day when I was down in the area...

I took these Saturday driving on I-64 from I-264(Exit 284) west to I-295.  At least there is a sign that VA 171 continues west of I-64.  BTW you can have the photo if you want for VA 171 entry in the VA Highways Project

Hey I drive under those signs almost every day and have never noticed that... I always thought the reason they signed VA-171 ending at 64 was because the name of the road changes (the rest of VA-171 is Victory Blvd.) and people around here refer to it as "Oyster Point" to the west of that interchange. And it's not signed on the road itself, so I guess that's just a mistake.

I don't have a picture of it, but a similar sign error exists on VA-169 down the street from my house. Where 169 (Fox Hill Rd.) intersects Old Buckroe Rd., 169 continues down Old Buckroe, but facing down Old Buckroe is a sign at the intersection that shows VA-169 as going right or left, when right is just a residential street (Silver Isles Blvd.)
Street View (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=37.059554,-76.300516&spn=0,359.997586&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=37.059619,-76.30034&panoid=A9xOZxjZEwDyckJpR4CjjA&cbp=12,338.2000510591202,,0,8.799999999999999)

Speaking of Carbon Copy signing, perhaps a thread under member albums will be created "showcasing" some of them. PennDotfan sent me a batch of fresh Delaware sign replacements two weekends ago, all of carbon copied signs.

Here's another highway oddity photo from my ride along I-64 last Saturday  (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi622.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt304%2F24DIDNOTWIN%2FI-64WESTATVA134NORTHSPLITEXIT262B.jpg&hash=ab680e10ddc016842bb21209fba6f94015310ca2)  I believe the blank sign is supposed to say "I-64 WEST Williamsburg, Richmond" however unless this is getting carbon-copied????

That sign's been blank since at least 2006.

I can't necessarily decipher it but I do believe it says "I-64 WEST Williamsburg, Richmond"

Oh god... I remember that construction... not something I wanted to see again!  :-D
And 74/171FAN, please observe the forum size limit on images (800px wide)  :-P I keep going and fixing them for you.

Thanks I finally figured out how to do that so that should not be an issue in the future :colorful:  I should submit this to VDOT and try to get the sign fixed

I was just vacationing out west, and it appears that I-40 westbound has no direct connection to northbound I-15.  I believe the sign said that northbound I-15 traffic was to exit at Main Street in Barstow.  Now why would 2 major Interstate freeways not have a full interchange, especially since I-40 ends at I-15?

It seems like a typical "split-off" interchange to me. Building a full interchange would require quite some extra space unless you want a 20 mph connector  :cool:

Quote from: Chris on March 29, 2009, 03:07:02 PM
It seems like a typical "split-off" interchange to me. Building a full interchange would require quite some extra space unless you want a 20 mph connector  :cool:

Well there are certainly a lot of freeway interchanges with  low speed limits on the off ramps, but forcing traffic desiring to go northbound onto a city's main street sounds more like a Breezewood deal to me.  I guess the thinking is that I-40 travels through the desert and nearly parallels I-15 for a bit so traffic wishing to go north on I-15 should exit at exit #7 in Daggett (except I can't really tell from my atlas if there's a direct through connection there).  But if that's the case they should have signage along I-40 telling northbound I-15 traffic heading for Las Vegas to exit there, but I saw nothing of the sort. 

They figured you'd take US 93 to get to Vegas  :-D

Quote

This doesn't happen too often, where a road changes numbers without intersecting anything.

425 was the original numbering for the rest of Sanford Ave which is due straight in that photo. It would have connected to the 425 on Tuskawilla Rd via an unbuilt or defunct bridge.

Something must have happened to this signal on VA 10 West at SR 732/Old Stage Rd just east of I-95 as here's what it looked like on February 14, 2009.  (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi622.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt304%2F24DIDNOTWIN%2FVA10WESTATSR732OLDSTAGERD.jpg&hash=8cfbd0b7922b098cc9725150e7fe061e2d0514f1)
Unfortunately I didn't notice the oddity of it until I saw it fixed(sort of) today (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi622.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt304%2F24DIDNOTWIN%2FVA10WESTATSR732OLDSTAGERDNOW.jpg&hash=f93b4f1cdb8c28453542cb093f711ffde640efc5)

Hopefully this signal wll get replaced whenever VDOT gets the money to widen VA 10; however, for now this signal needs to be retimed due to the bottleneck it causes during rush hour.

Pine Bluff, AR--not a single US/state route is labeled east or west.  You have to go to exit #34 (I-530) to find a west bound US 270.  :nod:  Speaking of that, it has a mix of directional routes multiplexed in Pine Bluff:

I-530 SOUTH/ US 65 SOUTH/ US 79 NORTH/ US 63 NORTH--and conversely:
I-530 NORTH/ US 65 NORTH/ US 79 SOUTH/ US 63 SOUTH :banghead:

Quote from: 74/171FANSomething must have happened to this signal on VA 10 West at SR 732/Old Stage Rd just east of I-95 as here's what it looked like on February 14, 2009.
<PIC REMOVED>
Unfortunately I didn't notice the oddity of it until I saw it fixed(sort of) today
<PIC REMOVED>

The oddity I see here is that the left turn signal uses a circular red lens without a "Left turn signal" or similar supplementary sign.  Thus, as pictured, there are conflicting indications being shown to drivers on this approach.  I.e. the left turn is protected displaying circular red while the through movement is showing circular green--a potentially dangerous situation.

QuoteThe oddity I see here is that the left turn signal uses a circular red lens without a "Left turn signal" or similar supplementary sign.  Thus, as pictured, there are conflicting indications being shown to drivers on this approach.  I.e. the left turn is protected displaying circular red while the through movement is showing circular green--a potentially dangerous situation.

Not really most signals in VA actually don't have a left turn signal banner.  In VA with turns most signals either have nothing or a "left-turn only" or "right-turn only" sign and most also don't use the left-arrow either.

Yeah tons of left turn signals around here just have the red ball. Though I've noticed many recent installations have a red arrow, which IMO makes much more sense.

I've never seen a left turn signal without any indication that it is one.  I've seen a "Left Turn Signal" sign and I've seen arrows.  Some turn signals I've seen have a red ball and green and yellow arrow.

This sign is on US 29/SR 14/139 in College Park, just south of the US 29 access ramp from SR 6 West (Camp Creek Parkway).

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi594.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt24%2FBryant5493%2FUS29.jpg&hash=c0f96d23937720cf5923cc3814eaa0c4f4a79f4f)


Be well,

Bryant

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi188.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fz194%2Fdeathtopumpkins%2Ffail.png&hash=bf26a7271da1953e4be0a0936ecded9178ce29fb)
Self-explanatory. It's the entrance to a shopping center parking lot off of VA-415 (Power Plant Pkwy.). Drove through it Friday and wished I had a camera so badly...

An unbuilt planned extension?

In Louisiana, Most 4-digit state routes are insignificant, 2-lane roads running from nowhere to nowhere with alot of nowhere in between.  However, LA 3132 in southwest Shreveport (called the Inner Loop Expwy) is 100% interstate grade running 9 miles from its interchange with I-20/I-220 to LA 526 (Bert Kouns Industrial Loop).  I have noticed in the last year it appears they are in the process of extending it (I believe :confused:) to Flournoy-Lucas Rd.

Quote from: MichaelI've never seen a left turn signal without any indication that it is one.  I've seen a "Left Turn Signal" sign and I've seen arrows.  Some turn signals I've seen have a red ball and green and yellow arrow.

Quote from: froggieA red ball for turn signals has long been VDOT's standard (which is why you'll often see red arrows in independent cities because they maintain their own roads and not VDOT).  A partial reason for this is another of VDOT's signal standards:  one signal head per lane.

The red ball used on an exclusive left turn signal head isn't all that uncommon.  The MUTCD still allows a circular red with yellow and green arrows for an exclusive turn signal head; however, a "Left Turn Signal" (R10-10) sign is required if the circular red is not shielded or visibility limited from the adjacent through heads.  That was the oddity I remarked on previously, cause the picture showed a circular red without shielding and there wasn't a sign.  IIRC, the MUTCD may be moving away from allowing the red ball for exclusive left turn signal heads in its next edition.

There were some high winds last night in Metro Atlanta, which caused the National Weather Service to issue a tornado warning for several Metro counties. The winds caused this traffic signal to be turned from its normal position. GDOT was out fixing the signal when I took the photo.

Intersection of SR 279 (Old National Highway) and Godby Road - College Park, GA:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi594.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt24%2FBryant5493%2FPICT0254.jpg&hash=43fcc7c1d74115684f1cfff53ea93d13b5604e13)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi594.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt24%2FBryant5493%2FPICT0255.jpg&hash=d1814d5b71e827f7838ddde6bc0d4a5c0f105742)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi594.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt24%2FBryant5493%2FPICT0256.jpg&hash=dd577e2d73c2fc4c00f855e7424e9052fb4adb56)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi594.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt24%2FBryant5493%2FPICT0257.jpg&hash=dff2a6019eacc993b8a036b43a75919ed48c8a38)


Be well,

Bryant

VA 144 is signed north-south between US 1/US 301 in Colonial Heights and VA 36 even though it is more east-west (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi622.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt304%2F24DIDNOTWIN%2FVA144NORTHWESTOFSR645.jpg&hash=129d03fb1fb51e26fdab926dbac5e818144d54ba)  Of course Colonial Heights decided to put up a VA 144 West shield just east of Conduit Rd and the ramp to I-95  (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi622.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt304%2F24DIDNOTWIN%2FVA144NORTHORWESTSHIELD.jpg&hash=7eb13f15db9067e1f515f9527185a55ae33d160e)
Speaking of I-95 the 1/4 mile sign on VA 144 North for the fairly new I-95 North ramp (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi622.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt304%2F24DIDNOTWIN%2FVA144NORTH25MILESEASTOFI-95.jpg&hash=4bdf2caa8fee27d67d9f98c0b840304819280b6a)

That middle photo ("To I-95/VA-144 West") is an ugly sign. :ded:


Be well,

Bryant

The Clearview sign is uglier. They probably could've opted for a slightly larger sign with the shield on it.

Yeah, that 95 is squished real tight inside of that shield. Then the five looks a lot bigger than the nine, but maybe it's me. :)


Be well,

Bryant

Here's one for Hampton Roads on US 17 South at VA 105 and SR 1050(I don't know how long this has been there though).  (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi622.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt304%2F24DIDNOTWIN%2FUS17SOUTHATVA105ANDSR1050FORTEUSTIS.jpg&hash=2d96eec50ae04d2d5a1d6b46782f6be789b6c634)

These two signs are placed on the same street by two different counties (Clayton and Fulton counties, GA) -- directly across the street from each other, as this street is on the county line. The problem is that it's inconsistent.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi594.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt24%2FBryant5493%2FBethsaida-Alania.jpg&hash=4a9547660a4b0c3935d24d9cc6f8f60779f4c29b)

Here's a map to show you why it's inconsistent.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi594.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt24%2FBryant5493%2FAlbania.jpg&hash=654487f1a1b66fefecaf992f1ccb08ef3615e51a)


Be well,

Bryant

Dunno if it's been mentioned yet, but signage for I-605 in California have no control cities and simply say "THRU TRAFFIC" in lieu of a city name.

QuoteDunno if it's been mentioned yet, but signage for I-605 in California have no control cities and simply say "THRU TRAFFIC" in lieu of a city name.

The New Jersey Turnpike is also fond of using "Thru Traffic" as a control city.

Although, what bothers me about that more than the laziness/simplicity of it is how the people writing it can't spell. "Thru" isn't a word. If it said "Through Traffic", it would be better.

Quote from: Duke87 on April 24, 2009, 01:33:15 PM

QuoteDunno if it's been mentioned yet, but signage for I-605 in California have no control cities and simply say "THRU TRAFFIC" in lieu of a city name.

The New Jersey Turnpike is also fond of using "Thru Traffic" as a control city.

Although, what bothers me about that more than the laziness/simplicity of it is how the people writing it can't spell. "Thru" isn't a word. If it said "Through Traffic", it would be better.

The problem is that most people can't spell (or read properly).  If the sign actually read "Through Traffic" instead of "Thru Traffic" many people would get confused and think it says "Trough Traffic", and confuse it for being a pig route!

I've seen two variations of Pennsylvania abbreviations on NJ signs that bug me.  One is "Penna".  Not "Penna."  Notice the placement of the dot.  So I'm going to Penna, NJ?  The best, though, is "P.A."  NJ and N.J. are interchangeable.  PA and P.A. are not.  Pennsylv Ania?

And also theres the whole fact that "Thru" is shorter than "Through".

And lol Alps, never seen that before.

Quote from: AlpsROADS on April 24, 2009, 08:10:30 PM
I've seen two variations of Pennsylvania abbreviations on NJ signs that bug me.  One is "Penna".  Not "Penna."  Notice the placement of the dot.  So I'm going to Penna, NJ?  The best, though, is "P.A."  NJ and N.J. are interchangeable.  PA and P.A. are not.  Pennsylv Ania?

I've seen that too many times and never thought of that. Then again, Pennsylvania uses "Penna" all the time on its PA Turnpike shields.

Someone really ought to establish a town in NJ and name it Penna, just to annoy people. ;)

I live in southeastern PA, close to N.J., and I have seen many instances of "Penna" showing up on guide signs on the roads that go there.  I have seen "Penn"  on the N.J. Turnpike at Exit 6.  I have also seen the state fully spelled out.  I have not seen P.A. anywhere, though.  (Where was this, Alps?)  These signs should have the approved control city instead, like Philadelphia or Allentown.

Penna, I guess, is what fits in the Turnpike shield, and I don't have an issue with that -- it is readily recognizable.

Punctuation is not supposed to be shown on guide signs -- I believe that is in the MUTCD. 

To go or to stop...?

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3411%2F3493361390_3de1e7dd0c.jpg&hash=5a483a5cd0d88c195edcb91901b2529318eac8c1)

The intersection of Dimmock Pkwy and Southpark Blvd had the lights like that before(I think thaat it still exists).  BTW What roads actually intersect here?  :spin:

There are many left turn signals in Pennsylvania like that, but none with conflicts like the one in the picture.

QuoteTo go or to stop...?

We have those in Laramie (on westbound Grand Ave at 3rd St), and there was one in Tacoma (from the I-705 North end ramp onto Stadium Way) too. It means "Stop unless you're turning right," which I don't see how that is confusing

Quote from: 74/171FAN on May 02, 2009, 06:21:15 AM
The intersection of Dimmock Pkwy and Southpark Blvd had the lights like that before(I think thaat it still exists).  BTW What roads actually intersect here?  :spin:

This is at the intersection of Parham Rd (as VA 73) and a road leading into a shopping center near I-95.

Shouldn't it be a doughouse signal with a right arrow?

Quote from: corco on May 02, 2009, 02:07:50 PM

QuoteTo go or to stop...?

We have those in Laramie (on westbound Grand Ave at 3rd St), and there was one in Tacoma (from the I-705 North end ramp onto Stadium Way) too. It means "Stop unless you're turning right," which I don't see how that is confusing

It's confusing here because we don't have those kinds of signals; it wouldn't make sense here because you can't go straight from that lane (or any lane).

But shouldn't the whole right signal be for right turns, as it has a sign and corresponds to a right turn only lane?

QuoteThe signs adjacent to the signal heads make it pretty clear that there is one lane turning left, and one lane turning right.  Only reason you'd have a doghouse signal would be if you had more than one movement for a given lane, or an option to go straight (which obviously doesn't exist here).

I think the intent here is to have two red lenses signifying that the main movement (turning left) is red, but right turns are allowed.

Here in FL, there are doghouses for dead-ending intersections like this. The signals themselves will have double green arrows for both the right and left turn lanes (see Bunnell Road at Bear Lake Rd in Altamonte Springs), or the arrows will be split both ways (see WB I-4 off-ramp at FL 414 Maitland Blvd). You'd be hard-pressed to find lights like the photo above, down here.

Quote from: FroggieIf VDOT had a third signal head installed there, yes.  But again the intent, and the requirement, is to provide two red lenses for the primary movement (which IMO is the left turn here), as required by Section 4D.15 of the MUTCD:

A minimum of two signal faces shall be provided for the major movement on the approach, even if the major movement is a turning movement.

I understand what you're saying here.  I'd argue that the signs adjacent to the signal heads clearly indicate which movement they're intended for.  Plus, the fact that the right hand signal head uses a green arrow which clearly cannot function as the second signal head for the major/left turn movement during the green interval.  Thus,

Quote from: FroggieSince the "right turn signal" is also serving as one of the two "left turn signals", this is why you have both the red lens and the green arrow when right turns are protected but left turns aren't.  Section 4D.07 of the MUTCD is applicable:

During the protected right-turn movement, the signal face shall simultaneously display:
A right-turn GREEN ARROW signal indication, and
A circular signal indication that is the same color as the signal indication for the adjacent through lane on the same approach as the protected right turn.

The use of a green arrow implies that the right turn movement at this intersection is protected.  Also from MUTCD 4D.07 (Standard B #2), multiple colors in one signal face may not be illuminated simultaneously for a protected-only signal head:

CIRCULAR RED, right-turn YELLOW ARROW, and right-turn GREEN ARROW signal indications. At least one right-turn signal face shall be provided in addition to the two approach signal faces required in Section 4D.15 for the major movement. Only one of three colors shall be illuminated at any given time.

The doghouse signal head that florida described above might better convey the intent of "two signal heads for the major movement" requirement, but the MUTCD doesn't seem to have any language to support this.

I don't have a photo but there's been an outroar in Petersburg at the intersection of US 301(S Crater Rd) and Wagner Rd because the city is trying to say that you can't turn right on red at a red arrow but I've always considered a red arrow like a red ball and that the only times "Right Turn on Red" is not allowed is when there is a "NO TURN ON RED" sign

I don't know if it's true in other states, but in California, a right-pointing red arrow means no right turns are allowed, just like a left-pointing red arrow means no left turns are allowed.

I thought it was like that in every state.

Actually and surprisingly, it's not.  Discussions I've read on a roadgeek group indicate that some states specifically allow a right turn on red arrow after stop unless a sign prohibits it.  This, of course, seems contradictory to the intent of a right red arrow.  IIRC, the current MUTCD does not provide specific guidance on this.

Nevada's statutes don't specifically define a meaning for red arrows and only prescribe the status of a red indication (the nature of green arrows is defined, however).  In most cases where a red right arrow is used, the signal head is supplemented with "no turn on red" signs which legally establish the fact that right turns on a red arrow are not permitted.  Even if no sign is present, I tend to wait for the green arrow cause (as a budding traffic engineer) I understand the intent of the red arrow.

It's been a long time since I was in another state.

QuoteThe remaining states (including Virginia) apparently don't have language regarding red arrows.

Virginia plans to specify the rule on the red arrow now that this incident has occured, but most of the cases involving this have been thrown out anyhow.

I don't know how it is now.  But, when I was learning to drive in 1981, Pennsylvania's right turn on red law prohibited turns on red if there is ANY right turn arrow.

Update: Right turn on red with a red arrow is NOT ALLOWED in VA(reported by NBC 12 in Richmond, VA).  The situation with US 301 at Wagner Rd is that Petersburg has replaced the red arrow with a red ball and has added a NO TURN ON RED sign.

QuoteUpdate: Right turn on red with a red arrow is NOT ALLOWED in VA(reported by NBC 12 in Richmond, VA).  The situation with US 301 at Wagner Rd is that Petersburg has replaced the red arrow with a red ball and has added a NO TURN ON RED sign.

Where did NBC 12 get this from?  I dug through the Code of Virginia and did not find anything specifically referencing red arrows.

QuoteWhere did NBC 12 get this from?  I dug through the Code of Virginia and did not find anything specifically referencing red arrows.

They did say that it was not specifically mentioned in the code but that is supposedly state law (http://www.nbc12.com/global/story.asp?s=10316255) somehow. :-|.  Maybe in a few months when my sister takes her test for her learner's that it will be added.

I think this is allowed in New Jersey at certain intersections.

74/171: I just took mine back in December and they didn't tell us anything along those lines... (in fact I just got my provisional license tuesday)

Quote74/171: I just took mine back in December and they didn't tell us anything along those lines... (in fact I just got my provisional license tuesday)

There's no way that its the law either.  There are normal speed limit signs on VA 156 in two different school zones in my county and the Speed Limit on VA 156 north of US 301(except for the first 1000 ft) is all 45-55 mph(except when the lights are FLASHING at the schools).

Where did speed limits come from?  :confused:

 

QuoteWhere did speed limits come from? 

My driving instructor, who thinks that 35 is the limit in a school zone no matter what for some reason, and of course the real ones came from VDOT. :-D

Of course...because per state law, VDOT has the authority to set speed limits on the roads it maintains.

Back to the red arrow thing...because Virginia Code doesn't even mention red arrows, and because right-turn-on-red IS allowed (unless signed otherwise), those who claim that right turn on a right red arrow is illegal (such as what was reported on NBC 12) are in the wrong.  And it's a pretty good bet that this is why those who were ticketed are getting their tickets dismissed (also reported on NBC 12).

Though there's nothing stopping the General Assembly from amending the law to include such.

Changing the subject to: WSDOT goofs on map!!!!

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wsdot.wa.gov%2FNR%2Frdonlyres%2F150C52C9-B215-45C1-BAEB-268DBA09415D%2F0%2FSR19_SR20.gif&hash=39a5aaf912ae5cccf8380ec7183d5e7ae0032ec3)

The U.S. Route 104 shield is supposed to be SR 104...image by WSDOTand Tele Atlas

^ Not to mention, those US shields look kinda funky . . .

That's how WSDOTand Tele Atlas draws them.

QuoteBack to the red arrow thing...because Virginia Code doesn't even mention red arrows, and because right-turn-on-red IS allowed (unless signed otherwise), those who claim that right turn on a right red arrow is illegal (such as what was reported on NBC 12) are in the wrong.  And it's a pretty good bet that this is why those who were ticketed are getting their tickets dismissed (also reported on NBC 12).

I'll have to go with that for now but I'm sure that the red arrow thing will come up again in a different portion of VA before something happens.

In a different vein, if you take the New York State Thruway between the end of I-88 (Exit 25A) and Exit 26 - Schenectady (I-890, NY 5S) to the west or to exits 25 ( Schenectady I-890, NY 146, NY 7) and 24 (Albany, I-87, I-90) to the east, you pay no toll.

And if you go farther to the east or west, your toll is calculated as if you got on at Exit 24 (EB) or Exit 26 (WB).

Does this have something to do with not having to build I-88 all the way to Schenectady  or Albany?

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi622.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt304%2F24DIDNOTWIN%2FUS17SOUTHNEARVA216GUINEARDATSR1219H.jpg&hash=6f2f6ee5389c7dc84e3a8dce0520d0ac086beb9b) 

An SR 2 in Gloucester County :confused:??????? Not really it's actually SR 1219 but the ink must have fallen off the sign somehow??

Quote from: 74/171FAN on May 22, 2009, 10:03:24 PM
An SR 2 in Gloucester County :confused:??????? Not really it's actually SR 1219 but the ink must have fallen off the sign somehow??

Sometimes, certain elements of a sign (text) are pressed/rolled on and may peel off over time, which is what I suspect happened here.

Here's one from Utah - UDOT refuses to recognize concurrencies, whether it be signing them or codifying them into Utah state law. US-89 through the state is really seven separate routes. Concurrencies are very sporadically signed, if at all. US-50 is occasionally recognized while it piggy-backs on I-70, and there is one I-15/US-89 shield near the Salt Lake County/Utah County line. But that's about it.

^  I understand the reason for designating one route as the "official" route for concurrencies (especially in states where routes are codified into law).  However, I do not understand why some states only sign one route when multiple routes overlap.  For the sake and convenience of the traveling public, if there are multiple routes following a stretch of pavement, they should all be signed--especially where national routes are involved.

Quote from: froggie on May 24, 2009, 04:34:33 PM
The US 6/US 191 duplex is very well signed.  The US 6/US 89 duplex is also signed.

Oh yeah... I personally have never been along the US-6/89 portion but I do remember US-6/191 being better signed than most routes. Yep.

Anyhow the "TO I-64 West" shield at the ramp from VA 171 West to I-64 West.  I know that technically this is correct but normally VDOT does not have a "TO" banner there  (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi622.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt304%2F24DIDNOTWIN%2FVA171WESTATI-64WEST.jpg&hash=40f3c3f68dfe95cbacc929803a539b582cd92f1f)

Quote from: 74/171FAN on June 02, 2009, 06:46:10 AM
Anyhow the "TO I-64 West" shield at the ramp from VA 171 West to I-64 West.  I know that technically this is correct but normally VDOT does not have a "TO" banner there  (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi622.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt304%2F24DIDNOTWIN%2FVA171WESTATI-64WEST.jpg&hash=40f3c3f68dfe95cbacc929803a539b582cd92f1f)

Since this is an onramp to I-64, I can mention this.  What are the gates for along the ramps off I-64 in the Hampton Roads for?  I think I know why, but I want to make sure.

it's for when contraflow is implemented (both sets of lanes going the same way, in case of hurricane evacuation), nobody gets on the freeway in the normal direction and runs head-on into evacuating traffic.

That's what I thought

More interesting than being an oddity as the exit number is actually on the sign even though this is in Virginia not California(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi622.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt304%2F24DIDNOTWIN%2FI-295SOUTH75MILESNORTHOFUS301ANDVA2.jpg&hash=caf401a97165ab9ab7e77f65d49baeed11fc2ca8)

^^ Never seen anything like that; I'd expect an exit tab.  Also, why is there a 12 mile advance warning?!

Quote from: Michael on June 10, 2009, 03:05:17 PM
^^ Never seen anything like that; I'd expect an exit tab.  Also, why is there a 12 mile advance warning?!

They did that to reflect the connection to Interstate 64 east for motorists that just entered Interstate 295 south from Interstate 95 south. Seems that an auxiliary mileage sign would work just as well like those on I-285:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.southeastroads.com%2Fgeorgia200%2Fi-285_il_exit_001_02.jpg&hash=553eb8983bc97c60764efa5c5edd68a92f5b5d3d)

^^ The only problem with that is that it doesn't have any control cities on it.

Interstate 285 uses control points for its connections with I-20, 75, and 85, similar to I-295 and its connections with I-95 south of Petersburg and I-64. It works for I-285 without the control points attached to the Interstate numbers of the mileage signs.

Don't necessarily need control cities on the distance sign.  Often on these beltways, drivers are more interested in knowing the distance to the major Interstate route than they are in where that major Interstate goes.

DC Beltway has a fair number of them (including a set mounted in each direction on the WWB), and the Baltimore Beltway has a few.

I-95 in Maryland also has some north and south of Baltimore, moreso south that just have I-195 (south of B-more only), I-895 (south only), and I-695 shields on them and the distances.

While on the subject of Baltimore, what is the point of the travel plaza near Exit 58 on I-95?  I always thought it was in a really weird place (a.k.a. bad neighborhood), and that it seemed pointless to fully exit the interstate to access it.

Quote from: froggie on June 12, 2009, 06:26:21 AM
That's near one of the major industrial areas in Baltimore (and some of the port facilities nearby), so it's moreso for the trucks.

Also, there's a Greyhound stop there, and some of the "chinatown" buses stop there as well.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi622.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt304%2F24DIDNOTWIN%2FI-95ANDUS17SOUTHATUS1ANDSPLITEXIT12.jpg&hash=6066701d64f104d441f9eb2e94065b64610a38bd)  (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi622.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt304%2F24DIDNOTWIN%2FI-95SOUTHATSR606EXIT118.jpg&hash=d60222bf76588e59c5701f88b069dbbfd2c53eec)  For some reason these temporary overheads have been there for years and still haven't been replaced

Now VDOT forgot the exit tab on these two SR 645 is Exit 24  (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi622.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt304%2F24DIDNOTWIN%2FI-95SOUTH1MILENORTHOFSR645EXIT24.jpg&hash=fb841129774779296a2610768059badf265199e6)  And SR 614 is Exit 13  (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi622.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt304%2F24DIDNOTWIN%2FI-95SOUTH1MILENORTHOFSR614EXIT13.jpg&hash=3867f9879941ec211e84a9f1a8a45e6417df905f)  And now VDOT decided to put signs for both directions of I-95 here when the exit is to the right via an access road??  (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi622.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt304%2F24DIDNOTWIN%2FUS301SOUTHATI-95.jpg&hash=c1772b9d3dc955785c1745ff5b14daaec4511437)

Now for some reason VDOT decided to put the direction under the route shield even with the "TO"  (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi622.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt304%2F24DIDNOTWIN%2FVA144SOUTHATVA36WEST2.jpg&hash=3c561351d9c392c9407c9ef777d1b9f7176ed0c6)

^^^
It's not that unusual to see TO EAST 36 on a sign, especially if the route leads to a partial interchange or is reckoned to be the best route for only one direction of the highway.

It is strange for them to put EAST below the shield!  :pan:

An interesting looking signal on US 202 in Talleyville, DE:
http://picasaweb.google.com/Iansignal/DelawareTrafficSignalsAndRoadSigns#5347724690054339346 (http://picasaweb.google.com/Iansignal/DelawareTrafficSignalsAndRoadSigns#5347724690054339346)

Funky looking sign brackets on US 9W north in Sparkill, NY:
http://picasaweb.google.com/Iansignal/NewYorkTrafficSignalsAndRoadSigns#5306495793477667634 (http://picasaweb.google.com/Iansignal/NewYorkTrafficSignalsAndRoadSigns#5306495793477667634)

Fiber-optic LED low clearance sign on NY 85A in Voorheesville, NY (notice 03" instead of 3"):
http://picasaweb.google.com/Iansignal/NewYorkTrafficSignalsAndRoadSigns#5306547346144046770 (http://picasaweb.google.com/Iansignal/NewYorkTrafficSignalsAndRoadSigns#5306547346144046770)
http://picasaweb.google.com/Iansignal/NewYorkTrafficSignalsAndRoadSigns#5306547501392906530 (http://picasaweb.google.com/Iansignal/NewYorkTrafficSignalsAndRoadSigns#5306547501392906530)

Very poorly assembled signal visors on NY 155 at Normanskill Rd in Voorheesville, NY:
http://picasaweb.google.com/Iansignal/NewYorkTrafficSignalsAndRoadSigns#5309828010990644530 (http://picasaweb.google.com/Iansignal/NewYorkTrafficSignalsAndRoadSigns#5309828010990644530)

Traffic signal "bottom bars" connecting traffic signals to overhead signs on a span wire in NY. Very common to parts of NY (due to wind):
http://picasaweb.google.com/Iansignal/NewYorkTrafficSignalsAndRoadSigns#5322899698522290162 (http://picasaweb.google.com/Iansignal/NewYorkTrafficSignalsAndRoadSigns#5322899698522290162)
http://picasaweb.google.com/Iansignal/NewYorkTrafficSignalsAndRoadSigns#5322899760000040786 (http://picasaweb.google.com/Iansignal/NewYorkTrafficSignalsAndRoadSigns#5322899760000040786)
http://picasaweb.google.com/Iansignal/NewYorkTrafficSignalsAndRoadSigns#5322899774549049874 (http://picasaweb.google.com/Iansignal/NewYorkTrafficSignalsAndRoadSigns#5322899774549049874)

New Hampshire's famous "BREAK FOR MOOSE" sign on NH 112/Kancamagus Highway west near Conway:
http://picasaweb.google.com/Iansignal/NewHampshireTrafficSignalsAndRoadSigns#5353947453575447186 (http://picasaweb.google.com/Iansignal/NewHampshireTrafficSignalsAndRoadSigns#5353947453575447186)

Now another oddity on VA 144 which involves an earlier post in this thread now with the "RIGHT THRU LANE" sign added.  There is a right-turn lane at the intersection just before the I-95 exit, which would be the only reason "THRU" would be on the sign.  Yes VDOT gets weirder by the day  :confused:  (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi622.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt304%2F24DIDNOTWIN%2FVA144NORTH25MILESSOUTHOFI-952.jpg&hash=96e0a4e712d9acccded256e97dd8dd62a7c53459)

I saw that last week. They need to put a regular green sign there already; what's there is incredibly ugly.

Here's a curious one I came across yesterday.

There's a section of US 1 in Rye, NY with no double yellow lines down the middle (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=40.975427,-73.686848&spn=0,359.940348&z=14&layer=c&cbll=40.975513,-73.686832&panoid=oQe3-Bsjnje2kCcSZlg34A&cbp=12,23.98,,0,14.19).

The left-turn lanes used to access I-95 here from Conduit Rd NB could be expressed more clearly I believe at the set of shields before the signal at VA 144.  The shields at the VA 144 signal explain which left-turn lane to use but it might be too late to switch to the correct lane.  (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi622.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt304%2F24DIDNOTWIN%2FCONDUITRDNBNEARVA144.jpg&hash=9ba222f036ff40a949b7f4ccf0232e3a20dfc830)  Fortunately you can still access I-95 NB and I-95 SB from VA 144 NB at the traffic light if the ramp is missed.  (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi622.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt304%2F24DIDNOTWIN%2FCONDUITRDNBATVA144.jpg&hash=e4ef60c1a25b99edd03dca38096936951bf1363a)

And the lastest weird sign from VDOT on VA 144 NB just west of VA 36 and before the signal at SR 725(River Rd) and the entrance to tha area of the new Ordnance School at Fort Lee  (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi622.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt304%2F24DIDNOTWIN%2FVA144NORTHNEARSR725RIVERRD.jpg&hash=c6e2d2c11f66a4dbf7a20b6afda17e2383e48e63)

The only thing weird about that is the timeframe on the bottom sign panel...

Quote from: froggie on November 28, 2009, 01:05:27 PM
The only thing weird about that is the timeframe on the bottom sign panel...

yeah, do people need to be told that traffic is busier during the day??

Quote from: 74/171FAN on September 12, 2009, 11:47:29 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi622.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt304%2F24DIDNOTWIN%2FCONDUITRDNBATVA144.jpg&hash=e4ef60c1a25b99edd03dca38096936951bf1363a)

Screw the roadsigns, I see a Sheetz!!!!!!

QuoteScrew the roadsigns, I see a Sheetz!!!!!!

Sheetz has existed in Virginia for at least 5 years, if not longer...

Quote from: froggie on November 28, 2009, 09:47:10 PM

QuoteScrew the roadsigns, I see a Sheetz!!!!!!

Sheetz has existed in Virginia for at least 5 years, if not longer...

Longer, I'm pretty sure. That picture made me hungry for a Sub Burger.   :spin:

Quote from: CL on May 24, 2009, 01:37:04 PM
Here's one from Utah - UDOT refuses to recognize concurrencies, whether it be signing them or codifying them into Utah state law. US-89 through the state is really seven separate routes. Concurrencies are very sporadically signed, if at all. US-50 is occasionally recognized while it piggy-backs on I-70, and there is one I-15/US-89 shield near the Salt Lake County/Utah County line. But that's about it.

Actually, UDOT is in the process of discussing Interstate/US concurrencies (as far as signing), though Peter Jager (the main route numbering guy there) has said that State/State or State/US or State/Interstate are not recognised (making UT-30 and UT-48 two separate routes).  The concurrencies (concs.) that seem to be the most inconsistent are I/US concs., though the only I/US concurrencies where only the Interstate is signed are I-15/US-50, I-80/US-189, and, once into Emery County heading east, I-70/US-50.  The US/US seem really well signed (US-6/89, US-89/91, US-89/50, US-6/191, US-6/50, US-40/191, and, hopefully, US-89/160 and US-89A/160  ;-) .

There are some I/US concs. that have some US shields on them, though not all (I-15/US-89 in Utah County and Davis County, though not in both directions).  Going north, there are some recent US-89 shields alongside I-15 shields north of Lehi.  I've even caught a glimpse of a recent assembly on a ramp at the Lagoon/Legacy Parkway exit to see some I-15/US-89 onramp signs (or so I thought).  There are a couple of entirely-signed I/US concs., I-15/US-6 between Santaquin and Spanish Fork (onramps may likely differ), and I-70/US-89 in Sevier County (near Richfield, though those awsome cutout US-89 signs are almost all but gone).

I/I concs. are all entirely signed on the route; I-15/84 between Tremonton and Ogden is, as is I-15/80 in Salt Lake City (though those are the only two current I/I concs.

Quote from: Rover_0 on November 30, 2009, 08:42:54 PM
US-89/160 and US-89A/160 

is US-160 being extended along US-89 to Page and US-89A past that?  I had never heard of this.  Where does it end up?  (Can we extend it to the Bay Area and sign it as I-160?  That would be amazing!)

Quote from: agentsteel53 on November 30, 2009, 08:58:14 PM

Quote from: Rover_0 on November 30, 2009, 08:42:54 PM
US-89/160 and US-89A/160

is US-160 being extended along US-89 to Page and US-89A past that?  I had never heard of this.  Where does it end up?  (Can we extend it to the Bay Area and sign it as I-160?  That would be amazing!)

No, not really.  I've long advocated an reroute/extension to US-160, extension of US-64, renumbering/extension of US-163, or even new US Route created running to I-15 via AZ-98, Page, Kanab, Fredonia, Hurricane (that's along AZ-98, US-89, US-89A, AZ-389/UT-59, and UT-9 with a possible future routing along UT-7).  It's mostly tounge-in-cheek, but at least one person at UDOT finds it interesting.

EDIT:  It hasn't been extended, yet...

One highway oddity is that UT-59 is marked E-W, its mileposts are signed in a N-S manner, increasing as you head westbound (northwestbound) into Hurricane and not the other way around, as the directional cards indicate.  Mind you, there's only a handful of UT-59 signs, but UDOT has a tendancy to mark its diagonal routes as E-W.

The dumbest number assigned to a road of the day... CA 7's current route! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_7) (umm hmm... a 1di, supposed to be major, highway signed as a 3 foot expressway to the border.  :no:) It's weird why CalTrans would pick that number. It isn't really major enough to be signed as CA 7.

Quote from: City on November 30, 2009, 09:46:35 PM
The dumbest number assigned to a road of the day... CA 7's current route! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_7) (umm hmm... a 1di, supposed to be major, highway signed as a 3 foot expressway to the border.  :no:) It's weird why CalTrans would pick that number. It isn't really major enough to be signed as CA 7.

Let us hope that CA 99 becomes I-7, in which case CA 7 would need to be renumbered per Caltrans rules. Though even if it becomes I-9, CA 7 needs to have a different number anyway.

Quote from: City on November 30, 2009, 09:46:35 PM
The dumbest number assigned to a road of the day... CA 7's current route! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_7) (umm hmm... a 1di, supposed to be major, highway signed as a 3 foot expressway to the border.  :no:) It's weird why CalTrans would pick that number. It isn't really major enough to be signed as CA 7.

indeed, it is a travesty how CA-7 has been diminished.

originally, in the 1934 signing, CA-7 was actually the longest state route in the system, because the southern half of CA-1 was CA-3.  CA-7 came in from Oregon at Modoc County along what was to be US-395, followed that route to Bishop, where US-6 (also not there yet) was to be multiplexed.  At Brady, what was to be the US-6/395 split, CA-7 went down the US-6 path to Castaic Junction and multiplexed with US-99 (already extant by 1934).  US-99/CA-7 continued to where now I-5 and I-405 split.  CA-7 followed I-405 to Long Beach.

then came US-395 in 1935 and CA-7 was truncated to Brady.  Still a nice long route.  But, good luck finding a CSAA (northern California) bear 7 shield; they were only made in 1934 and early 1935.

then came US-6 in 1937 and CA-7 was truncated to the south end of the 6/99 multiplex, while 6 continued along 99 to the present location of the Four-Level interchange (at the time, just surface streets).  CA-7 was now essentially the I-405 corridor - Sepulveda Blvd and whatnot.

CA-7 existed as a freeway in a few segments before receiving the I-405 label starting in 1958: the very first interstate shields to be put up in California.  When the interstate system was devised, the CA-15 corridor (Atlantic Blvd in the LA area) had to give up its number to I-15, so CA-7 was reassigned to Atlantic Blvd, and then to the newly built Long Beach Freeway.

in 1980, the "let's sign everything with an interstate shield" mania started taking hold, and by 1984 - the time of the Olympics - CA-7 was gone, re-designated I-710.  There are, to this day, a few postmiles left with the number 7 (including one on the northern stub of I-710 in Pasadena!) and a couple of signs show the scraped off 7 shield underneath the 710.

California has a policy of assigning route numbers as needed: the lowest available number is given to a new highway segment.  That is how CA-3 ended up in Norcal in 1963, because the original CA-3 became part of CA-1. 

I have no idea when CA-7 was assigned to that stupid little road and frankly I don't care.  7, 11, 17, 21... all perfectly good road numbers, truncated because Everything Must Receive an Interstate Shield.  (Now 11 is due to be assigned to yet another harebrained border access route.  When will it end??)

speaking of UT-7, what is up with that freeway to nowhere?  I drove it in August and it was pitch black out, and at some point the freeway ends and there is a dirt road that leads down to the Arizona state line.  Very odd. 

Quote from: agentsteel53 on November 30, 2009, 10:38:24 PM
speaking of UT-7, what is up with that freeway to nowhere?  I drove it in August and it was pitch black out, and at some point the freeway ends and there is a dirt road that leads down to the Arizona state line.  Very odd. 

That's because it isn't finished yet.  It's supposed to run northeast-ish to UT-9 just west of Hurricane, and pass by the new airport.  Knowing St. George, there will be developments soon enough, but right now it's really creepy driving there in the middle of the night.  I've done it too.  For now, it's probably used as a bypass for those coming into St. George from Nevada, California, etc. that need to get to River Road (that road that goes to the AZ line; north of there, it's paved) from I-15.

Quote from: Rover_0 on November 30, 2009, 10:47:15 PMRiver Road (that road that goes to the AZ line; north of there, it's paved) from I-15.

yep, I took that road into St. George.  That road is even creepier in a way: seemingly unnecessary suburban Hell.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on November 30, 2009, 10:33:28 PM

Quote from: City on November 30, 2009, 09:46:35 PM
The dumbest number assigned to a road of the day... CA 7's current route! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_7) (umm hmm... a 1di, supposed to be major, highway signed as a 3 foot expressway to the border.  :no:) It's weird why CalTrans would pick that number. It isn't really major enough to be signed as CA 7.

indeed, it is a travesty how CA-7 has been diminished.

originally, in the 1934 signing, CA-7 was actually the longest state route in the system, because the southern half of CA-1 was CA-3.  CA-7 came in from Oregon at Modoc County along what was to be US-395, followed that route to Bishop, where US-6 (also not there yet) was to be multiplexed.  At Brady, what was to be the US-6/395 split, CA-7 went down the US-6 path to Castaic Junction and multiplexed with US-99 (already extant by 1934).  US-99/CA-7 continued to where now I-5 and I-405 split.  CA-7 followed I-405 to Long Beach.

then came US-395 in 1935 and CA-7 was truncated to Brady.  Still a nice long route.  But, good luck finding a CSAA (northern California) bear 7 shield; they were only made in 1934 and early 1935.

then came US-6 in 1937 and CA-7 was truncated to the south end of the 6/99 multiplex, while 6 continued along 99 to the present location of the Four-Level interchange (at the time, just surface streets).  CA-7 was now essentially the I-405 corridor - Sepulveda Blvd and whatnot.

CA-7 existed as a freeway in a few segments before receiving the I-405 label starting in 1958: the very first interstate shields to be put up in California.  When the interstate system was devised, the CA-15 corridor (Atlantic Blvd in the LA area) had to give up its number to I-15, so CA-7 was reassigned to Atlantic Blvd, and then to the newly built Long Beach Freeway.

in 1980, the "let's sign everything with an interstate shield" mania started taking hold, and by 1984 - the time of the Olympics - CA-7 was gone, re-designated I-710.  There are, to this day, a few postmiles left with the number 7 (including one on the northern stub of I-710 in Pasadena!) and a couple of signs show the scraped off 7 shield underneath the 710.

California has a policy of assigning route numbers as needed: the lowest available number is given to a new highway segment.  That is how CA-3 ended up in Norcal in 1963, because the original CA-3 became part of CA-1. 

I have no idea when CA-7 was assigned to that stupid little road and frankly I don't care.  7, 11, 17, 21... all perfectly good road numbers, truncated because Everything Must Receive an Interstate Shield.  (Now 11 is due to be assigned to yet another harebrained border access route.  When will it end??)

CA-7 may disappear all together.  If CA-99 is upgraded to Interstate standards and is redesignated as I-7, then because of California's policy of no duplicates, CA-7 will have to give up it's number to the newly created Interstate.

With the case of Route 21 (which has never been reused), I think that was more continuity than anything else - in that most 680 traffic isn't continuing along the patial beltway (now I-780) into Vallejo, but north to eastbound I-80 via Cordelia.

17 was converted into Interstate north of 280 at the behest of Glenn Anderson (the man who I-105 was named after), specifically to get maintenance funding IIRC, and not simply as a signage ploy.  Having said that, today's I-880 between Route 262 and I-280 was at one point in the early 1960s slated to be part of the 280/680 beltway, before the alignment through downtown San Jose and Alum Rock was used instead.

Quote from: TheStranger on December 01, 2009, 01:35:33 PM
17 was converted into Interstate north of 280 at the behest of Glenn Anderson (the man who I-105 was named after), specifically to get maintenance funding IIRC, and not simply as a signage ploy.  Having said that, today's I-880 between Route 262 and I-280 was at one point in the early 1960s slated to be part of the 280/680 beltway, before the alignment through downtown San Jose and Alum Rock was used instead.

Regarding the CA-17 conversion to I-880, I think you're 100% correct that the reason for the renumbering was for Federal funding dollars.  I'm not sure if the I-280/I-680 routing along then CA-17 was supposed to be permanent but I had some old maps that marked the I-280/680 routing along CA-17/I-880 as TEMP (temporary).

Quote from: myosh_tino on December 01, 2009, 02:37:37 AM
CA-7 may disappear all together.  If CA-99 is upgraded to Interstate standards and is redesignated as I-7, then because of California's policy of no duplicates, CA-7 will have to give up it's number to the newly created Interstate.

I think with CA 99, it's going to be I-9 or remain CA 99.  Unless CA has changed their "our numbers trump the interstate numbering rules" policy that caused I-238 (seriously, they could have just renumbered CA 180).

Quote from: deanej on December 01, 2009, 04:44:48 PM

Quote from: myosh_tino on December 01, 2009, 02:37:37 AM
CA-7 may disappear all together.  If CA-99 is upgraded to Interstate standards and is redesignated as I-7, then because of California's policy of no duplicates, CA-7 will have to give up it's number to the newly created Interstate.

I think with CA 99, it's going to be I-9 or remain CA 99.  Unless CA has changed their "our numbers trump the interstate numbering rules" policy that caused I-238 (seriously, they could have just renumbered CA 180).

I-9 is the more logical choice but I think I-7 will be the "more economical" choice.  The CA-9 routing has it going through somewhat populated areas in Santa Clara and Santa Cruz counties (Los Gatos, Saratoga, Boulder Creek, Felton, Scotts Valley and Santa Cruz) where the cost to renumber CA-9 could be very high to businesses and residents along Hwy 9.  CA-7 is new, relatively short route connecting I-8 to the Mexico border which could easily be renumbered without inconveniencing thousands of residents and businesses.

QuoteI-9 is the more logical choice but I think I-7 will be the "more economical" choice.  The CA-9 routing has it going through somewhat populated areas in Santa Clara and Santa Cruz counties (Los Gatos, Saratoga, Boulder Creek, Felton, Scotts Valley and Santa Cruz) where the cost to renumber CA-9 could be very high to businesses and residents along Hwy 9.  CA-7 is new, relatively short route connecting I-8 to the Mexico border which could easily be renumbered without inconveniencing thousands of residents and businesses.

That's true.  In fact, the addresses for most properties that front onto CA 9 is "xxx Highway 9" (Ex: 4000 Highway 9, Felton, CA).  If the highway were renumbered to another number, hundreds of properties would have to change their addresses.   :ded:

Quote from: mapman on December 02, 2009, 12:40:27 AM

QuoteI-9 is the more logical choice but I think I-7 will be the "more economical" choice.  The CA-9 routing has it going through somewhat populated areas in Santa Clara and Santa Cruz counties (Los Gatos, Saratoga, Boulder Creek, Felton, Scotts Valley and Santa Cruz) where the cost to renumber CA-9 could be very high to businesses and residents along Hwy 9.  CA-7 is new, relatively short route connecting I-8 to the Mexico border which could easily be renumbered without inconveniencing thousands of residents and businesses.

That's true.  In fact, the addresses for most properties that front onto CA 9 is "xxx Highway 9" (Ex: 4000 Highway 9, Felton, CA).  If the highway were renumbered to another number, hundreds of properties would have to change their addresses.   :ded:

I think the simple rule as to whether California is willing to give up a duplicate number or not is...the length of the route (9 and 180 are pretty lengthy state routes).  Not sure what would've happened had 101 between Vallejo and Los Angeles become part of the interstate system, as was proposed in 1947.

Quote from: froggie on November 28, 2009, 09:47:10 PM

QuoteScrew the roadsigns, I see a Sheetz!!!!!!

Sheetz has existed in Virginia for at least 5 years, if not longer...

If only it existed 'round these parts in Oklahoma...

Quote from: myosh_tino on December 01, 2009, 02:37:37 AM

Quote from: City on November 30, 2009, 09:46:35 PM
The dumbest number assigned to a road of the day... CA 7's current route! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_7) (umm hmm... a 1di, supposed to be major, highway signed as a 3 foot expressway to the border.  :no:) It's weird why CalTrans would pick that number. It isn't really major enough to be signed as CA 7.

CA-7 may disappear all together.  If CA-99 is upgraded to Interstate standards and is redesignated as I-7, then because of California's policy of no duplicates, CA-7 will have to give up it's number to the newly created Interstate.

They could upgrade US-101 to interstate standards, sign it as I-1, and smack those CA-7 shields on CA-1.

Quote from: City on December 02, 2009, 06:45:57 PM

Quote from: myosh_tino on December 01, 2009, 02:37:37 AM

Quote from: City on November 30, 2009, 09:46:35 PM
The dumbest number assigned to a road of the day... CA 7's current route! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_7) (umm hmm... a 1di, supposed to be major, highway signed as a 3 foot expressway to the border.  :no:) It's weird why CalTrans would pick that number. It isn't really major enough to be signed as CA 7.

CA-7 may disappear all together.  If CA-99 is upgraded to Interstate standards and is redesignated as I-7, then because of California's policy of no duplicates, CA-7 will have to give up it's number to the newly created Interstate.

They could upgrade US-101 to interstate standards, sign it as I-1, and smack those CA-7 shields on CA-1.

If that happens, why not just move US 101 onto CA-1.

Quote from: myosh_tino on December 02, 2009, 10:47:14 PM

Quote from: City on December 02, 2009, 06:45:57 PM

Quote from: myosh_tino on December 01, 2009, 02:37:37 AM

Quote from: City on November 30, 2009, 09:46:35 PM
The dumbest number assigned to a road of the day... CA 7's current route! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_7) (umm hmm... a 1di, supposed to be major, highway signed as a 3 foot expressway to the border.  :no:) It's weird why CalTrans would pick that number. It isn't really major enough to be signed as CA 7.

CA-7 may disappear all together.  If CA-99 is upgraded to Interstate standards and is redesignated as I-7, then because of California's policy of no duplicates, CA-7 will have to give up it's number to the newly created Interstate.

They could upgrade US-101 to interstate standards, sign it as I-1, and smack those CA-7 shields on CA-1.

If that happens, why not just move US 101 onto CA-1.

Sadly, that has never appeared to be California's style of handling US route truncations - witness how Route 99 went from US route to state route, despite being long enough to be allowed as a single-state US highway after the 1964 numbering changes.

Quote from: Rover_0 on November 30, 2009, 08:42:54 PM
There are some I/US concs. that have some US shields on them, though not all (I-15/US-89 in Utah County and Davis County, though not in both directions).  Going north, there are some recent US-89 shields alongside I-15 shields north of Lehi.  I've even caught a glimpse of a recent assembly on a ramp at the Lagoon/Legacy Parkway exit to see some I-15/US-89 onramp signs (or so I thought).  There are a couple of entirely-signed I/US concs., I-15/US-6 between Santaquin and Spanish Fork (onramps may likely differ), and I-70/US-89 in Sevier County (near Richfield, though those awsome cutout US-89 signs are almost all but gone).

I/I concs. are all entirely signed on the route; I-15/84 between Tremonton and Ogden is, as is I-15/80 in Salt Lake City (though those are the only two current I/I concs.

The ones in the Legacy area came from a signing design I had originally prepared for the Parkway project.  I have always had a pet peeve about making sure concurrencies are fully signed, especially Interstate/U.S. overlaps.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi594.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt24%2FBryant5493%2FGeorgia400East.jpg&hash=74b8f1a08d90477001ead4580d6bc7fdafefce42)

See if you can notice the oddity/error on one of these signs.


Be well,

Bryant

A trailblazer for a street? A left tab for a HOV exit, when HOV exits are normally left exits?

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 11, 2009, 10:35:46 AM
A trailblazer for a street? A left tab for a HOV exit, when HOV exits are normally left exits?

No, but you're close. Look at the trailblazers.


Be well,

Bryant

Hard to tell given the poor image quality...

Since when did Georgia use exit tabs like that.  Also, to GA 400 East?  I thought GA 400 ran North and South.

Quote from: jdb1234 on December 11, 2009, 11:07:35 AM
Since when did Georgia use exit tabs like that.  Also, to GA 400 East?  I thought GA 400 ran North and South.

They (GDOT) just started replacing the exit signage, where there are HOV exits involved.

You got it right. That's the oddity/error I'm referring to. 400 is signed north-south, not east-west.


Be well,

Bryant

Church Street and Railroad Street in Patchogue, New York, has a "Wrong Way" sign with the colors reversed.

I wish I took a picture of that, but I was saving the film in my camera for other sites in Patchogue.

I just found this in a Wikipedia article on the Katy Trail (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katy_Trail_(Dallas)) in Dallas

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg83.imageshack.us%2Fimg83%2F4960%2Fkatytrailknoxstreet.th.jpg&hash=58ed1919f331a733a56321ba522ac36baf7de8b9) (http://img83.imageshack.us/i/katytrailknoxstreet.jpg/)

Seriously, how often do you see yellow & black bicycle signs, other than on standard diamonds?
(Certainly not as often as you see Image Shack links disappear, I can tell you that much! :angry: )

Now this is silly. :rolleyes:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg710.imageshack.us%2Fimg710%2F9271%2Fdscn4646f.jpg&hash=7725384c9a9d09def0322b88464f0086d0c76602)

I get why they made it green, but considering it's a parking restriction sign that text really ought to be red.

And as far as I'm aware, "fuel efficient car" isn't legally defined by the city of Stamford or the state of Connecticut. So by what standard is this supposed to be enforced? Is it even legally enforceable considering it's green and not red?
Regardless, I smell quick easy parking tickets.

Quote from: Duke87 on April 08, 2010, 02:43:10 PM
And as far as I'm aware, "fuel efficient car" isn't legally defined by the city of Stamford or the state of Connecticut. So by what standard is this supposed to be enforced? Is it even legally enforceable considering it's green and not red?
Regardless, I smell quick easy parking tickets.

I sincerely doubt the City of Stamford can define "fuel efficient car" in their city ordinances.  It's a BS sign, completely unenforceable, and easily challenged if some deranged meter maid opts to ticket a vehicle in the space.

Not an odd, just cool:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh5.ggpht.com%2F_ZkmN2RrOJxw%2FS70L9sbN_DI%2FAAAAAAAAW4o%2FbY4cy2O0nEU%2Fs640%2FIMG_2691.JPG&hash=0d4f65e2f4e68439bb354040e36e32478dc6ed61)

Quote from: PennDOTFan on April 08, 2010, 04:31:02 PM
Not an odd, just cool:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh5.ggpht.com%2F_ZkmN2RrOJxw%2FS70L9sbN_DI%2FAAAAAAAAW4o%2FbY4cy2O0nEU%2Fs640%2FIMG_2691.JPG&hash=0d4f65e2f4e68439bb354040e36e32478dc6ed61)

That sign is a fantastic, instant visual description of the Richmond layout.  We need more like it!

Quote from: shoptb1 on April 08, 2010, 06:35:20 PM

Quote from: PennDOTFan on April 08, 2010, 04:31:02 PM
Not an odd, just cool:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh5.ggpht.com%2F_ZkmN2RrOJxw%2FS70L9sbN_DI%2FAAAAAAAAW4o%2FbY4cy2O0nEU%2Fs640%2FIMG_2691.JPG&hash=0d4f65e2f4e68439bb354040e36e32478dc6ed61)

That sign is a fantastic, instant visual description of the Richmond layout.  We need more like it!

That'd be pretty awesome for parallel bypass routes/beltways in general...

...though I think for I-405/I-5 in Los Angeles, it wouldn't really be about offering a "better" alternative.   :sombrero:

I can already imagine many other interchanges though in California where this type of signage would be a major improvement: US 101/Route 85 in Mountain View and south San Jose...I-80/US 50-Business 80 in West Sacramento (and I-80/Business 80 in Foothill Farms)...I-805 and I-5 at both ends in San Diego.

Quote from: shoptb1 on April 08, 2010, 06:35:20 PM

Quote from: PennDOTFan on April 08, 2010, 04:31:02 PM
Not an odd, just cool:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh5.ggpht.com%2F_ZkmN2RrOJxw%2FS70L9sbN_DI%2FAAAAAAAAW4o%2FbY4cy2O0nEU%2Fs640%2FIMG_2691.JPG&hash=0d4f65e2f4e68439bb354040e36e32478dc6ed61)

That sign is a fantastic, instant visual description of the Richmond layout.  We need more like it!

Portland has one for I-5 with I-205. Voila! (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=45.349655,-122.765518&spn=0,0.001025&t=h&z=20&layer=c&cbll=45.349778,-122.765468&panoid=l_bzBy9vZ2xfbXQkTmFKnA&cbp=12,35.21,,0,5)

Oregon loves those diagrammatics- here's a few others
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2Fhighways%2For%2F84%2F30bypto30%2F2.JPG&hash=2f2be80f1b868df4d9a7f303b6be26fe65e7d577)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2Fhighways%2For%2F84%2F30bypto30%2F16.JPG&hash=d5bea8a4ea696a07bdf1d0dc746338d8fffad30d)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2Fhighways%2For%2F84%2F30hrto30m%2F2.JPG&hash=f1936987c1d2b32eadecb56c22960708e533567a)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2Fhighways%2For%2F84%2F74to730%2F6.JPG&hash=cf92b4bb3a0cf65a8503262ca9feb4f9625841cb)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2Fhighways%2For%2F84%2F244to30%2F3.JPG&hash=ca68c9ab1c82a4330ebbc69059d6d2be748b9372)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2Fhighways%2For%2F84%2F30to201%2F2.JPG&hash=ec53f8c6c94142c4d242279de65a477c0a40c047)

There was also a pretty cool set of them erected around Tulsa (may still be there) for the city loop reconstruction:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2Fi244diag.jpg&hash=561572a5032f3ddd37d3e54d3bb174946457bd8a)

The best of them all, of course, is the ones along I-80 in the Bridger Valley. Completely useless when you drive by them at 75 MPH
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2Fwyodiag.jpg&hash=c16a84d0cc17f7ac2f6cb1f249b421dd3f018426)

Quote from: corco on April 09, 2010, 01:13:53 AM

There was also a pretty cool set of them erected around Tulsa (may still be there) for the city loop reconstruction:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2Fi244diag.jpg&hash=561572a5032f3ddd37d3e54d3bb174946457bd8a)

Yes, they're still up.

Here's another one, on WB OK 51 approaching I-44:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2652%2F4204976950_978e843ce0.jpg&hash=32ff6113cf6db528cb0fa4826631cf4cf6cb4c29)

Quote from: corco on April 09, 2010, 01:13:53 AM

The best of them all, of course, is the ones along I-80 in the Bridger Valley. Completely useless when you drive by them at 75 MPH
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2Fwyodiag.jpg&hash=c16a84d0cc17f7ac2f6cb1f249b421dd3f018426)

Wow...somebody at the sign dept didn't understand the homework assignment LOL :)

Not sure if this is hotlinking, but two classics off of James Teresco's wonderful site:
Burgess Junction (http://www.teresco.org/pics/signs/19990725/bighorns.jpg)
Homestake Pass (http://www.teresco.org/pics/signs/20010627/truckinfo.jpg)

I'd love for more metropolitan areas to have diagrams like the Richmond one.  It's incredibly elegant and says exactly what it needs to without any mention of "RECREATION AREA TO FLAMING GORGE." :P

The Burgess Junction signs aren't actually posted parallel to the road though- you have to pull off to see them so the massive amounts of information would be gathered at a standstill, not at freeway speeds.

Wait- never mind. You're right, there is one actually posted on the side of the road. Yikes. On two attempts I couldn't even get a full picture of it there was so much stuff on it!
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2Fhighways%2Fwy%2F14a%2F14to37%2F2.jpg&hash=48858f6a2effebcde53cbc558e10fa5183876b20)

Also notable because it's the only US-14A shield in Wyoming (others are 14 ALT)

Wow, the ones corco posted beat the heck out of mine! Nice and diagrammic!

Quote from: corco on April 09, 2010, 01:51:46 PM

Wait- never mind. You're right, there is one actually posted on the side of the road. Yikes. On two attempts I couldn't even get a full picture of it there was so much stuff on it!
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2Fhighways%2Fwy%2F14a%2F14to37%2F2.jpg&hash=48858f6a2effebcde53cbc558e10fa5183876b20)

Also notable because it's the only US-14A shield in Wyoming (others are 14 ALT)

14A (or Alt. 14) is two miles shorter. How do the travel times compare?

The one time I was there, we took 14 through Shell Canyon.

Travel times end up being about the same with 14 being slightly faster. Open road you could probably do 14A faster, but odds are ridiculously high you get stuck behind an RV or semitruck going down the hills, which can be bad on 14 but brutal on 14A. Plus it seems like it takes a lot more time to get through Lovell then it does through Greybull (you just clip the northern part of downtown Greybull as opposed to going through all of Lovell, which has a horrendously long 30 MPH zone) and then there's Powell to slow down for too, so 14 is a better route.

14A is a bit more scenic - the mountainous descent down with Big Horn reservoir in the distance is pretty cool. You're not in a canyon so much as just driving down a mountainside, which makes the views more spectacular.  14 as you know is also quite scenic.

God, those Wyoming signs are beautiful.  But at the same time, given the purpose of a road sign (to give information quickly), they're pretty hideous.

Quote from: Kacie Jane on April 10, 2010, 01:02:55 AM
God, those Wyoming signs are beautiful.  But at the same time, given the purpose of a road sign (to give information quickly), they're pretty hideous.

they are placed in truck brake-check areas, where ostensibly the vehicle is stopped, and the driver has the time to ponder the sign. 

the question is, how much will you remember by around the third steep downgrade?

Quotethey are placed in truck brake-check areas, where ostensibly the vehicle is stopped, and the driver has the time to ponder the sign.

the question is, how much will you remember by around the third steep downgrade?

The 14A sign actually isn't. There's one in a truck brake check area, but there's also one posted on the side of the road like any other sign.

The Bridger Valley sign isn't posted in a brake check area either (actually, there might be one in each direction in a parking area, but the other 4  or 6 are out on the freeway)

Quote from: corco on April 10, 2010, 03:00:21 PM
The 14A sign actually isn't. There's one in a truck brake check area, but there's also one posted on the side of the road like any other sign.

I don't recall how much the Burgess Junction sign was set back from the road.  When I was there (Dec 10, 2009), US-14A was closed, and some of the ramps at the split were unplowed.  Also, there was absolutely no one around - I do not remember where I stopped (likely just in the travel lanes for US-14) but I definitely got out and got a good photo of the diagrammatical.

The sign is definitely turned 90 degrees from the usual, so one has to pull alongside and study it.  I don't recall if the other ones are that way as well.

QuoteThe sign is definitely turned 90 degrees from the usual, so one has to pull alongside and study it.  I don't recall if the other ones are that way as well.

Yeah, but about a mile beyond that one is another identical sign that's definitely not 90 degrees off. There's two signs- the first one is 90 degrees off and the second is straight. The Bridger Valley ones are absolutely not 90 degrees either- there's one by each of the first two exits each direction, and then a third for each direction in a parking area (facing 90 degrees)

I remember my specific thought process when I was there in August- it went "Holy diagrammatical Batman! I need a picture of that- I'll get it when I come around later today" and then like a minute later there was another one and I was able to get an almost complete picture of it.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 10, 2010, 03:35:03 PMI don't recall how much the Burgess Junction sign was set back from the road.

It is well outside the clear zone--I would say at least 60 feet away from the edge of traveled way.  It is also oriented at roughly a 45° angle to the highway centerline, so that it is visible both to traffic on the road and in the truck check area.

This sign instructs truckers to stop and read the Burgess Junction diagrammatic sign:

http://winklers-roads.fotopic.net/p16865331.html

This is the diagrammatic sign itself:

http://winklers-roads.fotopic.net/p19305179.html

After you pass Burgess Junction, US 14 ALT passes through several miles of mostly level terrain (high mountain plateau scrubland).  As you come toward the end of this area, you pass this sign:

http://winklers-roads.fotopic.net/p16865297.html

Followed by this sign:

http://winklers-roads.fotopic.net/p16865298.html

Followed, in turn, by this:

http://winklers-roads.fotopic.net/p16865308.html

At the turnout, which is for checking of brakes, you see this sign, which is oriented parallel to the highway centerline (in other words, you can read it only if you are actually parked at the turnout):

http://winklers-roads.fotopic.net/p19305171.html

Then, just as you enter the switchback section of US 14 ALT, you pass this sign:

http://winklers-roads.fotopic.net/p16865264.html

About halfway down the mountain, you pass signs indicating a brake cooling turnout:

http://winklers-roads.fotopic.net/p16865269.html

http://winklers-roads.fotopic.net/p19305249.html

http://winklers-roads.fotopic.net/p19305257.html

This sign is just in case you forget you are on a steep downgrade:

http://winklers-roads.fotopic.net/p19305333.html

I have actually passed these signs twice--in 2000 and 2001.  In 2000 I was not expecting them and therefore my arrival was badly timed for available-light photography.  In 2001 I made a special effort to arrive in midmorning and was able to get reasonably good available-light photos, particularly of the diagrammatics.  Unfortunately some of the signs are tricky to photograph because the road twists and some signs face toward the north (meaning backlighting during most hours of the day).  I didn't have a digital camera at the time, so all of my pictures of this stretch are slides.

As an aside, this grade is really easy to negotiate in a car.  I think I hit the switchback section at about 50 MPH, downshifted fairly quickly to second gear, and coasted all the way down without needing to brake once except to park my car in the brake cooling turnout while I got photos.

Quote from: Brandon on April 08, 2010, 03:55:19 PM
I sincerely doubt the City of Stamford can define "fuel efficient car" in their city ordinances.  It's a BS sign, completely unenforceable, and easily challenged if some deranged meter maid opts to ticket a vehicle in the space.

That's another reason I'm no fan of the "Clean Fuel" exception rule for HOV lanes on the Long Island Expressway. Besides the fact that they defeat the whole purpose of having a lane that's restricted to drivers wth three or more passengers in the false hopes of reducing traffic through carpooling, they seem like the kind of thing that anybody can get, as long as they have a car that's specifically believed to be fuel efficient, or can just slip some crooked politician or DMV clerk some extra money for the sticker.

Quote from: D-Dey65 on April 21, 2010, 10:12:04 AMor can just slip some crooked politician or DMV clerk some extra money for the sticker.

or print one out on a labelmaker.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 21, 2010, 11:14:43 AM

Quote from: D-Dey65 on April 21, 2010, 10:12:04 AMor can just slip some crooked politician or DMV clerk some extra money for the sticker.

or print one out on a labelmaker.

Of course, the vehicle still has to be plausible.  I don't think putting a "fuel efficient" sticker on my 1990 Chevy G20 van would work!  :sombrero:

QuoteOf course, the vehicle still has to be plausible.  I don't think putting a "fuel efficient" sticker on my 1990 Chevy G20 van would work! 

Just claim you converted it to run on corn!

Quote from: mightyace on April 21, 2010, 07:55:58 PM

Of course, the vehicle still has to be plausible.  I don't think putting a "fuel efficient" sticker on my 1990 Chevy G20 van would work!  :sombrero:

how about an '89 Escort?  Gets 41 miles per gallon! 

Most of us agree that boring Connecticut squares are boring.

Well, how about a Connecticut rectangle?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg69.imageshack.us%2Fimg69%2F9204%2Fdscn6870c.jpg&hash=a2a1ff4739fb2352d7bf0e404b4c7d422daa56d1)

who is responsible for that Arial monstrosity?

(and the mis-fonted stop sign in the background, which looks to me like compressed Arial.)

Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 21, 2010, 11:43:08 PM
who is responsible for that Arial monstrosity?

Probably the same person who made this one:  :spin:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg20.imageshack.us%2Fimg20%2F8686%2Fon401407.jpg&hash=f6035fc27ccb7626e4aa72f8db84c95bcd444631)
(I've posted this one a few times before)

Here's a odd looking advanced exit sign from Ontario that I've posted before in the cantilevers thread:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg44.imageshack.us%2Fimg44%2F1577%2Frscn7981.jpg&hash=c16bb23b76eb5c9fbbe5a06d610b02b77fb3ec40)
I guess Caltrans idea of internally drawn exit tabs are catching on in Ontario. But I guess the design of the sign structure makes this the only way to number the exit, before the signs on cantilevers simply had omitted the exit tab.

Quote from: joseph1723 on April 21, 2010, 11:55:46 PM
I guess Caltrans idea of internally drawn exit tabs are catching on in Ontario. But I guess the design of the sign structure makes this the only way to number the exit, before the signs on cantilevers simply had omitted the exit tab.

There's no reason why a cantilevered sign can't have an exit tab...

https://www.aaroads.com/west/nevada395/us-395_sb_exit_063_01.jpg (https://www.aaroads.com/west/nevada395/us-395_sb_exit_063_01.jpg)

Reminds a bit of the Paris, TX  "spaghetti bowl"

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2376%2F2528982288_93c2990f56.jpg&hash=4255c3f7f3923020578f1626fc3911697771861c)

Quote from: agentsteel53 on April 21, 2010, 11:43:08 PM
who is responsible for that Arial monstrosity?

The City of Norwalk. This portion of route 136 is not state maintained.

Also, here's the sign in Street View. (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=New+York&ll=41.090204,-73.416138&spn=0,0.01929&z=16&layer=c&cbll=41.090128,-73.416085&panoid=SwGb6szehdemiNFytsQU8w&cbp=12,189.06,,0,4.72)

Quote from: US71 on April 22, 2010, 09:28:18 AM
Reminds a bit of the Paris, TX  "spaghetti bowl"

I looked it on Google maps and it doesn't look that bad.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=paris+tx&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=48.688845,49.746094&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Paris,+Lamar,+Texas&ll=33.646546,-95.502756&spn=0.012593,0.012145&t=h&z=16

IMHO The sign makes it seem worse than it is.

Quote from: US71 on April 22, 2010, 09:28:18 AM
Reminds a bit of the Paris, TX  "spaghetti bowl"

That's a weird interchange.

^^^ I would have used two directional T's instead of that mess.

Rochester's Can of Worms (I-490/I-590/NY 590) is quite odd.  Here's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Can_of_Worms_(interchange)) its Wikipedia article, and here's (http://www.empirestateroads.com/week/week1.html) a link to a page on Empire State Roads.

Of course, what the article doesn't mention is that merging is still an issue, it's just different.  Backups occur for 2 miles in all directions due to traffic trying to merge onto the other road.  Particularly problematic is I-490 west to NY 590 north and NY 590 south to one or both directions of I-490.

Question, Why does US 60 travel south of I-40 (US 66) in NM & AZ, and formerly CA? Any reasons? Because 60 was supposed to be NORTH of 66 not SOUTH!!!!!!!! :wow: :ded:

Quote from: ausinterkid on April 29, 2010, 02:46:38 AM
Question, Why does US 60 travel south of I-40 (US 66) in NM & AZ, and formerly CA? Any reasons? Because 60 was supposed to be NORTH of 66 not SOUTH!!!!!!!! :wow: :ded:

Although there are certainly cases where the major routes (x0/x1) would start out of order (case in point: US 30 starting north of US 20 in Oregon), for the most part, any route with a last digit other than 0 or 1 in the US route system could run diagonally, as long as some of it fell within its nominal spot on the grid.

Diagonal routes mess up the 1926 grid for what i see of it

Quote from: TheStranger on April 29, 2010, 02:58:15 AM
Although there are certainly cases where the major routes (x0/x1) would start out of order (case in point: US 30 starting north of US 20 in Oregon), for the most part, any route with a last digit other than 0 or 1 in the US route system could run diagonally, as long as some of it fell within its nominal spot on the grid.

US 11 especially and US 41 run afoul of that as well.

11 crosses the former routing of 21 and the current ones of 31 and 41 en route to its southern end near New Orleans.

41 crosses 31 and 11 and ends at US 1 in Miami.

11 and 41 do a wrong way multiplex in Chattanooga well east of US 31!

Question: Why was US 11 planned in 1926 as a diagonal route?

Quote from: ausinterkid on April 29, 2010, 03:45:49 AM
Question: Why was US 11 planned in 1926 as a diagonal route?

I don't know the answer to that but US 11 is an oddball for an x1 or x0.  The only really major city it goes near is New Orleans at its southern end and it doesn't actually reach it anymore.  Going north it hits (among others):

Birmingham, AL
Chattanooga, TN
Knoxville, TN
Bristol, TN/VA
Roanoke, VA
Hagerstown, MD
Harrisburg, PA
Wilkes-Barre, PA
Scranton, PA
Binghamton, NY
Syracuse, NY

It would be hard to argue that any of those cities is a "major" city today.  A case could be made for Scranton, PA as it was a considered a major city back in the late 1800s and early 1900s.

Quote from: ausinterkid on April 29, 2010, 02:46:38 AM
Question, Why does US 60 travel south of I-40 (US 66) in NM & AZ, and formerly CA? Any reasons? Because 60 was supposed to be NORTH of 66 not SOUTH!!!!!!!! :wow: :ded:

Actually, 66 was originally 60

Quote from: ausinterkid on April 29, 2010, 03:45:49 AM
Question: Why was US 11 planned in 1926 as a diagonal route?

I think for a lot of it, it pretty much just follows the contours of the Appalachian mountains (At least in VA & PA)

Quote from: US71 on April 29, 2010, 09:12:28 AM

Quote from: ausinterkid on April 29, 2010, 02:46:38 AM
Question, Why does US 60 travel south of I-40 (US 66) in NM & AZ, and formerly CA? Any reasons? Because 60 was supposed to be NORTH of 66 not SOUTH!!!!!!!! :wow: :ded:

Actually, 66 was originally 60

Indeed. To quell Kentucky's objection to not getting a US route that ended with "0", they added a route through Kentucky and southern Missouri as "60". The promoters of the Chicago-LA route were forced to take one of the few remaining unassigned numbers, so they selected "66". US 60's original western terminus was Springfield, Missouri. I'm sure Oklahoma Department of Highways was happy when it was extended west, as they had already run off some Oklahoma US 60 shields that they couldn't use when 60 was renumbered to 66.

Question: Why did US 99 head east from LA along US 60/70 to Indio then down to Calexico via today's CA 111 & CA 86? What was the objective of that routing? Maybe 101 could have ended roughly where it ends today (before the East LA interchange was built) and 99 could have gone down to San Diego.

Quote from: ausinterkid on May 11, 2010, 03:07:56 AM
Question: Why did US 99 head east from LA along US 60/70 to Indio then down to Calexico via today's CA 111 & CA 86? What was the objective of that routing? Maybe 101 could have ended roughly where it ends today (before the East LA interchange was built) and 99 could have gone down to San Diego.

the original intent of the US highway system was much more in favor of long multiplexes, with a lot of corridors being served even if they were not 100% geographically east-west or north-south.  99 was the central valley route, and the way CA is shaped implies that its center jogs east, so naturally the road had to follow it.

US 42, OH- It's mainly a north-south route, paralleling I-71.
US 33, Elkhart IN-Richmond VA- An east-west route, numbered as a north-south.
Maybe these routes should be swapped...

US 42 was an original US route from 1926.  US 33 came about 15 years later.  I think the intent of the creators of the US Highway system was that the 1, 5, and 0 routes would be the framework...everything else can be added in to flesh out the system.  If you went by a  straight grid system, a LOT of routes are kind of out of place.  Original US 6 ended somewhere near Erie PA, US 62 was a regional road as was US 68, and US 35 wasnt on the grid yet

As to the routes themselves, US 33 was originally labeled as 'N-WEST and S-EAST, and US 42 was 'N-EAST, S-WEST until AASHTO told Ohio to knock off the diagonal tabs....

There were quite a few other US highways whose placement or routing makes no real grid sense....for instance, US 44 (a 1930s creation), US 29, US 17...there are quite a few others...

Over the years routes get extended, (That little regional US 62 wound up one of the longest highways in the country, and the only E-W US route to start at Mexico and end in Canada....US 6 took over two other regional US routes on its way to Los Angeles...and for some reason, US 68 took a sharp turn north into Ohio

Why did US 68 curve north? Was US 33 intended to be E-W?

I do not know why US 68 took that sharp jog to the north.....all i really know was that was  an 'after the fact' addition to the route....

and US 33 is signed as N-S in West Virginia and Indiana....only Ohio signs it E-W

Quote from: ctsignguy on May 13, 2010, 08:20:46 AM
I do not know why US 68 took that sharp jog to the north.....all i really know was that was  an 'after the fact' addition to the route....

and US 33 is signed as N-S in West Virginia and Indiana....only Ohio signs it E-W

So does Virginia.

US 33 is signed as E-W in West Virginia.

Doing some research for my site and I found an old MD version of those map style signs.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toad.net%2F%7Eparndt%2Fhag.JPG&hash=0b4dba03e4d8f5ae8f1bea7efcd33bfafe064474)

now that is a guide sign!

Two things that I don't understand:
1- Why isn't CA 39 signed over CR N8
2- Why Caltrans won't take over the Richmond Pkwy and sign it as CA 93

Quote from: ausinterkid on May 22, 2010, 03:15:21 AM
Two things that I don't understand:
1- Why isn't CA 39 signed over CR N8
2- Why Caltrans won't take over the Richmond Pkwy and sign it as CA 93

Due to the need of every single route definition in California to be created legislatively, most routes basically can only be signed where maintained by CalTrans (and legislatively defined).  (County Route N8 was never part of Route 39, though it connects the gap between Azusa and Fullerton - IIRC, an entirely different surface road was part of Route 39, though the presence of that gap in maps for decades makes me wonder how long that middle segment was ever signed.)

Considering how little money the state of California has right now, I'm not surprised Richmond Parkway remains locally maintained - after all, it was built up to expressway standards by the city of Richmond and is well-signed for what it is at present.

Why does US 84 curve NW to enter CO?

Quote from: TheStranger on May 22, 2010, 03:20:39 AM

Due to the need of every single route definition in California to be created legislatively, most routes basically can only be signed where maintained by CalTrans (and legislatively defined).

there are definitely some locally maintained California state routes.  I was just on 246, and heading west out of Lompoc, there is first an END 246, and then a paddle with "TOWN/CTY" on it, to show that the road changes from state route 246 (town maintained) to a county road.

why can't 39 get that sort of designation?  The whole point of route numbers is to help drivers navigate; there is absolutely no advantage to having two segments of 39.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 22, 2010, 11:01:58 PM

Quote from: TheStranger on May 22, 2010, 03:20:39 AM

Due to the need of every single route definition in California to be created legislatively, most routes basically can only be signed where maintained by CalTrans (and legislatively defined).

there are definitely some locally maintained California state routes.  I was just on 246, and heading west out of Lompoc, there is first an END 246, and then a paddle with "TOWN/CTY" on it, to show that the road changes from state route 246 (town maintained) to a county road.

why can't 39 get that sort of designation?  The whole point of route numbers is to help drivers navigate; there is absolutely no advantage to having two segments of 39.

I think the situation you specified has ONLY appeared in recent changes, as evidenced by the increasing complexity of legislative definitions for Route 1 in Southern California.

Which then makes me agree with you 1000% about Route 39, and the many other examples of this (Route 160 in Sacramento comes to mind as a local example).

Quote from: TheStranger on May 22, 2010, 11:39:52 PM

I think the situation you specified has ONLY appeared in recent changes, as evidenced by the increasing complexity of legislative definitions for Route 1 in Southern California.

our tax dollars at work  :pan:

quick and dirty method of ensuring maximum user-friendliness at minimum cost:

1) define the route
2) assign a number to it
3) make sure someone is maintaining the road to an agreed standard of quality
4) sign the route
5) spend remaining tax dollars on vacation to Palm Springs (hey, this is government, can't expect them to be too efficient)

Quote from: mightyace on April 29, 2010, 04:59:22 AM

Quote from: ausinterkid on April 29, 2010, 03:45:49 AM
Question: Why was US 11 planned in 1926 as a diagonal route?

I don't know the answer to that but US 11 is an oddball for an x1 or x0.  The only really major city it goes near is New Orleans at its southern end and it doesn't actually reach it anymore.

I beg to differ. US 11 actually does go into New Orleans. Keep in mind that New Orleans and Orleans Parish are the same. It's just that that part of Orleans Parish is more rural than the rest.

Another oddity to add: Georgia 124 is signed as north-south from Snellville to Lithonia. I'm not sure how it's signed the rest of the way, but north-south highways are given odd numbers, while east-west routes get even numbers.

Quote from: golden eagle on May 23, 2010, 01:12:54 AM
Another oddity to add: Georgia 124 is signed as north-south from Snellville to Lithonia. I'm not sure how it's signed the rest of the way, but north-south highways are given odd numbers, while east-west routes get even numbers.

GA-27 is an east-west route, and it intersects US-27 - a double oddity.

^^^ Kind of like I-90/NY 90 in Montezuma.

Or like I-10 and SR 10 (unsigned) in Florida.

NJDOT.... this is not how you sign multiplexes. :rolleyes:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg695.imageshack.us%2Fimg695%2F5484%2Fdscn7020v.jpg&hash=a7bf4f22fb0607c990afa61910dd0208499a86ec)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg693.imageshack.us%2Fimg693%2F2809%2Fdscn7021.jpg&hash=1529c862e5407bee1983c7be920218c31a773fd2)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg535.imageshack.us%2Fimg535%2F8089%2Fdscn7025.jpg&hash=8c75c1333d1ace635c6709d8f40395a53fa51bd0)

And this is not how you sign a truck route:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg63.imageshack.us%2Fimg63%2F619%2Fdscn7026.jpg&hash=e64cbe27542f288b18992ecfb97f01c8b12490b1)

Quote from: Duke87 on June 21, 2010, 01:08:16 PM
NJDOT.... this is not how you sign multiplexes. :rolleyes:

I believe that NJ has used the '1-9' for the multiplexed US Routes for a long time.  I hadn't seen the '1&9' before though.  Along those lines, MoDOT, this isn't how you sign multiplexed routes (courtesy AARoads Gallery):

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/MO/MO19790444i1.jpg)

that's an old Missouri standard.  Here's a late 20s sign.

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/MO/MO19260402i1.jpg)

Well, damn. That means that when I was in KC, I clinched portions of US 40 through 169 in one fell swoop. Time to update my .list...

Maryland does something similar with the MD 2/MD 4 multiplex:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi244.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fgg36%2Fjcm9572%2FMaryland%2520Signs%2F20090418MD2-4endconstruction.jpg&hash=8a36b7cd320ec3294c5a57d5f465f28efb23f250)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi244.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fgg36%2Fjcm9572%2FMaryland%2520Signs%2F20090418MD2-4.jpg&hash=58c68055195c72294a3b29c5f1ba4b1f1dca65b4)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi244.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fgg36%2Fjcm9572%2FMaryland%2520Signs%2F20090418MD2-4NB2.jpg&hash=ebd597deac3b9d23eef02f9b01af39978bad4bcf)

But some of these are being replaced with separate MD 2 and MD 4 shields.

Quote from: D-Dey65 on January 07, 2010, 09:54:02 AM
Church Street and Railroad Street in Patchogue, New York, has a "Wrong Way" sign with the colors reversed.

I now have it!

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg153.imageshack.us%2Fimg153%2F1230%2Fwrongwayreversedcolorss.th.jpg&hash=54d58f0af620d1491417e97458af762145420c7a) (http://img153.imageshack.us/i/wrongwayreversedcolorss.jpg/)

Quote from: shoptb1 on June 21, 2010, 02:22:59 PM
Along those lines, MoDOT, this isn't how you sign multiplexed routes (courtesy AARoads Gallery):

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/MO/MO19790444i1.jpg)

Depending upon the source, I-44 and I-55 don't multiplex, and I-44 definitely never multiplexes with I-70.

There's more signs out there like that, such as one for I-65-70 in Indianapolis and I think there's one for I-57-70 in Effingham.

Not sure if this one's still there, but Atlanta's done this too (courtesy AARoads Shield Gallery):

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/GA/GA19610851i1.jpg)

While I-75 and I-85 are multiplexed through the city, I-20 is totally separate.

Quote from: Revive 755 on June 25, 2010, 05:15:05 PM

Depending upon the source, I-44 and I-55 don't multiplex, and I-44 definitely never multiplexes with I-70.

There's more signs out there like that, such as one for I-65-70 in Indianapolis and I think there's one for I-57-70 in Effingham.

I remember when I was in St Louis back in 2004 seeing a sign that had all four interstates on one shield.

Found one of the dashed signs in East Peoria, IL, today that has a three digit route (IL 116) after the dash:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=40.664803,-89.581715&spn=0,0.020599&z=17&layer=c&cbll=40.664854,-89.581628&panoid=fYIij-qjTNBEIsd-dhwJ7g&cbp=12,271.89,,0,5.09 (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=40.664803,-89.581715&spn=0,0.020599&z=17&layer=c&cbll=40.664854,-89.581628&panoid=fYIij-qjTNBEIsd-dhwJ7g&cbp=12,271.89,,0,5.09)

There's a few more of those along the IL 8/IL 116 multiplex between IL 29 and US 150.

Was there a change of street name there?  They might be using a one-name, one-number system.

Quote from: AARoads on January 20, 2009, 02:37:47 AM
This doesn't happen too often, where a road changes numbers without intersecting anything.

I just found this one yesterday in Pleasanton, KS
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.static.flickr.com%2F4138%2F4790644706_3b286e7b5e_z_d.jpg&hash=e3398b4741036e05632552ae1fa58286a0b96ec7)

The  wierdest  highway  route is the one  running east-west, north south. and   then some diagonally.  It  is a US  highway  that  runs all the way from Niagara  Falls,NY  to El Paso TX.  Anyone know the  answer?   US  62.  I suppose  it  was meant to be a connector between the Canadian  and Meixican borders, but its route  meanders  all over  the map.

Quote from: US71 on July 13, 2010, 04:27:03 PM
I just found this one yesterday in Pleasanton, KS
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.static.flickr.com%2F4138%2F4790644706_3b286e7b5e_z_d.jpg&hash=e3398b4741036e05632552ae1fa58286a0b96ec7)

Is that a way of showing the highway isn't US 69 anymore?

Either that, or someone put it on the sign.

Quote from: PennDOTFan on July 16, 2010, 06:45:23 PM

Quote from: US71 on July 13, 2010, 04:27:03 PM
I just found this one yesterday in Pleasanton, KS
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.static.flickr.com%2F4138%2F4790644706_3b286e7b5e_z_d.jpg&hash=e3398b4741036e05632552ae1fa58286a0b96ec7)

Is that a way of showing the highway isn't US 69 anymore?

Yes. It's a county maintained sign. 69 got moved to a new alignment a few months ago.

Heh. Reassurance markers for old alignments. Something I bet a lot of the alignment hunters in here wish was more common. :P

Quote from: Scott5114 on July 18, 2010, 02:01:31 AM
Heh. Reassurance markers for old alignments. Something I bet a lot of the alignment hunters in here wish was more common. :P

That would take the challenge out of it.

I haven't read every page, but prior to 1980, what is today Interstate 84 (West) was Interstate 80N, so Interstate 82, at the time, made numerical sense. But today, it's a violation. I've often thought that perhaps the segment of freeway from Portland to... wherever I-82/I-84 junction should be I-82, and then move I-84 up northwest towards the I-90 junction in Washington.

The same thing happened with Interstate 76 (West)... It was originally Interstate 80S before it was renamed. So that's why today there are two I-76 and I-84, which will never be connected. There are also two Interstate 88, but I'm not sure the story behind that.

Another thing I find odd is how most states assign route numbers. California, for example... I just can't figure it out. Highway 1 starts along the coast, but Highway 3 isn't the next major highway to the east. It's a little tiny highway way up in extreme Northern California, in a very unpopulated area. Highway 2 and 4 aren't in the far south of the state, for example. So, do numbers just get assigned randomly? And it's like this in other states... The numbers don't seem to follow any kind of pattern or grid or anything.

Interstate 99 is odd, too. Why couldn't it have just been given an x80 number? I'm surprised Bud Schuster didn't just call it Interstate 1.

Quote from: Quillz on August 30, 2010, 10:38:36 PM
I haven't read every page, but prior to 1980, what is today Interstate 84 (West) was Interstate 80N, so Interstate 82, at the time, made numerical sense. But today, it's a violation. I've often thought that perhaps the segment of freeway from Portland to... wherever I-82/I-84 junction should be I-82, and then move I-84 up northwest towards the I-90 junction in Washington.

The same thing happened with Interstate 76 (West)... It was originally Interstate 80S before it was renamed. So that's why today there are two I-76 and I-84, which will never be connected. There are also two Interstate 88, but I'm not sure the story behind that.

Another thing I find odd is how most states assign route numbers. California, for example... I just can't figure it out. Highway 1 starts along the coast, but Highway 3 isn't the next major highway to the east. It's a little tiny highway way up in extreme Northern California, in a very unpopulated area. Highway 2 and 4 aren't in the far south of the state, for example. So, do numbers just get assigned randomly? And it's like this in other states... The numbers don't seem to follow any kind of pattern or grid or anything.

Interstate 99 is odd, too. Why couldn't it have just been given an x80 number? I'm surprised Bud Schuster didn't just call it Interstate 1.

I-82 should be I-7, period...  It's a North-South highway, not an East-West... 

California State Routes are more random, and have been renumbered in 1964.  CA-35 in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties used to be CA-5 before the Interstate system was implemented.  State routes have their own patterns, and many states don't really have much of a pattern.  I believe California's state route system is in numeric order of numbering assignment, where the Cabrillo Hwy was the first to get a number (CA-1). 

Washington's State Route system (also renumbered after the Interstate system was put into place) actually does have a numeric system where numbers increase as you go North and had an even-odd system as well; however, it's not really fluid.  After the Interstate system was put in place they have state routes that are numbered after the parent Interstate.  On I-5, there is WA-500 all the way up to WA-527.  On I-9, there's WA-900 to WA-976 (there aren't 76 highways after I-90, though).  Likewise, on major arteries, there are auxiliary state routes in Washington.  WA-3 is the main route through the Puget Sound Islands, but there are a plethora of WA-30X routes. 

Yeah, I was just in Washington a few weeks ago and noticed the "spur" routes of sorts. We took WA-504 to Mt. St. Helens.

I figured California (and most other states) probably just assigned route numbers in the order in which they were built and funded, but I thought I'd ask anyway.

Quote from: Quillz on August 30, 2010, 10:38:36 PM
Another thing I find odd is how most states assign route numbers. California, for example... I just can't figure it out. Highway 1 starts along the coast, but Highway 3 isn't the next major highway to the east. It's a little tiny highway way up in extreme Northern California, in a very unpopulated area. Highway 2 and 4 aren't in the far south of the state, for example. So, do numbers just get assigned randomly? And it's like this in other states... The numbers don't seem to follow any kind of pattern or grid or anything.

the California system originally made sense and followed a grid, but then it has gotten changed so many times that it no longer resembles any pattern, unless you really carefully know where to look.

the original 1934 pattern actually had two grids: northern and southern California, two approximately square zones.  Route 1, which spanned the entire state, was an exception, but then 2 and 3 were in southern Cal - with 2 going E-W and 3 going N-S.  Similarly, 4 was an E-W in northern CA and 5 was a N-S in northern CA.

the numbers that conflicted with US routes were skipped.  Since the US route system was already in place, no state route numbers needed to be changed.

2 is still around essentially where it always has been.  3 became Alternate 101 in 1936 and then the extended Bear 1 took over it in 1964.  4 is still 4, from Hercules to Ebbetts Pass and beyond.  And 5 is now 35 because they needed the number for the interstates.  When the interstates came, conflicting numbers were reassigned: original bear 15 (Atlantic Blvd, I think, in Los Angeles) became the 7 freeway, while the older 7 (Sepulveda Blvd and then the San Diego Freeway) became the 405 freeway.

so for a while, certain logical grids existed, of which only pieces can be discerned today.  5, 9, 17, 21 in the Bay Area for example - with 13 getting inserted logically a couple years later.  17 is now partly 880 and partly 580, and 21 is 680.  

in the south: bear 6 (yes, there was such a thing before US-6 came to town), bear 10 (yep, another one who gave up the number), bear 14, bear 18 ran parallel, and bear 22 and bear 26 were nearby - 22 being still around, with bear 30 to the north (got replaced by 210), bear 34 in Oxnard, bear 38 a bit to the east, bear 42 on Manchester Blvd.  That's about the most consistent application of the grid I can think of.

as for what survives today?  well, bear 19, bear 23 and bear 27 are still around for instance.  

the reason the system degenerated into such a mess was because when new numbers were needed, after 1964 they just reused whatever was available.  Thus, 3 was around, and it was randomly located upstate in the Yreka area.  

7 - oh boy where do I start?  7 was originally the longest route in the system: it came down from Modoc County on what is now US-395 (a 1935 addition to CA), followed that to the 6/395 junction at Brady, followed 6 (now 14) to Castaic Junction where it briefly met up with US-99.  Then from San Fernando Blvd it turned down Sepulveda Blvd and followed that all the way down to the LAX area where it ran into bear 3.  

in 1935 it was truncated to Brady Junction with the arrival of US-395 (which took the other branch) but immediately in 1937 it was re-truncated because of 6's arrival, and 7 was only Sepulveda Blvd down to what is now LAX to the 3 junction.  

this way it stayed until the 1950s when the San Diego Freeway got the number, which at some point (1959?) got signed solely as I-405, relinquishing the number 7 to what was originally the 15 freeway - the Long Beach Freeway.  15 needed to become used on Interstate 15 so bear 15 was retired and the freeway from Long Beach to Pasadena became bear 7, white spade 7, green spade 7, etc.  Until 1981 when California decided that every route needed to be an interstate.  So long bear 7, because now it is interstate 701.

so when they needed some halfway worthless connector road to Mexico to be a state highway, and the number 7 was available ... yep, 7 went from the longest route in the system to the shortest.

all of the post-1964 routes, which includes everything numbered 200 and higher, were added in the order that the route was added to the system.  That is why you have 237 and 238 near each other (added via same project), and 236 and 239 somewhere completely far off.  

QuoteInterstate 99 is odd, too. Why couldn't it have just been given an x80 number? I'm surprised Bud Schuster didn't just call it Interstate 1.

he should've called it interstate Vote Bud.

Quote from: KEK Inc. on August 30, 2010, 10:44:26 PM

California State Routes are more random, and have been renumbered in 1964.  CA-35 in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties used to be CA-5 before the Interstate system was implemented.  State routes have their own patterns, and many states don't really have much of a pattern.  I believe California's state route system is in numeric order of numbering assignment, where the Cabrillo Hwy was the first to get a number (CA-1). 

the first bear was indeed a Bear 1, however 49 was the first route assigned.  The first ever prototype drawing of a bear shield from 1933 or so was a 49.  the next one was, surprisingly enough, a 262!

QuoteOn I-9, there's WA-900 to WA-976 (there aren't 76 highways after I-90, though).

976? There's 900, 902, 904, 906, and 908 (for now) that are numbered after I-90. SRs 970 and 971 are branches off of US-97 (those being the more recent branches. Older US-97 branches were the 15x series, of which only 153 and 155 remain). 970 was created from old 97 when they put US-97 on SR 151 from Ellensburg north and 971 is one of the 1992 revamp of the system.

QuoteOn I-5, there is WA-500 all the way up to WA-527

All the way to 599, even! And those follow a loose-north south structure. For instance 500 is the southernmost. The only exceptions are 508 south of 507, 509 south of 512, 599 being its own animal between 518 and 519 (it connects I-5 to SR 99), 513 being north of 520, 528 being north of 529, 531 being south of 530, 542 being south of 539, and 543 being north of all but 548.

That holds true with most other branch routes in the state too- at least in the original 64 scheme. It's gotten a bit cluttered over the years, but for the most part it still works. Looking at US-12, for instance, 121 is west of 122 which is west of 123 which is west of 124 which is west of 125 which is west of 127 which is west of 128 which is west of 129. SR 131 is the weird exception there, but it's a 1992 route between 122 and 123.

SR 3- as you mentioned. 300 is southernmost, then comes 302, then 304, then 310, then 303, then 305, then 308, then 307. 307 and 310 are newer routes, however.

I-90 initially fit that scheme- you had 900, then 901, then 902, then 904. 906 and 908 came later and 901 is gone now.

101's children are also numbered interestingly - 102, 103, 104, etc.  does this mean that even by 1964 the state of Washington was well aware that US-10 was a short-lived idea?  there is a WA-10.

Washington has always loved branches.  the 1938 system had suffixed letters to represent branches off a primary, unsuffixed route.  Did they ever have branches of US routes?  I know the 2 set is a state route.

(was there a state 2 and a US 2 between 1948 and 1964?)

Quote101's children are also numbered interestingly - 102, 103, 104, etc.  does this mean that even by 1964 the state of Washington was well aware that US-10 was a short-lived idea?  there is a WA-10.

Washington has always loved branches.  the 1938 system had suffixed letters to represent branches off a primary, unsuffixed route.  Did they ever have branches of US routes?  I know the 2 set is a state route.

(was there a state 2 and a US 2 between 1948 and 1964?)

Make me pull out my 63 map of Washington...fine (getting a 63 and 64 map of Washington was one of my best investments ever- highly recommended). The branches were always signed after the State highway- pre-1964 Washington acted like most southern states and all US routes had a corresponding state route, so the suffix always went off the state route.

Old Highway 2 did the following. US-10 from Seattle to Cle Elum. US-97 from  Cle Elum to Wenatchee. US-2 from Wenatchee to Spokane. US-10 again from Spokane to Idaho. It was presumably cosigned with those routes. Actually, it looks like there were 3 non-branch routings of 2 in the Puget Sound area. One from Auburn to US-10 following ~ SR 18, one along US-10, and one from downtown Seattle south along old SR 167 (Rainier Avenue), then following the current SR 900 corridor to Issaquah where it caught 10 again. This is all as of 1963- that's the oldest official map I own.

Even in 1964 the numbers were off 101. 900, 901, and 902 all existed in 1964 in pretty much their final states, except 902 didn't connect to 90/10 on both sides, it was just a spur to Med Lake from the east side, so yeah, I'd guess Washington just was prepared for I-90.

Interestingly, and I never noticed this before, 410's child routes from Wallula junction east to Idaho were all 12xs. That could be a product of that route being along the same latitude as SR 12 (now SR 14), or it could have been a preemptive assumption that they were getting US-12, which didn't happen for another 8 years or so. I suspect it's the former because other routes along the 12 corridor (old SR 14, old SR 8 ) have children numbered properly and there would have been no point in numbering what is now 14 as 12 and what is now 12 as 14 if they suspected they were getting it.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 30, 2010, 10:52:14 PM

Quote from: Quillz on August 30, 2010, 10:38:36 PM
Another thing I find odd is how most states assign route numbers. California, for example... I just can't figure it out. Highway 1 starts along the coast, but Highway 3 isn't the next major highway to the east. It's a little tiny highway way up in extreme Northern California, in a very unpopulated area. Highway 2 and 4 aren't in the far south of the state, for example. So, do numbers just get assigned randomly? And it's like this in other states... The numbers don't seem to follow any kind of pattern or grid or anything.

the California system originally made sense and followed a grid, but then it has gotten changed so many times that it no longer resembles any pattern, unless you really carefully know where to look.

the original 1934 pattern actually had two grids: northern and southern California, two approximately square zones.  Route 1, which spanned the entire state, was an exception, but then 2 and 3 were in southern Cal - with 2 going E-W and 3 going N-S.  Similarly, 4 was an E-W in northern CA and 5 was a N-S in northern CA.

the numbers that conflicted with US routes were skipped.  Since the US route system was already in place, no state route numbers needed to be changed.

2 is still around essentially where it always has been.  3 became Alternate 101 in 1936 and then the extended Bear 1 took over it in 1964.  4 is still 4, from Hercules to Ebbetts Pass and beyond.  And 5 is now 35 because they needed the number for the interstates.  When the interstates came, conflicting numbers were reassigned: original bear 15 (Atlantic Blvd, I think, in Los Angeles) became the 7 freeway, while the older 7 (Sepulveda Blvd and then the San Diego Freeway) became the 405 freeway.

so for a while, certain logical grids existed, of which only pieces can be discerned today.  5, 9, 17, 21 in the Bay Area for example - with 13 getting inserted logically a couple years later.  17 is now partly 880 and partly 580, and 21 is 680.  

in the south: bear 6 (yes, there was such a thing before US-6 came to town), bear 10 (yep, another one who gave up the number), bear 14, bear 18 ran parallel, and bear 22 and bear 26 were nearby - 22 being still around, with bear 30 to the north (got replaced by 210), bear 34 in Oxnard, bear 38 a bit to the east, bear 42 on Manchester Blvd.  That's about the most consistent application of the grid I can think of.

as for what survives today?  well, bear 19, bear 23 and bear 27 are still around for instance.  

the reason the system degenerated into such a mess was because when new numbers were needed, after 1964 they just reused whatever was available.  Thus, 3 was around, and it was randomly located upstate in the Yreka area.  

7 - oh boy where do I start?  7 was originally the longest route in the system: it came down from Modoc County on what is now US-395 (a 1935 addition to CA), followed that to the 6/395 junction at Brady, followed 6 (now 14) to Castaic Junction where it briefly met up with US-99.  Then from San Fernando Blvd it turned down Sepulveda Blvd and followed that all the way down to the LAX area where it ran into bear 3.  

in 1935 it was truncated to Brady Junction with the arrival of US-395 (which took the other branch) but immediately in 1937 it was re-truncated because of 6's arrival, and 7 was only Sepulveda Blvd down to what is now LAX to the 3 junction.  

this way it stayed until the 1950s when the San Diego Freeway got the number, which at some point (1959?) got signed solely as I-405, relinquishing the number 7 to what was originally the 15 freeway - the Long Beach Freeway.  15 needed to become used on Interstate 15 so bear 15 was retired and the freeway from Long Beach to Pasadena became bear 7, white spade 7, green spade 7, etc.  Until 1981 when California decided that every route needed to be an interstate.  So long bear 7, because now it is interstate 701.

so when they needed some halfway worthless connector road to Mexico to be a state highway, and the number 7 was available ... yep, 7 went from the longest route in the system to the shortest.

all of the post-1964 routes, which includes everything numbered 200 and higher, were added in the order that the route was added to the system.  That is why you have 237 and 238 near each other (added via same project), and 236 and 239 somewhere completely far off.  

QuoteInterstate 99 is odd, too. Why couldn't it have just been given an x80 number? I'm surprised Bud Schuster didn't just call it Interstate 1.

he should've called it interstate Vote Bud.

Wow, thanks for all this info. I did know about NorCal and SoCal being assigned routes in pairs of two in a somewhat orderly basis. But I never knew why it got as messed up as it did. Very interesting.

I assume, then, that this is probably a similar case for some of the other states?

Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 30, 2010, 10:52:14 PM



2 is still around essentially where it always has been.  3 became Alternate 101 in 1936 and then the extended Bear 1 took over it in 1964.  4 is still 4, from Hercules to Ebbetts Pass and beyond.  And 5 is now 35 because they needed the number for the interstates.  When the interstates came, conflicting numbers were reassigned: original bear 15 (Atlantic Blvd, I think, in Los Angeles) became the 7 freeway, while the older 7 (Sepulveda Blvd and then the San Diego Freeway) became the 405 freeway.

Don't forget the segment of 7 in Hawthorne that immediately became the third three digit child route in the state (after 440 and 740), 107 - which existed as early as 1942!  (This was when 7 was rerouted to follow Sepulveda south of Santa Monica, instead of today's 107)

Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 30, 2010, 10:52:14 PM
so for a while, certain logical grids existed, of which only pieces can be discerned today.  5, 9, 17, 21 in the Bay Area for example - with 13 getting inserted logically a couple years later.  17 is now partly 880 and partly 580, and 21 is 680.  

IIRC - and I recall mentioning it recently - 17 was originally to be 13, but I don't know if that was ever signed, and 13 wouldn't be reused until 1964 for Warren Freeway/Ashby Avenue.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 30, 2010, 10:52:14 PM

in the south: bear 6 (yes, there was such a thing before US-6 came to town), bear 10 (yep, another one who gave up the number), bear 14, bear 18 ran parallel, and bear 22 and bear 26 were nearby - 22 being still around, with bear 30 to the north (got replaced by 210), bear 34 in Oxnard, bear 38 a bit to the east, bear 42 on Manchester Blvd.  That's about the most consistent application of the grid I can think of.

Bear 42 didn't exist until the 1950s to supplant what was route 10 west of today's I-5 (the segment eastward that was bear 10/Bypass US 101 became mainline US 101 and I-5, now solely I-5, between Whittier Boulevard and Norwalk).  Bear 26's corridor was subsumed by I-10 in the 1950s

Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 30, 2010, 10:52:14 PM

all of the post-1964 routes, which includes everything numbered 200 and higher, were added in the order that the route was added to the system.  That is why you have 237 and 238 near each other (added via same project), and 236 and 239 somewhere completely far off.  

Coincidentally, 236, 237, 238 all are former segments of Route 9 (except for the part of 238 decomissioned in the late 1960s that followed old Route 17 from Fremont to the Bayshore Freeway in San Jose).  

Quote from: TheStranger on August 31, 2010, 02:30:22 AM

Don't forget the segment of 7 in Hawthorne that immediately became the third three digit child route in the state (after 440 and 740), 107 - which existed as early as 1942!  (This was when 7 was rerouted to follow Sepulveda south of Santa Monica, instead of today's 107)

I had no idea that 7 originally went down Hawthorne Blvd - or that 107 was an explicit connection. 

QuoteIIRC - and I recall mentioning it recently - 17 was originally to be 13, but I don't know if that was ever signed, and 13 wouldn't be reused until 1964 for Warren Freeway/Ashby Avenue.

that explains the absence of bear 13 shields, which I would have figured would be a collector's item.  then again, there is an absence of bear 69, which was around in the 40s, no?

QuoteCoincidentally, 236, 237, 238 all are former segments of Route 9 (except for the part of 238 decomissioned in the late 1960s that followed old Route 17 from Fremont to the Bayshore Freeway in San Jose).  

I don't have any idea where 236 is.  Great, so where is 239?  At some point you're going to get one just way the hell out in some other part of the state.  241 is down in Orange County.  Where is 240?

Route 236 is actually very close to Route 9. It's a scenic, eastern bypass of Route 9, beginning and ending at the route.

There isn't a 240 to my knowledge, since it would more than likely be preserved for a future I-40 3di.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 31, 2010, 12:06:53 PM

Quote from: TheStranger on August 31, 2010, 02:30:22 AM

Don't forget the segment of 7 in Hawthorne that immediately became the third three digit child route in the state (after 440 and 740), 107 - which existed as early as 1942!  (This was when 7 was rerouted to follow Sepulveda south of Santa Monica, instead of today's 107)

I had no idea that 7 originally went down Hawthorne Blvd - or that 107 was an explicit connection.  

http://members.cox.net/mkpl2/hist/droz-laca42.jpg shows 7 and 107 near each other, making the relationship somewhat more obvious.  (107 would have not fit the 1934 numbering system - it is a 3 digit route entirely within an urban area)

www.aaroads.com/shields/misc/State_Route_Markers_Aug1934.pdf specifically places the southern terminus at "Route 3 in Torrance" for bear 7, as opposed to the Inglewood/LAX junction.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 31, 2010, 12:06:53 PM

QuoteIIRC - and I recall mentioning it recently - 17 was originally to be 13, but I don't know if that was ever signed, and 13 wouldn't be reused until 1964 for Warren Freeway/Ashby Avenue.

that explains the absence of bear 13 shields, which I would have figured would be a collector's item.  then again, there is an absence of bear 69, which was around in the 40s, no?

IIRC, 69 was only used from 1964-1968 for a former segment of Route 65, renumbered to Route 245 in 1968.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 31, 2010, 12:06:53 PM

QuoteCoincidentally, 236, 237, 238 all are former segments of Route 9 (except for the part of 238 decomissioned in the late 1960s that followed old Route 17 from Fremont to the Bayshore Freeway in San Jose).  

I don't have any idea where 236 is.  Great, so where is 239?  At some point you're going to get one just way the hell out in some other part of the state.  241 is down in Orange County.  Where is 240?

As Quillz noted, Route 236 is parallel (but windier) to Route 9 in Big Basin Park in Santa Cruz County...I've been on it once - many, many years ago.

Quote from: QuillzThere isn't a 240 to my knowledge, since it would more than likely be preserved for a future I-40 3di.

Route 240 originally was assigned to a portion of freeway that later became part of the definition of I-605, but remains unbuilt (the segment from Route 1 to Route 22).  Route 239 refers to the unbuilt freeway from Route 4 near Brentwood to the 205/580 junction which was along the corridor that would have become part of the Mid-State Tollway.

The 241 number has been used 3 times - once from 1964-1965 for an unbuilt "East Bypass" for today's Route/I-110 between I-5 and US 101, that would have somehow gone through the heart of downtown Los Angeles, then in 1968-1972 for the Western Freeway segment of I-80 that was never built in San Francisco, with the current route being defined in 1988.

I would hope CA, sometime in the future, reuses some of the available two-digit numbers, like 21, 30, 31, 42, 48, etc.

yes, but let's not waste them on useless connectors to Mexico.

21 would be a good number for that freeway in the East Bay between San Jose and Fairfield.

Future Interstate 905, Route 7 and Route 11 are the only three highways that are connecting to Mexico outside of the older ones, like I-5, CA-111, CA-188 and CA-186.

I actually wish CA-21 was used for what is today CA-14. It just makes much more sense, but CA-14 has been around for nearly half a century now.

Quote from: Quillz on August 31, 2010, 12:37:19 PM
Future Interstate 905, Route 7 and Route 11 are the only three highways that are connecting to Mexico outside of the older ones, like I-5, CA-111, CA-188 and CA-186.

11 seems to honestly be more logically placed with the "905" corridor than the 905 southward turn to the existing border crossing (which IIRC was legislatively part of 125 at one point); in any case, that and 7 are such wastes of small numbers.  There were plenty of 3-digit numbers available at the time those two routes were comissioned, i.e. 106, 117!

Quote from: Quillz

I actually wish CA-21 was used for what is today CA-14. It just makes much more sense, but CA-14 has been around for nearly half a century now.

Something I just noticed - whenever a US route alignment was demoted to state route, it often gained a new number NOT matching the US route's original orientation!

Route 82, 72, 254 - US 101
Route 14 - US 6 (note, north-south)
Route 123 - Business US 40
Route 204 - US 99 (and US 466)
Route 159 - Alternate US 66 (but also former Route 11)
1964 Route 163 - US 6 (but also US 99)


Route 163 is one of the few that does align with its original route's cardinal direction (US 395), as does Route 271 (US 101), Route 248 (former US 66), Route 58 (former US 466, number same as former LRN), and Route 46 (US 466).

Well I'm surprised no one has posted here for this long but I have a couple to add

I noticed rumble strips on US 460 in Sussex County(not including Waverly or Wakefield) on a trip to Virginia Diner.  I'm not sure when VDOT put them there but they should at least somewhat prevent head-on collisions.  (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi622.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt304%2F24DIDNOTWIN%2F120.jpg&hash=5c827557d937f998660024a29f4b8cbe7417280b)

Heather Drive at Prices Fork Road in Blacksburg(the main entrance to the area of Blacksburg I live at while at school).  For the record I haven't seen any pedestrians coming EB on Prices Fork yet.  
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi622.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt304%2F24DIDNOTWIN%2FHEATHERDRNBATSR685PRICESFORKRD.jpg&hash=81aee2f276eabca4a6cdc114cd3406c4aa67de55)

VA 13 (which I'll cover in another post later) also has rumble strips like that west of US 522 SR 1002. It's quite an experience for the uninitiated, especially when you have an older car like the one I drove at the time.

I think median rumble strips like that are fairly common in more Western states. I'm pretty sure I've seen pictures of them in California.

indeed, in CA they are the norm, rather than the exception - and they are quite common in surrounding states as well.

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 25, 2011, 06:27:21 PM
I think median rumble strips like that are fairly common in more Western states. I'm pretty sure I've seen pictures of them in California.

MoDOT has them.

As does Michigan.

Washington does them extensively, and they've popped up on SH-55 in Idaho.

I dislike them in snow related situations for a couple reasons

1. The lane area shifts sometimes as winter progresses and snow accumulates along the edges- if the plow drivers aren't perfectly even, the middle of the road is sometimes off the line, and then you're stuck driving on a rumble strip. I guess this would apply to shoulder strips too. This is especially the case right after a heavy snow when pavement isn't exposed  yet but you can somehow still feel the rumble strips under the tire.
2. Ice accumulates in them, creating a super slick patch on otherwise clear roads on cold days, making passing a bit sketchier sometimes. If they'd only apply them in no passing zones (Idaho does this, Washington does not), then that problem is averted.

Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on March 25, 2009, 05:36:43 PM
That sign's been blank since at least 2006.

Ummm....why bother to hang the sign if it's blank? Wouldn't they have to take it down to put something on it? (I'm sitting here laughing at the stupidity of it all as I type this).

I've encountered centerline rumble strips in many eastern states, including Virginia, Maryland (US 113 on the Eastern Shore), Massachusetts (MA 2, others), New Hampshire, and possibly Vermont and Maine (can't remember for certain but I seem to recall them)

I like them, but I agree with corco, they're really annoying in passing zones. Particularly the really deep ones Maryland seems to use.

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 25, 2011, 06:27:21 PM
I think median rumble strips like that are fairly common in more Western states. I'm pretty sure I've seen pictures of them in California.

NDOT has been installing them quite aggressively in Nevada. At this point, the majority of two-lane U.S. highways have centerline rumble strips, and many of the two-lane state highways do as well.

Quote from: corco on December 25, 2011, 11:04:13 PM
2. Ice accumulates in them, creating a super slick patch on otherwise clear roads on cold days, making passing a bit sketchier sometimes. If they'd only apply them in no passing zones (Idaho does this, Washington does not), then that problem is averted.

NDOT also uses the centerline strips through the entire length of road and not just no passing zones. Their reason for installing them is to decrease the amount of head-on collisions due to people drifting across the centerline. Nevada has sections of rural highway that are sometimes 20 or more miles of perfectly straight blacktop with passing allowed. These areas tend to also be where these lane drift accidents occur, so omitting the center rumble strips is not helpful to the stated goal for installing them.

Quote from: corco on December 25, 2011, 11:04:13 PM
Washington does them extensively, and they've popped up on SH-55 in Idaho.

I dislike them in snow related situations for a couple reasons

1. The lane area shifts sometimes as winter progresses and snow accumulates along the edges- if the plow drivers aren't perfectly even, the middle of the road is sometimes off the line, and then you're stuck driving on a rumble strip. I guess this would apply to shoulder strips too. This is especially the case right after a heavy snow when pavement isn't exposed  yet but you can somehow still feel the rumble strips under the tire.
2. Ice accumulates in them, creating a super slick patch on otherwise clear roads on cold days, making passing a bit sketchier sometimes. If they'd only apply them in no passing zones (Idaho does this, Washington does not), then that problem is averted.

It's not necessarily a bad thing, since it's improved traction, but it's rather annoying.  

I think rumble strips on the middle make perfect sense.  Living in both Washington and California, it's a bit odd that other states don't do it too.


I'm sure most people are aware of this, but Oregon tends to omit 'LIMIT' on the 'SPEED LIMIT' signs.  As of 2009, they're starting to use SPEED LIMIT signs on I-5.

[Edited to remove font tag. Please don't use font tags, it can make your text harder to read in other user's browsers if they don't have the specified font installed. This doesn't happen with the default font. See http://i.imgur.com/2PWkL.png for an example. -S.]

Québec is experimenting with centre line rumble strips, and Vermont and Ontraio have them as well.

QuoteI think rumble strips on the middle make perfect sense.  Living in both Washington and California, it's a bit odd that other states don't do it too.

Eh, I have no objection to them on open, straight roads with a lot of traffic where drivers could easily stop paying attention and lane drift,  but on curvy mountain roads where people are generally paying more attention they're kind of annoying, especially in low traffic situations where curves aren't blind (so you can see around them) and it's more efficient to briefly jut into the other lane rather than slow all the way down.

Quote from: corco on December 26, 2011, 08:48:06 PM

QuoteI think rumble strips on the middle make perfect sense.  Living in both Washington and California, it's a bit odd that other states don't do it too.

Eh, I have no objection to them on open, straight roads with a lot of traffic where drivers could easily stop paying attention and lane drift,  but on curvy mountain roads where people are generally paying more attention they're kind of annoying, especially in low traffic situations where curves aren't blind (so you can see around them) and it's more efficient to briefly jut into the other lane rather than slow all the way down.

Generally, when it's used in California, it's not used in an extremely curvy road.  Today, I went to Pebble Beach, and the only time I came across it was on CA-156 between Prunedale and Castroville, which is a straight section of tarmac.

PennDOT loves using the centerline rumble strips. I've seen them used on most of the roads in the state.

Michigan seems to love rumble strips. Occasionally one has to cross them while going through construction zones.

Quote from: KEK Inc. on December 26, 2011, 08:51:41 PM
Generally, when it's used in California, it's not used in an extremely curvy road.  Today, I went to Pebble Beach, and the only time I came across it was on CA-156 between Prunedale and Castroville, which is a straight section of tarmac.

Curviness(?) is not the reason why a 2-lane road gets a centerline rumble strip... it has to do with the accident rate, namely head-on collisions.  The only 2-lane roads I have driven on that have the centerline rumble strip are CA-25 from US 101 to Hollister, CA-152 in segments from US 101 to CA-156, CA-156 between Prunedale and Castroville and CA-58 between Boron and Barstow.  All these roads had high rates of head-on collisions.

I was driving on I-85 through Gwinnett County, GA (slightly northeast of Atlanta) earlier today and noticed, in addition to the HOT lane being devoid of any cars, that the HOT lane is separated from the other lanes by a rumble strip between two solid white lines.

CT had them on US-6 put people actually complained b/c it created noise when vehicles made left turns into driveways and the DOT took them out.

Quote from: doofy103 on December 29, 2011, 10:42:35 PM
CT had them on US-6 put people actually complained b/c it created noise when vehicles made left turns into driveways and the DOT took them out.

Michigan averts that issue by creating breaks in the rumble strips at driveways.