AARoads Forum

National Boards => General Highway Talk => Topic started by: Quillz on June 30, 2013, 12:15:09 AM

Title: Can non-driveable sections of road be signed as state routes?
Post by: Quillz on June 30, 2013, 12:15:09 AM
The technically closed sections of CA-144 and CA-173 (mainly due to landslide damages) got me thinking about this. Could a state route be officially signed over a non-driveable section, say, something like a ferry or boat connection? I know some US Routes have water connections through this method, but I've not yet seen any state route anywhere do something like this.
Title: Re: Can non-driveable sections of road be signed as state routes?
Post by: NE2 on June 30, 2013, 12:19:25 AM
M-185 can be biked but not motored by the public. It's signed.
Title: Re: Can non-driveable sections of road be signed as state routes?
Post by: Quillz on June 30, 2013, 12:21:16 AM
Ah, that would be a great example, then.

Wonder why they would maintain a section of road like that if it's not intended for motor vehicles.
Title: Re: Can non-driveable sections of road be signed as state routes?
Post by: NE2 on June 30, 2013, 12:37:09 AM
States do maintain multi-use trails. Most are not part of the state highway system, however. (M-185 is more like an actual road that's closed to traffic than a trail.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-185_%28Michigan_highway%29 is a "featured article" so it should be better than the average forum post.
Title: Re: Can non-driveable sections of road be signed as state routes?
Post by: Scott5114 on June 30, 2013, 02:11:34 AM
I remember seeing an old photo of a ferry somewhere in Arkansas that had a reassurance shield literally on the ferry.
Title: Re: Can non-driveable sections of road be signed as state routes?
Post by: briantroutman on June 30, 2013, 03:48:00 AM
Not exactly the same thing, but Knoebels Blvd. at Knoebels Amusement Resort near Elysburg, PA used to be open to vehicular traffic (it was the main road through the park, leading to the parking area), but it was closed to vehicles about 15 years ago to prevent conflicts with pedestrians in the park. Anyway, I don't know if the entire length of Knoebels Blvd. was ever a state route (it could easily have been an old PA 487 alignment), but it included a bridge over Roaring Creek that was built by the Pennsylvania Department of Highways. As I recall seeing it last, the bridge still had small SR markers posted at each end. The bridge is cataloged at BridgeMapper (http://bit.ly/10snb7k (http://bit.ly/10snb7k)).

Not far away, I noticed that the bypass of the compromised section of PA 61 in Centralia is actually not SR 61 but instead SR 2002. So I suppose that would mean PennDOT still considers the closed section to be officially SR 61–though it isn't open to automotive traffic.
Title: Re: Can non-driveable sections of road be signed as state routes?
Post by: Quillz on June 30, 2013, 04:59:27 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 30, 2013, 02:11:34 AM
I remember seeing an old photo of a ferry somewhere in Arkansas that had a reassurance shield literally on the ferry.
Reminds me a bit of the TCH segment from Nanaimo to Vancouver. The ferry that connects the two routes is officially part of the system, although I don't remember it carrying any actual signage as such.
Title: Re: Can non-driveable sections of road be signed as state routes?
Post by: Pete from Boston on June 30, 2013, 07:16:55 AM
Quote from: Quillz on June 30, 2013, 12:15:09 AM
The technically closed sections of CA-144 and CA-173 (mainly due to landslide damages)

Don't forget CA-140!
Title: Re: Can non-driveable sections of road be signed as state routes?
Post by: Brandon on June 30, 2013, 07:22:51 AM
Quote from: NE2 on June 30, 2013, 12:19:25 AM
M-185 can be biked but not motored by the public. It's signed.

Technically, though, it can be driven as it is all signed and paved.  It is driven; however, by emergency vehicles only - ambulance, fire truck, etc.

I think the former "Impassable" section of M-35 in the UP would qualify better under the criteria.  It was signed up to the "Impassable" points, and it was marked on state maps for decades before Michigan gave up on it.
Title: Re: Can non-driveable sections of road be signed as state routes?
Post by: NE2 on June 30, 2013, 08:24:49 AM
It can be driven by bike too.
Title: Re: Can non-driveable sections of road be signed as state routes?
Post by: 1995hoo on June 30, 2013, 08:41:34 AM
The Hatteras—Ocracoke and Ocracoke—Cedar Island ferries are considered part of NC-12's route, although the ferries don't bear route shields. The ferries are the only connection (unless you fly or take a private boat) between Ocracoke and the rest of the state.

The same road occasionally uses an emergency ferry service further north when a hurricane washes out the road.

If you were to count roads that are driveable but closed to the general public, you could get into situations like state roads closed for "security" reasons, such as VA-318, which requires a permit because it's on the Virginia State Capitol grounds in Richmond.
Title: Re: Can non-driveable sections of road be signed as state routes?
Post by: dgolub on June 30, 2013, 10:15:24 AM
Quote from: Quillz on June 30, 2013, 12:15:09 AM
The technically closed sections of CA-144 and CA-173 (mainly due to landslide damages) got me thinking about this. Could a state route be officially signed over a non-driveable section, say, something like a ferry or boat connection? I know some US Routes have water connections through this method, but I've not yet seen any state route anywhere do something like this.

Yes, as long as you consider an auto ferry to be non-driveable.  NY 114 passes through Shelter Island, which has no bridges connecting it to anywhere else.  There are two ferries, one at each end of the section on the island.  Also, CT 148 and CT 160 have ferries that cross the Connecticut River, although they only operate at certain times of year, meaning that at other times motorists must detour through an alternate route where there's a bridge.
Title: Re: Can non-driveable sections of road be signed as state routes?
Post by: Kacie Jane on June 30, 2013, 11:50:53 AM
Quote from: Quillz on June 30, 2013, 12:15:09 AM
The technically closed sections of CA-144 and CA-173 (mainly due to landslide damages) got me thinking about this. Could a state route be officially signed over a non-driveable section, say, something like a ferry or boat connection? I know some US Routes have water connections through this method, but I've not yet seen any state route anywhere do something like this.

Many state routes do.  Especially in the state of Washington.
Title: Re: Can non-driveable sections of road be signed as state routes?
Post by: The Great Zo on June 30, 2013, 11:55:40 AM
Michigan has a legitimate ferry example: M-134 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-134). It crosses Lake Huron's De Tour Passage (http://goo.gl/maps/4UCfV) near De Tour Village on a ferry, serving Drummond Island to the east. The Ferries are run by Eastern Upper Peninsula Transport Authority (http://www.eupta.net/), which I believe is a government entity.

There is almost another example in southeast Michigan, with a very short ferry crossing to Harsens Island (http://goo.gl/maps/tC9Wl) from the main land in Clay Township (St. Clair County). The ferry connects M-29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-29_%28Michigan_highway%29) on the main land with M-154 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-154) on Harsens Island, but I'm pretty sure the actual crossing is not designated with either of those routes. I do know that ferry is privately operated.
Title: Re: Can non-driveable sections of road be signed as state routes?
Post by: Thing 342 on June 30, 2013, 12:25:59 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 30, 2013, 08:41:34 AM
The Hatteras—Ocracoke and Ocracoke—Cedar Island ferries are considered part of NC-12's route, although the ferries don't bear route shields. The ferries are the only connection (unless you fly or take a private boat) between Ocracoke and the rest of the state.

I believe NC 45 uses the Ocracoke-Swan Quarter ferry. Also, NC 615 uses the Currituck-Knotts Island Ferry. Neither have shields on the boats.
Title: Re: Can non-driveable sections of road be signed as state routes?
Post by: froggie on June 30, 2013, 02:49:17 PM
I believe the (now-former) segment of PA 82 washed out by Hurricane Agnes in 1972 would qualify under this.

Also, technically, those segments of the US Bike Route system (USBR) that follow paths instead of streets/roads would qualify as well.
Title: Re: Can non-driveable sections of road be signed as state routes?
Post by: Mapmikey on June 30, 2013, 04:51:53 PM
VA 125 probably qualifies...signed and maintained on both sides of the removed Nanesmond River Bridge.  A posted detour was up for a while but no longer so.

VA 92 could eventually be the same.  Roanoke River Bridge is permanently closed but still standing.  So far a posted detour is up for VA 92.

US 60 briefly had a segment like this when the original Rudee Inlet Bridge was closed in 1961.

Virginia also has parts of state facility routes that are maintained but not drivable by the public.  The VA 318 example cited above is one.  Also nearby VA 315 I think has a segment assigned that is now a paved walk/bike path.  Neither is signed.

Some of VA 329's mileage is behind the gates to the prison. VA 346 has a closed off portion on the eastern side of Fairy Stone State Park.  I cannot say if these closed portions have any signage.  The accessible part of 329 is NOT signed while 346 is well signed.

Mapmikey
Title: Re: Can non-driveable sections of road be signed as state routes?
Post by: corco on June 30, 2013, 05:27:49 PM
US 87 in Wyoming is also signed over a washed out roadway- there's no detour signed and there's no reason to rebuild it with I-25 and WYO 193 in close proximity.

Not sure why they don't just reroute 87 over 193, but that's that.
Title: Re: Can non-driveable sections of road be signed as state routes?
Post by: TEG24601 on June 30, 2013, 06:52:35 PM
Aside from all ferries of the Washington State Ferries (including the passenger only ferries, when they existed) being part of the State Route System, there are also bike trails in a few areas that I've seen signed, aside from Mackinaw Island.  IIRC, unless the highway has been replaced on Hawaii (the Island) that was destroyed by lava, it would technically be a signed, but non-driveable, section of highway.
Title: Re: Can non-driveable sections of road be signed as state routes?
Post by: NE2 on June 30, 2013, 07:31:54 PM
Quote from: corco on June 30, 2013, 05:27:49 PM
US 87 in Wyoming is also signed over a washed out roadway- there's no detour signed and there's no reason to rebuild it with I-25 and WYO 193 in close proximity.

Not sure why they don't just reroute 87 over 193, but that's that.
Forgot about this (it's actually covered by a landslide, not washed out, IIRC).
ASSHTOLE refused because they wanted either the deficiencies on WY 193 corrected or US 87 moved to I-90: http://route.transportation.org/Documents/2001_USRN_Cmte.pdf
Title: Re: Can non-driveable sections of road be signed as state routes?
Post by: corco on June 30, 2013, 08:16:52 PM
Yeah, it's a landslide
Title: Re: Can non-driveable sections of road be signed as state routes?
Post by: ChoralScholar on June 30, 2013, 10:29:58 PM
I saw in an old Arkansas highways book, a picture of a ferry crossing a river, and on the ferry was a road sign with a single digit state route.  I think 9, although I can't imagine where the ferry would have been.
Title: Re: Can non-driveable sections of road be signed as state routes?
Post by: ChoralScholar on June 30, 2013, 10:31:12 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 30, 2013, 02:11:34 AM
I remember seeing an old photo of a ferry somewhere in Arkansas that had a reassurance shield literally on the ferry.

Wow, I just posted the exact same thing before I read down the thread.  I saw that same picture in a book.  Do you remember which route it was?  I'm pretty sure it's single digit.
Title: Re: Can non-driveable sections of road be signed as state routes?
Post by: JREwing78 on June 30, 2013, 11:20:10 PM
Merrimac Ferry near Madison, WI, carrying WI-113: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrimac_Ferry
Title: Re: Can non-driveable sections of road be signed as state routes?
Post by: Brandon on July 01, 2013, 09:58:06 AM
Quote from: JREwing78 on June 30, 2013, 11:20:10 PM
Merrimac Ferry near Madison, WI, carrying WI-113: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrimac_Ferry

In that case, then there's also the Kampville Ferry, Kampville, IL carrying IL-108.
Title: Re: Can non-driveable sections of road be signed as state routes?
Post by: Alps on July 01, 2013, 08:33:08 PM
A few MD state routes enter military bases. NJ 68 enters Fort Dix. These are technically not driveable by the motoring public.
Title: Re: Can non-driveable sections of road be signed as state routes?
Post by: agentsteel53 on July 01, 2013, 08:50:24 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 30, 2013, 02:11:34 AM
I remember seeing an old photo of a ferry somewhere in Arkansas that had a reassurance shield literally on the ferry.

I dug up the photo and put it on the shield gallery.

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/AR/AR19610091i1.jpg)
Title: Re: Can non-driveable sections of road be signed as state routes?
Post by: ChoralScholar on July 02, 2013, 12:58:29 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 01, 2013, 08:50:24 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 30, 2013, 02:11:34 AM
I remember seeing an old photo of a ferry somewhere in Arkansas that had a reassurance shield literally on the ferry.

I dug up the photo and put it on the shield gallery.


That is awesome.  That's the very picture I remember.  So, is that the Arkansas River crossing south of Morrilton, or is that the White River crossing north of Mountain View?
Title: Re: Can non-driveable sections of road be signed as state routes?
Post by: froggie on July 02, 2013, 09:49:45 AM
QuoteA few MD state routes enter military bases.

I'm aware of MD routes that skirt the edge or go to the gate, but none that are actually within the compound.  I don't count MD 550 because it is still driveable by the general public.
Title: Re: Can non-driveable sections of road be signed as state routes?
Post by: oscar on July 02, 2013, 11:31:21 AM
Quote from: TEG24601 on June 30, 2013, 06:52:35 PM
IIRC, unless the highway has been replaced on Hawaii (the Island) that was destroyed by lava, it would technically be a signed, but non-driveable, section of highway.

The mostly lava-covered east end of HI 130 is no longer signed as a state highway, with the old route signage destroyed or otherwise disappeared beyond the road closure barricade in Kalapana.  However, HDOT still owns the right of way.  Parts of the old highway have been replaced by an unnumbered county road, which briefly was operated as a toll road, but now is open to vehicle traffic on a free but limited basis depending on whether there's any nearby lava flows into the ocean to draw tourist traffic. 
Title: Re: Can non-driveable sections of road be signed as state routes?
Post by: dfwtbear on July 02, 2013, 11:32:14 AM
Texas Hwy 87 travels over the Galveston-Port Bolivar Ferry. Also there is a section still designated as Hwy 87 that is washed out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Highway_87_(Texas)
Title: Re: Can non-driveable sections of road be signed as state routes?
Post by: geocachingpirate on July 02, 2013, 12:03:06 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on June 30, 2013, 12:25:59 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 30, 2013, 08:41:34 AM
The Hatteras—Ocracoke and Ocracoke—Cedar Island ferries are considered part of NC-12's route, although the ferries don't bear route shields. The ferries are the only connection (unless you fly or take a private boat) between Ocracoke and the rest of the state.

I believe NC 45 uses the Ocracoke-Swan Quarter ferry. Also, NC 615 uses the Currituck-Knotts Island Ferry. Neither have shields on the boats.

NC 306 uses ferries twice across the Neuse River and the Pamlico River.
Title: Re: Can non-driveable sections of road be signed as state routes?
Post by: Mapmikey on July 02, 2013, 12:25:46 PM
Along the lines of gov't facilities, there is NC 172 (no idea if signs are still up within the closed part, but it was fully posted while open to everyone).

Virginia used to have a couple of Military base ones: VA 31 was not officially removed from the state system within Camp Peary 'til well after WW2.  Also, VA 278 used to be defined as being through Langley (wit a gap) for 4 years until it was cancelled in 1946.

Here is  state-maintained SR 645 in Virginia with a non-driveable segment in McDowell off US 250:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Fmapscans%2Fold9view.jpg&hash=4287288ffb59007c063bed7cff05986f84987f51)

Mapmikey
Title: Re: Can non-driveable sections of road be signed as state routes?
Post by: agentsteel53 on July 02, 2013, 01:04:40 PM
Quote from: ChoralScholar on July 02, 2013, 12:58:29 AM
That is awesome.  That's the very picture I remember.  So, is that the Arkansas River crossing south of Morrilton, or is that the White River crossing north of Mountain View?

unfortunately, I have no info about the picture - what you see is the entirety of what I know.  I don't even know what date, other than that it is a 1961-spec sign, and Bugo can probably tell us the year, make, and model of the car being ferried.  my guess is ~1970 based on the vehicle's style.

I wonder what the white sign is on the left?  probably regulatory - no fishing off ferry??
Title: Re: Can non-driveable sections of road be signed as state routes?
Post by: Urban Prairie Schooner on July 02, 2013, 01:16:55 PM
LA 1141 has been isolated from the state highway system since Hurricane Rita caused the closure of the Monkey Island ferry at Cameron. This ferry was controversial in the past since it was a state-run ferry that basically served only a few private residences on the island. Were it still in service today, there would be no way DOTD would continue to operate it, seeing that the state seems to want to get out of the ferry business altogether.

Technically the route is presumably still driveable, but from a practical perspective this is true only if you also have your own personal ferry boat or flying car.
Title: Re: Can non-driveable sections of road be signed as state routes?
Post by: formulanone on July 02, 2013, 03:38:00 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 01, 2013, 08:50:24 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 30, 2013, 02:11:34 AM
I remember seeing an old photo of a ferry somewhere in Arkansas that had a reassurance shield literally on the ferry.

I dug up the photo and put it on the shield gallery.

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/AR/AR19610091i1.jpg)

I just want to quote this because it's awesome.
Title: Re: Can non-driveable sections of road be signed as state routes?
Post by: ChoralScholar on July 02, 2013, 04:09:19 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 02, 2013, 01:04:40 PM
Quote from: ChoralScholar on July 02, 2013, 12:58:29 AM
That is awesome.  That's the very picture I remember.  So, is that the Arkansas River crossing south of Morrilton, or is that the White River crossing north of Mountain View?

unfortunately, I have no info about the picture - what you see is the entirety of what I know.  I don't even know what date, other than that it is a 1961-spec sign, and Bugo can probably tell us the year, make, and model of the car being ferried.  my guess is ~1970 based on the vehicle's style.

I wonder what the white sign is on the left?  probably regulatory - no fishing off ferry??

It would likely be the White River ferry, then, because there's been a bridge over the Arkansas River south of Morrilton for quite some time.

There is one other water crossing on AR-9, over the Little Red River near Shirley (I think), but that's a small crossing.  Not big enough for a ferry of this size.
Title: Re: Can non-driveable sections of road be signed as state routes?
Post by: Quillz on July 02, 2013, 05:22:45 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 01, 2013, 08:50:24 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 30, 2013, 02:11:34 AM
I remember seeing an old photo of a ferry somewhere in Arkansas that had a reassurance shield literally on the ferry.

I dug up the photo and put it on the shield gallery.

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/AR/AR19610091i1.jpg)
Cool, that's really interesting, and that's what I was thinking about when I made the topic. Does anything else like that still exist?
Title: Re: Can non-driveable sections of road be signed as state routes?
Post by: briantroutman on July 05, 2013, 01:50:27 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 01, 2013, 08:50:24 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 30, 2013, 02:11:34 AM
I remember seeing an old photo of a ferry somewhere in Arkansas that had a reassurance shield literally on the ferry.

I dug up the photo and put it on the shield gallery.

That has got to be somewhere in my top ten favorite roadgeek photos of all time.

Yet part of me wishes it looked something like this...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbit.ly%2F12KrGL9&hash=4ae0ed55036ae8f1e9b5ad3573a02065d035fa8d)
Title: Re: Can non-driveable sections of road be signed as state routes?
Post by: flowmotion on July 06, 2013, 04:35:17 PM
Not quite as neat, but the Rio Vista ferry has a CA 84 marker.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.staticflickr.com%2F3335%2F4595090360_96fb419fef.jpg&hash=5fbcab24bc9bb2f9bdf033389cca066e0bec7859) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/donbrr/4595090360/)
Sacramento Delta Real McCoy ferry 2069a (http://www.flickr.com/photos/donbrr/4595090360/) by DB's travels (http://www.flickr.com/people/donbrr/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Can non-driveable sections of road be signed as state routes?
Post by: Bruce on July 06, 2013, 08:50:09 PM
All of the Washington State Ferries (WSF) routes are part of the state highway system in Washington. WA-339 was a passenger-only ferry from Seattle to Vashon Island until the service was stopped in 2006. The ferry itself was sold in 2011 to a ferry operator in Tanzania and sank the following year. (Source (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_State_Route_339))
Title: Re: Can non-driveable sections of road be signed as state routes?
Post by: JMoses24 on July 06, 2013, 09:42:34 PM
Kentucky State Route 169 in Madison and Jessamine counties has the Valley View Ferry over the Kentucky River. SR 169 then continues southbound to Richmond and northbound toward Versailles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_Route_169
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valley_View_Ferry

As an aside the ferry is actually closed down right this moment due to flooding on the river -- a problem for many routes like this.