I'm not talking about route discontinuities. I'm talking about being on a continuous route that you cannot follow for whatever reason. Isolated examples have come up in different threads, but I don't think we've ever had a catch-all.
* US 61 in Turrel, AR (the most recent) - cannot jump onto I-55 heading SB, missing ramp
* US 85/87, I forget where, mysteriously begins and ends without any I-25 interchange
* Long ago, someone mentioned a no-left-turn prohibition that took out the through route.
For a couple of years, it seemed that NJ 29 had an issue where one block of it was one-way SB only, but NJ 29 NB still officially went that way. I know there are scattered county routes where this happens as well, not necessarily in NJ (though Hudson County has a number of one-way county routes, so it might).
It appears VA 131 has a situation like NJ 29. http://www.vahighways.com/route-log/va121-140.htm#va131
Currently, you cannot get to SB IL-129 from SB I-55 at Exit 238 in Wilmington, Illinois. The ramp and bridge were removed this past summer. IDOT also removed the U-turn ramp there making the other movement, NB IL-129 to SB I-55 impossible without using the next interchange.
US-10 between Manitowoc, WI and Ludington, MI for most of the year. Whether US-10 in Michigan should be downgraded to a state highway is another topic.
Quote from: Brandon on December 30, 2012, 09:07:37 PM
Currently, you cannot get to SB IL-129 from SB I-55 at Exit 238 in Wilmington, Illinois. The ramp and bridge were removed this past summer. IDOT also removed the U-turn ramp there making the other movement, NB IL-129 to SB I-55 impossible without using the next interchange.
That's just an interchange with missing movements, not a case where you can't follow a through route.
Quote from: Kacie Jane on December 30, 2012, 09:45:01 PM
Quote from: Brandon on December 30, 2012, 09:07:37 PM
Currently, you cannot get to SB IL-129 from SB I-55 at Exit 238 in Wilmington, Illinois. The ramp and bridge were removed this past summer. IDOT also removed the U-turn ramp there making the other movement, NB IL-129 to SB I-55 impossible without using the next interchange.
That's just an interchange with missing movements, not a case where you can't follow a through route.
However, it is also the beginning/ending point for IL-129, thus, the movements are missing to continue onto a through route.
Quote from: Steve on December 30, 2012, 08:51:20 PM
* Long ago, someone mentioned a no-left-turn prohibition that took out the through route.
A bike route in Frisco.
Not very well known, but there is a very short segment of CT 10 in Hamden where you cannot follow the through route southbound. The road splits into 2 1-way segments around 2 gas stations and a Popeye's. The northbound segment is designated as CT 10, but the southbound segment is SR 706. They come back together in less than 1000 ft.
More than once, the District of Columbia has denied left turns at intersections where one of the U.S. routes passing through D.C. is supposed to make that left.
Several times on U.S. 29, and at least once on U.S. 1. Not sure if it has happened on U.S. 50 or not.
The No Left Turn signs have been removed when the error was pointed out.
Quote from: Kacie Jane on December 30, 2012, 09:45:01 PM
Quote from: Brandon on December 30, 2012, 09:07:37 PM
Currently, you cannot get to SB IL-129 from SB I-55 at Exit 238 in Wilmington, Illinois. The ramp and bridge were removed this past summer. IDOT also removed the U-turn ramp there making the other movement, NB IL-129 to SB I-55 impossible without using the next interchange.
That's just an interchange with missing movements, not a case where you can't follow a through route.
Sounds like the same is true with US 61. According to Teh Googles, you have to travel up US 63 to the first available exit and then double back.
Quote from: Steve on December 30, 2012, 08:51:20 PM
I'm not talking about route discontinuities. I'm talking about being on a continuous route that you cannot follow for whatever reason. Isolated examples have come up in different threads, but I don't think we've ever had a catch-all.
* US 85/87, I forget where, mysteriously begins and ends without any I-25 interchange
This is north of Fountain, south of Colorado Springs CO. The road carrying U.S. 85-87 crosses I-25 and the routes (northbound) join I-25 there, but there is no interchange. In eastern Colorado, U.S. 24 parallels I-70 and similarly, invisibly, westbound jumps onto the interstate. Same stretch of U.S. 24 going east out of Burlington just ends, and the road becomes the undesignated I-70 frontage road toward Kansas.
US 377 south in Fort Worth. The sign says to follow US 377 with US 287 and I-35W going back north but there's nothing posted after that. You'd have to get on Pharr St. and get back on 35W SB.
While it is technically possible to follow the through routes through Syracuse and Plattsburg, the signage there is so bad that you're sure to get lost along the way unless you carefully plan everything. In Plattsburg, the signage even lies around the NY 3/US 9 intersection.
In Vermont, you have US 7A which only exists southbound.
Quote from: bassoon1986 on December 31, 2012, 11:26:13 AM
US 377 south in Fort Worth. The sign says to follow US 377 with US 287 and I-35W going back north but there's nothing posted after that. You'd have to get on Pharr St. and get back on 35W SB.
You can certainly follow it; it's just not signed.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 31, 2012, 09:33:51 AM
More than once, the District of Columbia has denied left turns at intersections where one of the U.S. routes passing through D.C. is supposed to make that left.
Several times on U.S. 29, and at least once on U.S. 1. Not sure if it has happened on U.S. 50 or not.
The No Left Turn signs have been removed when the error was pointed out.
This situation also prevents one from following US 33 EB leaving US 250 right before it transitions to VA 33 in Richmond.
Mapmikey
Quote from: NE2 on December 31, 2012, 12:39:09 PM
Quote from: bassoon1986 on December 31, 2012, 11:26:13 AM
US 377 south in Fort Worth. The sign says to follow US 377 with US 287 and I-35W going back north but there's nothing posted after that. You'd have to get on Pharr St. and get back on 35W SB.
You can certainly follow it; it's just not signed.
Well isn't that the same thing as the OP's US 61 example? Both highways "end" with no ramp to the rest of the route and no signage to show you how to get to the route?
Quote from: bassoon1986 on December 31, 2012, 01:03:48 PM
Quote from: NE2 on December 31, 2012, 12:39:09 PM
Quote from: bassoon1986 on December 31, 2012, 11:26:13 AM
US 377 south in Fort Worth. The sign says to follow US 377 with US 287 and I-35W going back north but there's nothing posted after that. You'd have to get on Pharr St. and get back on 35W SB.
You can certainly follow it; it's just not signed.
Well isn't that the same thing as the OP's US 61 example? Both highways "end" with no ramp to the rest of the route and no signage to show you how to get to the route?
No, because US 61 has no ramp. Period. You have to go up US 63 to the first interchange and U-turn.
How about NB MD 528 in Ocean City, MD on Philadelphia Avenue? Where the one way pair of streets are Baltimore Avenue (NB) and Philadelphia Avenue (SB) MD 528 is only assigned on Philadelphia while its counterpart has another unsigned MD Route 378.
However, with MD 378 signed or unsigned, you have that to at least make the connection. It may count as one as a very unusual situation as normally both streets of a one way pair have the same number. It is odd that MDSHA would give another route number instead of letting them both be MD 528.
Then again you cannot travel MD 528 NB a few blocks from US 50 northward, so I guess you can count it from that point of view as legislatively MD 528 is only on Philadelphia Avenue a one way street.
Quote from: Road Hog on December 31, 2012, 10:14:28 AM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on December 30, 2012, 09:45:01 PM
Quote from: Brandon on December 30, 2012, 09:07:37 PM
Currently, you cannot get to SB IL-129 from SB I-55 at Exit 238 in Wilmington, Illinois. The ramp and bridge were removed this past summer. IDOT also removed the U-turn ramp there making the other movement, NB IL-129 to SB I-55 impossible without using the next interchange.
That's just an interchange with missing movements, not a case where you can't follow a through route.
Sounds like the same is true with US 61. According to Teh Googles, you have to travel up US 63 to the first available exit and then double back.
Teh Googles isn't worth a damn. That is how you would have to go (driving 2.6 miles out of your way) if you wanted to follow US 61, but I highly doubt that any portion of that route is actually designated as part of US 61, and Street View confirms that it's not signed as such.
The other huge difference between this and the IL 129 example is that, while it may be awkward to end at a glorified RIRO, it doesn't stop you from following IL 129 because once you've reached the interchange, you're done. Here, you can't follow US 61 (or AR 77 for that matter) without doubling back for two and a half miles.
Other Maryland examples:
US 1 in Baltimore City - south of North Ave, US 1 is routed southbound on Monroe and northbound on Fulton. Nevermind the fact that Fulton Ave is two way at this point. So if you are on southbound Fulton, you are not on the route.
MD 7 in Elkton - part of East Main Street is eastbound only. Therefore, if you are traveling westbound from the route's beginning near the DE line, there is a break in the route.
MD 139- traveling northbound, there is a break in the route where you must drive on Charlcote Rd before turning left to stay on the route. This is because of some two-way one-way two-way one-way weirdness on Charles Street.
Burlington County NJ has a county route that was cut off due to 9/11, and a state route terminus was cut off due to the same reason.
New Jersey Route 68 ends at General Circle on Joint Base Dix-McGuire-Lakehurst, along with CR 616
County Route 545, the section through the Fort Dix side of the base has long been closed to through traffic. Traffic is detoured through an upgraded road called Range Road that formed the back route to Wrightstown NJ, and was upgraded to handle the traffic that is forced to use it through a repaving and regrading of the shoulders. This road services the ranges setup in the woods around the area.
Technicaly Us9 in NJ cannot be followed through, due to the Beesleys Point Bridge being closed, and the parkway serving as Temporary US9.
If you follow the trail blazing for US 206 in Lawrenceville, NJ you will not be following the through route. At the point where US 206 turns south on Princeton Avenue, there is a sign missing where US 206 SB changes alignment. If you continue on the main road ahead, that is only NB US 206 but a two way road, you will end up at the Brunswick Circle where there is another US 206 shield directing SB US 206 back to itself via Strawberry Street.
Nonetheless, you are leaving the mainline unless you know the actual alignment and make the turn where the sign is lacking.
Found another one I sorta knew about - NJ 88 eastbound, you are forced straight onto a county route at NJ 70 at a five-way intersection, and have to turn left/right to continue on legislated 88.
Quote from: Steve on January 06, 2013, 11:12:20 PM
Found another one I sorta knew about - NJ 88 eastbound, you are forced straight onto a county route at NJ 70 at a five-way intersection, and have to turn left/right to continue on legislated 88.
This is 88 eastbound according to the SLD.
Quote from: NE2 on January 06, 2013, 11:14:20 PM
Quote from: Steve on January 06, 2013, 11:12:20 PM
Found another one I sorta knew about - NJ 88 eastbound, you are forced straight onto a county route at NJ 70 at a five-way intersection, and have to turn left/right to continue on legislated 88.
This is 88 eastbound according to the SLD.
Yeah, it's a strange case because if you're heading east on 70, the bear right onto what has always been 88 is indeed signed as East 88. You can see that as you drive straight on 88 EB but can't turn to follow the sign.
Quote from: Steve on December 30, 2012, 08:51:20 PM
I'm not talking about route discontinuities. I'm talking about being on a continuous route that you cannot follow for whatever reason. Isolated examples have come up in different threads, but I don't think we've ever had a catch-all.
* US 61 in Turrel, AR (the most recent) - cannot jump onto I-55 heading SB, missing ramp
Being discussed here in greater detail (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=8358.msg193682#msg193682)
I ould like to add: NY120-A in Rye Brook. Doesn't it siz-zag into CT for a bit? I don't think CT names it CT120-A.
Also, CT-34 in New Haven along the frontage roads. The South Frontage Road is techincally CT-34 but the NB is not. Of course, it was that way b/c of the proposed expressway that was and will never be built.
Unless I'm mistaken, doofy103, this thread is not about roads that enter other states briefly, but about roads that have a physical discontinuity, i.e. you physically cannot follow them. Things like a road being converted to one-way without the route changing, roads being cut off, or left turns being prohibited where a route turns.
QuoteMore than once, the District of Columbia has denied left turns at intersections where one of the U.S. routes passing through D.C. is supposed to make that left.
Several times on U.S. 29, and at least once on U.S. 1. Not sure if it has happened on U.S. 50 or not.
None on 50, regardless of whether you consider westbound 50/southbound 1 to follow 6th or 9th.
The only one on 1 is where you can't turn left from westbound Constitution to southbound 14th. Likewise, there's only one I know of on 29...at 7th and Rhode Island.
Quote from: froggie on January 14, 2013, 08:19:09 PM
The only one on 1 is where you can't turn left from westbound Constitution to southbound 14th.
Where US 1 southbound uses 15th according to almost every detailed map I've seen (including USGS, implied). The change happened before 1956: http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~212314~5500349:Shell-Central-Washington--D-C---12-?sort=Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No (the oneway arrows appear to refer to routes rather than streets, given the lack of any on streets not carrying routes)
Quote from: froggie on January 14, 2013, 08:19:09 PM
Likewise, there's only one I know of on 29...at 7th and Rhode Island.
US 29 uses 6th between RI and Florida. The sign on RI is missing, but the Goog shows a sign on 6th at Florida (and southbound 6th at RI).
Quote from: doofy103 on January 14, 2013, 06:19:04 PM
I ould like to add: NY120-A in Rye Brook. Doesn't it siz-zag into CT for a bit? I don't think CT names it CT120-A.
Also, CT-34 in New Haven along the frontage roads. The South Frontage Road is techincally CT-34 but the NB is not. Of course, it was that way b/c of the proposed expressway that was and will never be built.
It is NY 120A in CT and maintained by NYSDOT.
QuoteWhere US 1 southbound uses 15th according to almost every detailed map I've seen (including USGS, implied).
Unofficially, yes. But every official DATASET I've seen has US 1 only on 14th. Including recent GIS datasets from both DDOT and FHWA.
QuoteUS 29 uses 6th between RI and Florida. The sign on RI is missing, but the Goog shows a sign on 6th at Florida (and southbound 6th at RI).
Yes, I've seen the signs, but the datasets still have US 29 along 7th between Rhode Island and Florida.
Slightly tangential to the topic: CA 83's northern terminus is at CA 210. There are no ramps from CA 210 to Euclid Ave at all, yet CA 83 does not terminate at the preceding nor following arteries.
Quote from: froggie on January 15, 2013, 08:19:13 PM
QuoteWhere US 1 southbound uses 15th according to almost every detailed map I've seen (including USGS, implied).
Unofficially, yes. But every official DATASET I've seen has US 1 only on 14th. Including recent GIS datasets from both DDOT and FHWA.
QuoteUS 29 uses 6th between RI and Florida. The sign on RI is missing, but the Goog shows a sign on 6th at Florida (and southbound 6th at RI).
Yes, I've seen the signs, but the datasets still have US 29 along 7th between Rhode Island and Florida.
Since there's no official routing sent down by Moses's imaginary friend, it's likely that whoever was creating the data guessed (and didn't realize you couldn't follow their routing).
Quote from: NE2 on January 15, 2013, 08:45:29 PM
Since there's no official routing sent down by Moses's imaginary friend, it's likely that whoever was creating the data guessed (and didn't realize you couldn't follow their routing).
I'm pretty sure it's Moses himself. you think now that he's got cosmological powers, he's gonna stick to just New York?
NJ Secondary Route 527 (Middlessex County 527) in New Brunswick, NJ has a left turn prohibition at the intersection of George Street and Albany, Street where NB CR 527 turns left from George Street onto Albany Street to leave its concurrency with NJ 171 and join NJ 27 for a few short blocks.
I am not sure, but NJS 527 also has problems heading southbound at NJ 124 where Morris Avenue is one way NB and you must use WB NJ 124. WB CR 512, and then EB CR 512 to make the connection. Whether its on state line diagrams or not, I have no idea, but if it is not then the way via NJ 124 and CR 512 is defacto.
Also, I believe if you are heading on US 9 Southbound from NY into NJ, you cannot access the lower level of the George Washington Bridge. Although, the upper level is accessible and does not disrupt your travel, both levels are technically US 9 and only if you are going from I-95 & US 1 Southbound to US 9 Southbound you can accomplish this maneuver.
Eastbound FM-487 at Jarrell, TX (http://goo.gl/maps/9hQMb)
As it reaches I-35 from the west, there is no bridge over the interstate. The nearest bridge is about four blocks north, but the frontage road is one-way, so turning north is not allowed. The next crossover to the south is about a mile away, and is not signed for FM-487. It would be possible to use 1st Street and Avenue I as a detour through town, but these residential streets are not signed as FM-487 either, and trucks are prohibited.
On the other side of I-35, westbound traffic has no such gap, since FM-487 is signed on Sixth Street to the bridge, and can then continue south and west.
You can't get off of Interstate 90 westbound to access Interstate 115/I-90/15 Bus and you can't access eastbound Interstate 90 from I-115. Somehow, I find this very confusing. The way MDT has it designed is that you can only access I-115 by being in the left lane on the eastbound side of I-90. The bad thing is this. What if you were on I-115 already but you want to go back on to EB I-90? You can't. You have to access I-90 at another intersection down the road further from I-115. And this design does not make sense.
It was built on a budget- instead of building a massive flyover they only had to build one little overpass. For the amount of traffic in that area, it's fine.
The directional restrictions are well-signed, and it's only another half mile down Montana St to get back to I-90 west.
Those one way interchanges can be bad though- you want to see an ugly one that actually has lots of traffic, check out I-70/I-76 in Denver and I-70/I-270 in Denver, or I-84/I-15 south of Ogden UT
Partial interchanges have nothing to do with following the through route.
Quote from: Billy F 1988 on March 05, 2013, 06:00:54 PM
You can't get off of Interstate 90 westbound to access Interstate 115/I-90/15 Bus and you can't access eastbound Interstate 90 from I-115. Somehow, I find this very confusing. The way MDT has it designed is that you can only access I-115 by being in the left lane on the eastbound side of I-90. The bad thing is this. What if you were on I-115 already but you want to go back on to EB I-90? You can't. You have to access I-90 at another intersection down the road further from I-115. And this design does not make sense.
OK, I'm totally confused. Which through route is it impossible to follow?
Quote from: Billy F 1988 on March 05, 2013, 06:00:54 PM
You can't get off of Interstate 90 westbound to access Interstate 115/I-90/15 Bus and you can't access eastbound Interstate 90 from I-115. Somehow, I find this very confusing. The way MDT has it designed is that you can only access I-115 by being in the left lane on the eastbound side of I-90. The bad thing is this. What if you were on I-115 already but you want to go back on to EB I-90? You can't. You have to access I-90 at another intersection down the road further from I-115. And this design does not make sense.
Business routes tend to do that.
Something I noticed today: NYCDOT recently restriped the intersection of Fordham Road and Webster Avenue in The Bronx in order to add bus lanes to Webster Avenue. As part of doing so, left turns off of Fordham Road onto Webster Avenue are now prohibited. In order to follow US 1 southbound, you must... turn left off of Fordham Road onto Webster Avenue. So, here we have a newly created example of this!
To NYCDOT's credit, however, they recognized this problem and installed signs guiding motorists along a permanent detour (https://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=E+Fordham+Rd&daddr=40.859916,-73.890782+to:Webster+Ave&hl=en&sll=40.860604,-73.890545&sspn=0.004106,0.007757&geocode=FaZ6bwId14yY-w%3BFQx5bwIdIoSY-ymJsFqOf_TCiTE0c5DxKBJ56g%3BFYZ6bwIdOnyY-w&mra=dme&mrsp=2&sz=17&via=1&t=m&z=17). Which is impressive for a city that's usually loathe to sign routes on surface streets at all!
What will AASHTO think?
I don't think AASHTO officially cares about changes that minor, though some states do submit them.
Downtown Beverly, MA:
If one follows MA 22 North along Cabot St., it eventually veers to the right onto Essex St. From Cabot to Dane St. (MA 62), Essex St. is a one-way northbound street. North of MA 62, Essex St. is a two-way carrying both directions of MA 22.
Cabot St. between Essex & Dane, while still being two-way is only designated MA 22 in the southbound direction. Dane St. between Cabot & Essex Sts. is designated as MA 62 for both east/west directions and MA 22 south. 22 South is multiplexed w/62 West along Dane.
Cabot St. north of Dane is designated as MA 62, again for both directions, for a short distance to Elliot St.
While one heading north on Cabot can ignore getting on Essex and turn right on Dane, then left on Essex; they aren't fully following MA 22 North.
Side note to roadman: while there was some decent trailblazer/affirmation signage erected back in 1981, most of the ones at the key turning points have been either knocked down (in accidents) and/or stolen but never replaced. One has to use the Force in order to follow 22 South in this area.
Additionally, the NORTH 22 trailblazer sign at the beginning of Essex St. is not at the most visable location and its advance signage was gone years ago. It needs to be either moved or supplemental signage needs to be added.
Quote from: corco on March 05, 2013, 06:09:19 PM
Those one way interchanges can be bad though
I think CA-67 has the record for "smallest proportion of interchanges with full movements". out of 7, including the terminus at I-8 (which requires shunting onto old 67), only two are full interchanges: Bradley and Riverford, and even Riverford is pushing it because two of the ramps push you out onto Woodside instead.
This thread has caused me to think of a semi-related/semi-unrelated issue relating to clinching routes. I'm curious how you folks handle situations where you either cannot follow the through route or where the route uses different roads in each direction.
For the former, my approach is to drive each disconnected piece and if I'm concerned about the clinch I make sure whatever route I use to connect between them allows me to drive each full segment. (Referring to the example froggie and NE2 were discussing in DC, if I didn't live around here and I wanted to be certain I'd clinched US-1 there, instead of going left on 15th Street as NE2 mentions, I'd make a right on 15th and then two more rights so as to go around the block, i.e., "three rights to make a left" approach.) I assume this is probably what most people do, but I'm just curious what others think. It's easy to do in an urban situation where the detour is relatively minor. In theory it could be more difficult in situations involving partial interchanges depending on how far out of the way you have to go.
I've never thought much about the latter question involving stuff like twinned one-way streets or a situation where one direction simply uses different roads (US-250 Business in Charlottesville is a good example where the eastbound and westbound routes both go totally different ways but use two-way streets). Normally for a clinch I feel that going in one direction is sufficient, even if I'm on an Interstate with a wide median where you can't see the other side. Under that principle, going in one direction would sufficient for these sorts of routes too, but somehow city streets "feel different" to me than the opposite carriageways on an Interstate. I'm just curious what others think.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 28, 2013, 12:42:05 PM
Quote from: corco on March 05, 2013, 06:09:19 PM
Those one way interchanges can be bad though
I think CA-67 has the record for "smallest proportion of interchanges with full movements". out of 7, including the terminus at I-8 (which requires shunting onto old 67), only two are full interchanges: Bradley and Riverford, and even Riverford is pushing it because two of the ramps push you out onto Woodside instead.
The portion of I-66 from I-495 to the DC line has 12 interchanges (including I-495) and only one of them (Exit 66, VA-7) is a full interchange, although some of the interchanges are "twinned half-interchanges" some distance apart from each other. I remember a big deal was made of this when it opened in December 1982. But if you count all of I-66 obviously it's a lot less remarkable a statistic.
If there is a one-way pair and the route cannot be followed in one direction, then I drive it in the other direction. This is how I would do US 33 in Richmond today.
If there is not a one-way pair, then I have to figure out a way to come back the other way, which is how you would have to do VA 131 if you started from US 460 Bus east of downtown.
Mapmikey
Quote from: NE2 on August 27, 2013, 10:44:45 PM
I don't think AASHTO officially cares about changes that minor, though some states do submit them.
But is it a re-alignment or a permanent detour? In any case, it's a classic example of cities caring more for the local street grid then the signed through routes.
Quote from: vdeane on August 28, 2013, 08:52:11 PM
But is it a re-alignment or a permanent detour? In any case, it's a classic example of cities caring more for the local street grid then the signed through routes.
Huh? They posted the realignment. What more should they do?
For those of us focused on clinching, you'd have to change the official definition, which given your earlier comment on AASHTO, would be getting NYSDOT to change the route log... and there's a better chance of hell freezing over than NYSDOT changing the route log. NY 590 north of Titus and NY 12E in the city of Watertown are both still on the books despite the route signage being truncated.
EDIT: NY 252A and NY 360 are also still on the books despite being transferred to Monroe County with all signage removed. I read on the Wikipedia page for NY 421 that NYSDOT needs permission from Albany to change the log.
Quote from: vdeane on August 28, 2013, 09:06:41 PM
For those of us focused on clinching, you'd have to change the official definition, which given your earlier comment on AASHTO, would be getting NYSDOT to change the route log... and there's a better chance of hell freezing over than NYSDOT changing the route log.
Quote(New Jersey-New York State line) George Washington Bridge, New York City-Westchester County line on Cross Bronx Expressway, Webster Avenue, Fordham Road and Boston Post Road, New Rochelle, Mamoroneck, Rye, Port Chester (Connecticut-New York State line) — New York, Bronx and Westchester Counties.
What needs to be changed? The log doesn't give every street on the route (e.g. Pelham Parkway), only a general description of where the route goes. It may be more instructive to look at NY 27:
Quote(I 278) on Prospect Expressway, Linden Boulevard-Church Avenue, Conduit Avenue east to New York City-Nassau County line, on Sunrise Highway to Valley Stream, Lynbrook, Rockville Centre, Freeport, Massapequa Park, North Babylon, Great River, North Patchogue, Oakville, North Shinnecock Hills, Southampton, East Hampton, (Montauk Point) — Kings, Queens, Nassau and Suffolk Counties.
In addition to switching Church and Linden, this completely omits 5th, Coney Island, and Caton.
Quote from: vdeane on August 28, 2013, 09:06:41 PM
I read on the Wikipedia page for NY 421 that NYSDOT needs permission from Albany to change the log.
Wikipedia has a bunch of questionable and misleading statements. This one is about removing the old route, which had already been renumbered 971D, from the state (maintained) highway system: http://image.iarchives.nysed.gov/images/images/115656.pdf
Quote from: vdeane on August 28, 2013, 09:06:41 PM
For those of us focused on clinching, you'd have to change the official definition
Well hold on there, that may be
your criterion, but I don't think there is universal agreement on it.
I, and I know many other members of this forum do similar, count detours as clinching a route. But only if they are official detours, rather than you taking a shortcut or going around, and each are considered on a case-by-case basis. For example, I recently had to go around a few blocks of US 3 north of Concord, NH due to a street festival, but I still count it as clinched.
I think each person has their own "rules" for road clinching.
Edited for typo.
If I were clinching, I'd consider the official definition of a signed route to be the signed route.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on August 28, 2013, 09:41:54 PM
Quote from: vdeane on August 28, 2013, 09:06:41 PM
For those of us focused on clinching, you'd have to change the official definition
Well hold on there, that may be your criterion, but I don't think there is universal agreement on it.
I, and I know many other members of this forum do similar, count detours as clinching a route. But only if they are official detours, rather than you taking a shortcut or going around, and each are considered on a case-by-case basis. For example, I recently had to go around a few blocks of US 3 north of Concord, NH due to a street festival, but I still count it as clinched.
I think each person has their own "rules" for road clinching.
Edited for typo.
I tend to think the opposite...
A month ago I tried to drive US 4 in its entirety from Troy NY to Concord NH. The Hudson River bridge at Northumberland was closed and there was a lengthy signed detour that wound up skipping about 8 miles of US 4. The detour used NY 32 and NY 197.
Although I drove the signed-at-the-time US 4 routing (bridge has since reopened), I do not view myself as having clinched US 4, especially given that I clinched other primary mileage in executing the detour.
I have given myself US 13 though, as the day I drove it through Western Philadelphia there was 1 block of it closed because a crane was doing weekend work on a building...
Mapmikey
Quote from: Mapmikey on August 29, 2013, 06:20:27 AM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on August 28, 2013, 09:41:54 PM
Quote from: vdeane on August 28, 2013, 09:06:41 PM
For those of us focused on clinching, you'd have to change the official definition
Well hold on there, that may be your criterion, but I don't think there is universal agreement on it.
I, and I know many other members of this forum do similar, count detours as clinching a route. But only if they are official detours, rather than you taking a shortcut or going around, and each are considered on a case-by-case basis. For example, I recently had to go around a few blocks of US 3 north of Concord, NH due to a street festival, but I still count it as clinched.
I think each person has their own "rules" for road clinching.
Edited for typo.
I tend to think the opposite...
A month ago I tried to drive US 4 in its entirety from Troy NY to Concord NH. The Hudson River bridge at Northumberland was closed and there was a lengthy signed detour that wound up skipping about 8 miles of US 4. The detour used NY 32 and NY 197.
Although I drove the signed-at-the-time US 4 routing (bridge has since reopened), I do not view myself as having clinched US 4, especially given that I clinched other primary mileage in executing the detour.
I have given myself US 13 though, as the day I drove it through Western Philadelphia there was 1 block of it closed because a crane was doing weekend work on a building...
Mapmikey
And those examples right there are why I included the "considered on a case-by-case basis" statement. I wouldn't include US 4 as clinched in your example either. In a similar vein I didn't consider US 1 over the Memorial Bridge in Portsmouth/Kittery as clinched until I drove it after it reopened, since the signed detour was Bypass 1 and skipped all of both cities' downtowns.
If it is a major bridge out, that would be one case where I would not count it anyway. Same with multiple-mile detours. But deviating for a few blocks due to a closure or something still counts for me, like you said with US 13. Essentially it sounds like we are actually in agreement.
Quote from: NE2 on August 28, 2013, 09:22:47 PM
Quote from: vdeane on August 28, 2013, 09:06:41 PM
For those of us focused on clinching, you'd have to change the official definition, which given your earlier comment on AASHTO, would be getting NYSDOT to change the route log... and there's a better chance of hell freezing over than NYSDOT changing the route log.
Quote(New Jersey-New York State line) George Washington Bridge, New York City-Westchester County line on Cross Bronx Expressway, Webster Avenue, Fordham Road and Boston Post Road, New Rochelle, Mamoroneck, Rye, Port Chester (Connecticut-New York State line) — New York, Bronx and Westchester Counties.
What needs to be changed? The log doesn't give every street on the route (e.g. Pelham Parkway), only a general description of where the route goes. It may be more instructive to look at NY 27:
Quote(I 278) on Prospect Expressway, Linden Boulevard-Church Avenue, Conduit Avenue east to New York City-Nassau County line, on Sunrise Highway to Valley Stream, Lynbrook, Rockville Centre, Freeport, Massapequa Park, North Babylon, Great River, North Patchogue, Oakville, North Shinnecock Hills, Southampton, East Hampton, (Montauk Point) — Kings, Queens, Nassau and Suffolk Counties.
In addition to switching Church and Linden, this completely omits 5th, Coney Island, and Caton.
Quote from: vdeane on August 28, 2013, 09:06:41 PM
I read on the Wikipedia page for NY 421 that NYSDOT needs permission from Albany to change the log.
Wikipedia has a bunch of questionable and misleading statements. This one is about removing the old route, which had already been renumbered 971D, from the state (maintained) highway system: http://image.iarchives.nysed.gov/images/images/115656.pdf
I use the log in the traffic data report (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/page/portal/divisions/engineering/technical-services/highway-data-services/traffic-data) rather than the imprecise one you like.
Quote from: vdeane on August 29, 2013, 10:11:47 PM
I use the log in the traffic data report (https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/page/portal/divisions/engineering/technical-services/highway-data-services/traffic-data) rather than the imprecise one you like.
That's not a log defining the routes, but a report using information about the routes. It's up to the traffic data report people to change their information if a route is moved. (And it's still not detailed enough that this route around a left turn prohibition needs to be noted. Does the report mean that US 9 southbound uses 178th Street, since 179th Street is not listed?)
Quote from: Steve on December 30, 2012, 08:51:20 PM
* US 61 in Turrel, AR (the most recent) - cannot jump onto I-55 heading SB, missing ramp
Google maps is showing a goofy continuation now - Southbound 61 goes up 63 to the first overpass, then under it, back up the frontage road, and onto the SB on-ramp of I-55.
Quote from: ChoralScholar on August 29, 2013, 11:03:31 PM
Google maps is showing a goofy continuation now - Southbound 61 goes up 63 to the first overpass, then under it, back up the frontage road, and onto the SB on-ramp of I-55.
Looks to me like it goes up 63 to the first interchange and U-turns there, going *over* 63 and then hopping back on 63 south. Which is, frankly, probably the most logical routing, though going straight across 77 onto the eastside I-55 frontage road and looping to the west at 42 is shorter.
According to AHTD, US 61 ends at US 63 and does not continue south. Therefore the duplex with US 63 and turn around does not exist to them.
I've seen some instances where, officially speaking, routes are thought of not merely as a continuous path of pavement, but also sometimes having a vertical dimension. Imagine two freeways crossing, where a route number makes a right-angle turn through the interchange. It's not unheard of for a route to "officially" occupy the mainline freeway–not the ramps–up to a point directly beneath or above the center of the grade separation, then to "jump" vertically to the crossing road. So in two dimensions, this route makes a continuous path, but in three dimension, where drivers live, it doesn't.
For one example, I-590 and I-490 don't seem to intersect according to NYSDOT. I-590 becomes NY 590 at a point directly beneath I-490; it doesn't follow any of the ramps connecting the interstates. I realize this doesn't satisfy the topic at hand, but if you find a route that makes a right angle in this way, you might have a new type of "can't follow the through route", at least according to the official designation.
Yeah, they have to. Otherwise ramps would cause issues, as would one-way pairs (which are also dropped in the non-dominant direction of movement).
Quote from: empirestate on August 30, 2013, 09:22:16 PM
Imagine two freeways crossing, where a route number makes a right-angle turn through the interchange. It's not unheard of for a route to "officially" occupy the mainline freeway–not the ramps–up to a point directly beneath or above the center of the grade separation, then to "jump" vertically to the crossing road. So in two dimensions, this route makes a continuous path, but in three dimension, where drivers live, it doesn't.
I-76 and I-80 in Ohio.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F3%2F3f%2F76-80.svg%2F500px-76-80.svg.png&hash=c372b96ced44a6fcdfd7a15b3d86f0f12558c4fe)
Does Mass 2A East fit? Approaching Harvard Square from the northwest on Mass Ave, you're required to use possibly JFK St., Brattle St., possibly even a few feet of Eliot St., then Mt. Auburn St. before returning to Mass Ave eastbound. Is this route 2A, or is only the nominal-West-only route on Mass Ave?
Quote from: Pete from Boston on August 30, 2013, 10:36:21 PM
Does Mass 2A East fit? Approaching Harvard Square from the northwest on Mass Ave, you're required to use possibly JFK St., Brattle St., possibly even a few feet of Eliot St., then Mt. Auburn St. before returning to Mass Ave eastbound. Is this route 2A, or is only the nominal-West-only route on Mass Ave?
I
think 2A EB is official through there, but not state-maintained.
On Victoria Bridge in Montréal, during the morning rush hour, from 6:00 am to 9:00 am, both lanes of the Victoria Bridge are used to travel Montréal-bound. In the evening, from 3:00 pm to 7:15 pm, both lanes are used in the opposite direction. At all other times, there is one lane available in each direction.
That makes R-112 EB impassable on weekday mornings and WB impassable on weekday afternoons.
Quote from: vdeaneWhat will AASHTO think?
Not within AASHTO's realm, as the official route has not changed, turn restrictions notwithstanding.
Quote from: 1995hooThe portion of I-66 from I-495 to the DC line has 12 interchanges (including I-495) and only one of them (Exit 66, VA-7) is a full interchange, although some of the interchanges are "twinned half-interchanges" some distance apart from each other.
Technically speaking, I-66 Rosslyn is an "elongated diamond"...a full interchange.
As for Hoo's question about what to do in the turn-restriction scenario, there's a few different options, depending on how the street network is set up in a given location, and all three have pretty much been mentioned: a ) 3 rights to make a left, b ) follow the signs (if available), c ) follow the route in the other direction.
Quote from: froggie on September 28, 2013, 01:27:40 AM
Quote from: vdeaneWhat will AASHTO think?
Not within AASHTO's realm, as the official route has not changed, turn restrictions notwithstanding.
AASHTO is OK with it being impossible to follow the official route in a given direction?
No, I haven't stopped beating my wife.
US 62 SWB / OH 3 SB in Columbus. (In ODOT SLDs as routes 62D and 3D)
According to the SLDs*, the route follows Third St southbound, then turns west on Town St, following that all the way to Central Ave. Problem is, the Town St Bridge was closed a few years ago and demolished. Even worse, the section of Town St between High St and Third St was removed decades ago when City Center Mall was built. (The latter was in recent years demolished and replaced with Columbus Commons).
Maps from before 2009 generally showed the route staying on Third an extra block to Rich St, then back up Front St to Town St and then west across the river. Since last year, maps generally show the route taking Rich St and the new Rich St Bridge across the river to Town St. But is this the official route?*
Last I checked, there is no indication on Third St to turn right – anywhere – to continue on 62/3. If you turn onto Rich St anyway, signs at Front St direct you to turn right to follow 62/3. Doing so does not help you follow 62/3 by any stretch of the imagination.
*The SLDs available online have not been updated since late 2009, at which point they were claimed to be up to date as of January 1 of that year. I don't know if they'll ever be updated again.
QuoteAASHTO is OK with it being impossible to follow the official route in a given direction?
As far as AASHTO's route numbering committee is concerned, the route number follows a given street or corridor. It is exclusively up to the local jurisdiction (whether DOT/county/local) as to things like turn restrictions and how (or, moreso, whether) signage is applied to those turn restrictions.
Near the West Glenwood exit in Glenwood Springs, Colorado, there are CDOT signs directing US-6 West traffic onto the North Frontage Road to continue west.
(http://://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=embed&hl=en&geocode=&q=glenwood+springs,+co+&aq=&sll=39.231721,-111.761513&sspn=0.162753,0.41851&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Glenwood+Springs,+Garfield,+Colorado&ll=39.550538,-107.324776&spn=0.002531,0.006539&t=m&z=14&layer=c&cbll=39.561598,-107.361316&panoid=GsjwQGtkwmctsWNaPNulvA&cbp=12,248.45,,0,8.86&output=svembed"></iframe><br%20/><small><a%20href="https://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=embed&hl=en&geocode=&q=glenwood+springs,+co+&aq=&sll=39.231721,-111.761513&sspn=0.162753,0.41851&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Glenwood+Springs,+Garfield,+Colorado&ll=39.550538,-107.324776&spn=0.002531,0.006539&t=m&z=14&layer=c&cbll=39.561598,-107.361316&panoid=GsjwQGtkwmctsWNaPNulvA&cbp=12,248.45,,0,8.86"%20style="color:#0000FF;text-align:left">View%20Larger%20Map</a></small>)
Problem is, about a mile west down the frontage road, US-6 dead-ends as the I -70 alignment goes through South Canyon in place of the old US-6 alignment with no access for US-6 to rejoin I-70.
(http://://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=embed&hl=en&geocode=&q=glenwood+springs,+co+&aq=&sll=39.231721,-111.761513&sspn=0.162753,0.41851&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Glenwood+Springs,+Garfield,+Colorado&ll=39.550538,-107.324776&spn=0.002531,0.006539&t=m&z=14&layer=c&cbll=39.561836,-107.366331&panoid=lGcc_fq74o631ZFkmPBq_Q&cbp=12,303.53,,0,-1.11&output=svembed"></iframe><br%20/><small><a%20href="https://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=embed&hl=en&geocode=&q=glenwood+springs,+co+&aq=&sll=39.231721,-111.761513&sspn=0.162753,0.41851&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Glenwood+Springs,+Garfield,+Colorado&ll=39.550538,-107.324776&spn=0.002531,0.006539&t=m&z=14&layer=c&cbll=39.561836,-107.366331&panoid=lGcc_fq74o631ZFkmPBq_Q&cbp=12,303.53,,0,-1.11"%20style="color:#0000FF;text-align:left">View%20Larger%20Map</a></small>)
CDOT would probably blame the contractor (who built the dumbbell roundabout exits there) for the erroneous signing of US-6 as C-DOT rarely signs US-6 near or on any current I-70 alignment, if ever.