AARoads Forum

National Boards => General Highway Talk => Topic started by: Avalanchez71 on August 26, 2016, 03:58:14 PM

Title: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: Avalanchez71 on August 26, 2016, 03:58:14 PM
How about SR A1A/SR 200 in Nassau County FL.
SR 811/SR ALT A1A Palm Beach County FL.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: TXtoNJ on August 26, 2016, 05:02:13 PM
How about SR A1A/SR 200 in Nassau County FL.
SR 811/SR ALT A1A Palm Beach County FL.

How about US 412
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: Avalanchez71 on August 26, 2016, 05:15:31 PM
US 412 is concurrent with much in Tennessee with some minor exceptions. 
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: CNGL-Leudimin on August 26, 2016, 05:16:31 PM
Any concurrencies where one route terminates at the end of it. Seriously, truncate that route back.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: TR69 on August 26, 2016, 05:17:45 PM
KY 841 east of I-65 once I-265 is extended across the Ohio River at Louisville.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: dvferyance on August 26, 2016, 05:57:08 PM
WI-13/WI-34 just end WI-34 at US-10. WI-13 was rerouted WI-34 should have just changed to WI-13 not became a duplex with it.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: 7/8 on August 26, 2016, 06:02:18 PM
Any concurrencies where one route terminates at the end of it. Seriously, truncate that route back.

Owen Sound, ON is a great example of this.
The intersection of 10th St E and 9th Ave E (https://goo.gl/maps/Lp4umFrZQjE2) has the following route numbers:
From the west - 6 and 21 (also a wrong-way concurrency)
From the north - 26
From the south - 6 and 10

Hwys 10 and 21 could easily be truncated outside of town to prevent this unnecessary confusion. Then there would only be 2 highway numbers meeting in town instead of 4.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: epzik8 on August 26, 2016, 07:41:36 PM
I-99 and U.S. 220. Maybe I-83 and U.S. 322 near Harrisburg too.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: 20160805 on August 26, 2016, 07:45:34 PM
WI-13/WI-34 just end WI-34 at US-10. WI-13 was rerouted WI-34 should have just changed to WI-13 not became a duplex with it.

That's far from the only unnecessary concurrency in Wisconsin - WI-47 would logically be two or three different routes, and it even ends while concurrent with WI-182, which also ends at WI-47's terminus.  Either end 182 at 47 or 47 at 182; don't make a pointless concurrency.

And I'm certain there are others, too.  I agree with CNGL's point that any route that ends while concurrent with another should be truncated.

Edit: And what is the exact reason for the existence of I-894 when it is in its entirety concurrent with at least two other highways?  Just call it 41, people.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: hbelkins on August 26, 2016, 08:59:37 PM
I-41 and everything.  :D

Seriously, VA 3 and VA 14 in the Northern Neck.

US 98 and US 319.

US 25 and US 341.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: Avalanchez71 on August 26, 2016, 09:04:28 PM
I-41 and everything.  :D

Seriously, VA 3 and VA 14 in the Northern Neck.

US 98 and US 319.

US 25 and US 341.
That US 98 and US 319 is a weird concurrency as well. 

Wasn't US 76 and US 74 concurrent in NC at one time with US 76 kinda serving as a business route then going back over to be concurrent with US 74 once again?
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: 74/171FAN on August 26, 2016, 09:31:16 PM
Seriously, VA 3 and VA 14 in the Middle Peninsula.
Wasn't US 76 and US 74 concurrent in NC at one time with US 76 kinda serving as a business route then going back over to be concurrent with US 74 once again?

HB- FTFY

Also I thought US 76 did that in Wilmington now.

Finally, this thread existed 5 years ago (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3850.0) but with no posts since 2011.  Oddly HB started it.

Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: mtantillo on August 26, 2016, 09:35:46 PM
All of Maine.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: Big John on August 26, 2016, 09:45:39 PM
IL/MO 110
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: 1 on August 26, 2016, 09:56:22 PM
MA 4/225
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: jp the roadgeek on August 26, 2016, 10:06:23 PM
US 202 and DE 141/I-95.  Plus many other routes that render it almost useless (the standalone pieces can be filled in by state routes).

I-395 and CT 2A.

NH 10 and US 302.

FL and GA state routes that overlap interstates and US routes for their entire length in the state.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: nexus73 on August 26, 2016, 11:26:03 PM
SR 99 and SR 38 in Oregon.  South of Drain, 99 has been removed as a number and it is now a Douglas County route.  It renders the 99 part of the concurrency as a dead end.  38 on the other hand is a primary E-W route connecting US 101 and I-5.  That is the number which deserves to remain.

Rick

Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: Max Rockatansky on August 26, 2016, 11:28:03 PM
US 85 and I-25 through most of Colorado and all of New Mexico....the king of all unnecessary concurrent routes.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: DandyDan on August 27, 2016, 12:44:17 AM
Iowa 163 east of Oskaloosa and most of Iowa 27.

The only ones in Nebraska I can think of is NE 2 and NE 71 from their intersection west of Hemingford northward to South Dakota (should be NE 71 alone) and US 20 and US 275 from their intersection SE of Inman to O'Neill (should be US 20 alone).
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: jwolfer on August 27, 2016, 12:59:51 AM
US 202 and DE 141/I-95.  Plus many other routes that render it almost useless (the standalone pieces can be filled in by state routes).

I-395 and CT 2A.

NH 10 and US 302.

FL and GA state routes that overlap interstates and US routes for their entire length in the state.
It's rare to see the secret state route signed on us hwys or interstates in FL.  The only place I see the secret route for interstates mentioned is the construction "Your highway dollars at work" or on speeding tickets.

 Georgia always does on us hwys but not interstates

Florida at least has grid pattern
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: Bickendan on August 27, 2016, 03:15:33 AM
SR 99 and SR 38 in Oregon.  South of Drain, 99 has been removed as a number and it is now a Douglas County route.  It renders the 99 part of the concurrency as a dead end.  38 on the other hand is a primary E-W route connecting US 101 and I-5.  That is the number which deserves to remain.

Rick


HWY 236 (Drain-Yoncalla Hwy) is still on the books, but it's under Douglas County maintenance, meaning OR 99 still runs south from Drain ala OR 8 on Gales Creek Rd west of Forest Grove.
OR 99 runs into the same situation along HWY 235 (Dillard Hwy) (between OR 42 and I-5) and HWY 237 (Myrtle Creek Hwy).
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: national highway 1 on August 27, 2016, 03:42:45 AM
Wyoming.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: nexus73 on August 27, 2016, 12:19:07 PM
SR 99 and SR 38 in Oregon.  South of Drain, 99 has been removed as a number and it is now a Douglas County route.  It renders the 99 part of the concurrency as a dead end.  38 on the other hand is a primary E-W route connecting US 101 and I-5.  That is the number which deserves to remain.

Rick


HWY 236 (Drain-Yoncalla Hwy) is still on the books, but it's under Douglas County maintenance, meaning OR 99 still runs south from Drain ala OR 8 on Gales Creek Rd west of Forest Grove.
OR 99 runs into the same situation along HWY 235 (Dillard Hwy) (between OR 42 and I-5) and HWY 237 (Myrtle Creek Hwy).

Better look at an Oregon map.  Forest Grove is up by PDX.  Drain is south of Eugene/Cottage Grove.  There is no "8" in this area.  That is a PDX area route AFAIK.  The real clincher is that the 99 signs are gone from the entire south section which was formerly 99.  The north section only has a single 99 and 38 combined reassurance shield.  The empirical evidence suggests there is no 99 south of Drain any more. 

So let's eliminate ANY confusions and send 99 into the Great Former Highway Number In The Sky for this section...LOL!

Rick
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: english si on August 27, 2016, 01:36:29 PM
Any concurrencies where one route terminates at the end of it. Seriously, truncate that route back.
What if they are different classes of roads (eg an interstate and a US route)? Or different orientations and the concurrency short (eg a N-S with an E-W to reach another N-S road)?

The UK has a few (http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/index.php?title=List_of_Useless_Multiplexes), almost all for a more important route to make it to another important route. My favourite is the A40 (minor road alongside A40 that Oxfordshire CC is debating downgrading to a B road) being concurrent with the A418 so that the A418 (Oxford - Aylesbury road) can meet the A40 (dual carriageway from the M40 into Oxford).
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: hbelkins on August 27, 2016, 11:23:28 PM
Iowa 163 east of Oskaloosa and most of Iowa 27.

Those are done to keep a consistent number on a through route or corridor, though.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: The High Plains Traveler on August 27, 2016, 11:42:23 PM
About the western 300 miles of U.S. 412. U.S. 400 west of Dodge City to a very unassuming junction with U.S. 50 and 385 in Colorado; but, it's to be able to consider 400 a multi-state route.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: peterj920 on August 28, 2016, 12:32:15 AM
WI-13/WI-34 just end WI-34 at US-10. WI-13 was rerouted WI-34 should have just changed to WI-13 not became a duplex with it.

That's far from the only unnecessary concurrency in Wisconsin - WI-47 would logically be two or three different routes, and it even ends while concurrent with WI-182, which also ends at WI-47's terminus.  Either end 182 at 47 or 47 at 182; don't make a pointless concurrency.

And I'm certain there are others, too.  I agree with CNGL's point that any route that ends while concurrent with another should be truncated.

Edit: And what is the exact reason for the existence of I-894 when it is in its entirety concurrent with at least two other highways?  Just call it 41, people.

I know why Wis 34 was kept.  It was to give a consistent number for a connection between I-39 and Wisconsin Rapids.  As for Wis 182 and Wis 47, that is so they can both connect to US 51.  Wis 91 is concurrent with Wis 44 so it connects Berlin with I-41.  Wis 32 would qualify as an unnecessary concurrency with US 45 from Three Lakes to the Michigan Border.  The only reason why it exists is because it is the 32nd Division Memorial Highway, and it was routed from one state line to another to honor the Red Arrow Division. 

Could argue that the Wis 93 concurrency with US 53 is unnecessary since Wis 93 randomly ends at Wis 35. 
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: lordsutch on August 28, 2016, 03:53:21 AM
There's no real point in most of Georgia's signed US highway concurrencies with state route designations (to the point they're only haphazardly signed on interstate BGSes).

On a slightly more serious note, there's no reason for most of the length of the MS 304 designation, since except for the western three miles or so it's all concurrent with I-69 or I-269.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: 20160805 on August 28, 2016, 07:08:09 AM
WI-13/WI-34 just end WI-34 at US-10. WI-13 was rerouted WI-34 should have just changed to WI-13 not became a duplex with it.

That's far from the only unnecessary concurrency in Wisconsin - WI-47 would logically be two or three different routes, and it even ends while concurrent with WI-182, which also ends at WI-47's terminus.  Either end 182 at 47 or 47 at 182; don't make a pointless concurrency.

And I'm certain there are others, too.  I agree with CNGL's point that any route that ends while concurrent with another should be truncated.

Edit: And what is the exact reason for the existence of I-894 when it is in its entirety concurrent with at least two other highways?  Just call it 41, people.

I know why Wis 34 was kept.  It was to give a consistent number for a connection between I-39 and Wisconsin Rapids.  As for Wis 182 and Wis 47, that is so they can both connect to US 51.  Wis 91 is concurrent with Wis 44 so it connects Berlin with I-41.  Wis 32 would qualify as an unnecessary concurrency with US 45 from Three Lakes to the Michigan Border.  The only reason why it exists is because it is the 32nd Division Memorial Highway, and it was routed from one state line to another to honor the Red Arrow Division. 

Could argue that the Wis 93 concurrency with US 53 is unnecessary since Wis 93 randomly ends at Wis 35.

I understand about those now - thanks. :nod:

Although I've also noticed that WI-32 and WI-57 seem to be very buddy-buddy with each other in that they are concurrent with each other and I-43 for a stretch, and then there's the long non-highway concurrency north of there and going through Calumet County and others.

And why exactly does the I-894 designation exist when all of it is concurrent with I-41?
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: Max Rockatansky on August 28, 2016, 08:07:22 AM
US 60 and AZ 77 from Globe to Show Low, AZ.  Granted AZ 77 is a long state route at 254 miles the problem is that almost one third of the entire length is on a multiplex in the middle of the Salt River Wilderness.  The easy thing to do would be just create a new route number north of Show Low.  The more creative thing to do would be to have US 60 routed west to Payson via AZ 260, south on AZ 87, and west on AZ 202.  AZ 77 would remain in place while US 70 would travel west to I-10.  This would break up most of the silent concurrency US 60 has with I-10 and I-17 in addition to getting a couple high quality expressways north east of Phoenix on a US Route.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: Tom958 on August 28, 2016, 08:42:38 AM
NC 24 and NC 27?
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: 1995hoo on August 28, 2016, 08:59:42 AM
US-29/211 from Warrenton to DC. Evidently other people agreed that it was an unnecessary concurrency because it was removed in 1980 when 211 was truncated to end in Warrenton.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: LM117 on August 28, 2016, 09:28:34 AM
US-64/US-264 in NC between Zebulon and I-440 in Raleigh. The western end of US-264 originally ended in Zebulon until 1997.

Also, I-77/I-74 in NC from the NC/VA state line to the I-77/I-74 split near Mount Airy. Considering that I-74 east of Cincinnati will most likely never leave NC, there's no reason for that concurrency since I-74 disappears immediately after crossing into VA on I-77. I-74 should just end at I-77.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: dgolub on August 28, 2016, 09:44:46 AM
NY 347/NY 454.  It can be signed as NY 454 TO NY 347 when heading east and as NY 454 TO Northern Parkway when heading west.

I-587 and I-790.  Sure, they're fun for roadgeeks, but they're multiplexed with NY 28 and NY 5, respectively for their entire lengths.  There's no good reason why they should be signed, as doing so probably just confuses motorists.  Instead, let them be designations on paper only so that those segments can still get their interstate funding.

US 46 multiplexed with I-95/US 1/US 9 to the New York-New Jersey state line.  Does anyone even know why this multiplex came into existence in the first place?
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: capt.ron on August 28, 2016, 02:03:40 PM
US 67 and 167 in Arkansas. It is concurrent from Bald Knob to the LR metro. Either renumber the northern or southern split but to have the two highways run concurrent like that makes little if any sense.
My solution: renumber the Bald Knob - north section as US 467 (I'm not using US 267 and 367 since there are AR state highways with those numbers nearby.) and truncate US 167 from Bald Knob to just south of Little Rock where I-530 splits off of I-30.
That way, the freeway section from North Little Rock to Bald Knob will be solely US 67 (and also US 64 from Beebe to Bald Knob).
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: SSOWorld on August 28, 2016, 02:33:27 PM
I-41 was the brainchild of politicians that wanted the red-white & blue shield passing by Appleton when the road was already there.  Federal funding be damned it is not necessary ad can easily be a 3D beginning at I-94.  Made even worse by extending the route designation to Illinois for the same reason that they could have easily changing I-94 directional banners to N/S.  That way they don't hold IDiOT hostage.  Now that we have that - Wisconsin has Two interstates (Along with I-894) that are pointless!!!  Argue whatever you wish about 894 being a bypass.  The goddam control city is enough to tell one where they're going!  If they get lost, it's their ****ing problem. </rant> I-43 and I-41 were born out of spite due to WI's desire for an interstate that got shafted by Illinois playing politics.

Does this remind you of anything? (I-99)

EDIT: The addition of new interstates nowadays has been due to political influence.  We do not need them  The grid that was laid out at first was satisfactory.  Money and politics drive the drawing of them now.  (Even states prevent their DOTs from assigning higher speed limits to any road that doesn't have the sacred shield. - I'm looking at you Minnesota and Iowa.)
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: jp the roadgeek on August 28, 2016, 04:26:19 PM
US 46 multiplexed with I-95/US 1/US 9 to the New York-New Jersey state line.  Does anyone even know why this multiplex came into existence in the first place?

Probably because I-80 was duplexed with I-95 to the GWB, so they figured US 46 should connect to either end of NJ's section of I-80.

The US 40/322 concurrency east of May's Landing is unnecessary.  Should just be US 40 since it's longer and 10 route.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: national highway 1 on August 28, 2016, 08:42:34 PM
The west end of US 18 in Eastern Wyoming.
From Mule Creek Junction, WY to Orin, US 18 is concurrent with US 85 and US 20 just so it can reach and terminate at I-25. I would personally like to reroute US 18 north up US 85 to Newcastle, then replace WY 450 and WY 387 to terminate at I-25 exit 227 between Buffalo and Casper.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: peterj920 on August 28, 2016, 09:10:56 PM
WI-13/WI-34 just end WI-34 at US-10. WI-13 was rerouted WI-34 should have just changed to WI-13 not became a duplex with it.

That's far from the only unnecessary concurrency in Wisconsin - WI-47 would logically be two or three different routes, and it even ends while concurrent with WI-182, which also ends at WI-47's terminus.  Either end 182 at 47 or 47 at 182; don't make a pointless concurrency.

And I'm certain there are others, too.  I agree with CNGL's point that any route that ends while concurrent with another should be truncated.

Edit: And what is the exact reason for the existence of I-894 when it is in its entirety concurrent with at least two other highways?  Just call it 41, people.

I know why Wis 34 was kept.  It was to give a consistent number for a connection between I-39 and Wisconsin Rapids.  As for Wis 182 and Wis 47, that is so they can both connect to US 51.  Wis 91 is concurrent with Wis 44 so it connects Berlin with I-41.  Wis 32 would qualify as an unnecessary concurrency with US 45 from Three Lakes to the Michigan Border.  The only reason why it exists is because it is the 32nd Division Memorial Highway, and it was routed from one state line to another to honor the Red Arrow Division. 

Could argue that the Wis 93 concurrency with US 53 is unnecessary since Wis 93 randomly ends at Wis 35.

I understand about those now - thanks. :nod:

Although I've also noticed that WI-32 and WI-57 seem to be very buddy-buddy with each other in that they are concurrent with each other and I-43 for a stretch, and then there's the long non-highway concurrency north of there and going through Calumet County and others.

And why exactly does the I-894 designation exist when all of it is concurrent with I-41?

By state statute, Wis 32 needs to go the length of the state to honor the 32nd Red Arrow Division.  Before the statute was enacted, Wis 32 ended at US 45 in Three Lakes, which would be the more logical end.  Wis 32 was extended along US 45 to meet that requirement.  In Howards Grove, Wis 42 and Wis 32 were swapped to the south.  Wis 32 once ended in Sheboygan and Wis 42 ended in Kenosha.  The switch was done so Wis 32 could run down to the Illinois state line 

Until the 1980s, Wis 32 traveled along current Wis 67, US 151, County W, and County PP between Kiel and De Pere.  Wis 57 was a far superior route than Wis 32 between Kiel and De Pere, so Wis 32 was turned back to Manitowoc and Brown County control north of US 151 and ran concurrent with Wis 57 between the 2 communities.  Between Kiel and US 151, WISDOT felt that the road was important enough to be a state highway so Wis 67 was extended along that stretch.

I-894 was once the lone number for the entire route and is considered the bypass for I-94.  I-43 was added in 1988, while I-41 was added in 2015.  On the new BGS on both ends, the route is labeled as "Bypass" along with the I-894 designation to make it clear to I-94 traffic that it should follow the route to bypass Downtown Milwaukee.  John Nordquist, the former mayor of Milwaukee wanted I-94 to replace I-894 years ago and extend I-794 to the Zoo Interchange so there was a proposal before I-41 was designated. 

 
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: Kacie Jane on August 28, 2016, 09:17:21 PM
US 46 multiplexed with I-95/US 1/US 9 to the New York-New Jersey state line.  Does anyone even know why this multiplex came into existence in the first place?

Probably because I-80 was duplexed with I-95 to the GWB, so they figured US 46 should connect to either end of NJ's section of I-80.

Two major errors with this post.
1. I-80 has never been duplexed to the bridge.  Rand McNally had a bad habit of showing a duplex, and signage heading west away from the bridge isn't always explicit that you're not on 80 yet, but I-80's end has always been in Teaneck.
2. US 46 was created in 1936, and has always gone to the bridge, so I-80 couldn't have had anything to do with it anyway.

One possible answer (though I may be wrong here myself): US 46 may have been there first.  Before the GWB was built, US 1 and 9 crossed into New York at the Holland Tunnel instead.  Some sources say that 1/9 were rerouted over the GWB once it opened, but some say it may not have been until a decade or so later.  If 46 was there first, it kind of makes sense that they were just too lazy to truncate it.  (Although that still wouldn't explain why it ended at the state line, instead of continuing to Broadway or something.)
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: dvferyance on August 28, 2016, 09:20:29 PM
As usual I knew there would be some comment here regarding 894. I have explain this before but I guess I will again. By having jsut 41/43 on the east west portion you have a wrong way north south duplex on and east and west highway. That's insane that would lead to lots of confusion. I-41 is duplexed with another interstate south of the zoo interchange and it will never be extended south into Illinois. End it there folks problem solved. It's I-41 that's the unnecessary route number there. You already have US 41.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: TheStranger on August 28, 2016, 11:49:34 PM
California generally doesn't have much of these, since the two lengthiest concurrencies (US 70 with 10, 99, or 60 through its entire run  and US 6 along a significant portion of US 395) were truncated about 52 years ago.

The 108/120 concurrency is somewhat strange (in Modesto) but makes sense from the perspective of making sure people along the Route 99 freeway could find Route 108 easily.  (There's also a proposed, but unsigned extension of 108 southward towards I-5 that exists legislatively but has never been adopted as a state route) If anything, Route 99 in Red Bluff really should be extended IMO along the old US 99E concurrency with Route 36 so as to complete the loop back to I-5.

Route 70/99 concurrency that had been on maps for many, many years between Sacramento and Catlett may have only existed in the field in the late 1960s and not beyond that (until about 3-4 years ago, a 70/99 overhead sign existed along Capitol Mall/former US 40 & US 99W in Sacramento, with a removed space for a Route 16 shield as well).

CalTrans is actively removing the US 50/Business 80 concurrency in recent months in favor of just US 50 through West Sacramento and downtown Sacramento.


The Route 47/103 concurrency briefly from I-710 to Henry Ford Avenue makes sense from the perspective of ensuring 103 itself reaches Terminal Island.  Similar concept to 108 getting to 99 in Modesto via 120.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: 20160805 on August 29, 2016, 07:06:15 AM
I-41 was the brainchild of politicians that wanted the red-white & blue shield passing by Appleton when the road was already there.  Federal funding be damned it is not necessary ad can easily be a 3D beginning at I-94.  Made even worse by extending the route designation to Illinois for the same reason that they could have easily changing I-94 directional banners to N/S.  That way they don't hold IDiOT hostage.  Now that we have that - Wisconsin has Two interstates (Along with I-894) that are pointless!!!  Argue whatever you wish about 894 being a bypass.  The ****** control city is enough to tell one where they're going!  If they get lost, it's their ****ing problem. </rant> I-43 and I-41 were born out of spite due to WI's desire for an interstate that got shafted by Illinois playing politics.

Does this remind you of anything? (I-99)

EDIT: The addition of new interstates nowadays has been due to political influence.  We do not need them  The grid that was laid out at first was satisfactory.  Money and politics drive the drawing of them now.  (Even states prevent their DOTs from assigning higher speed limits to any road that doesn't have the sacred shield. - I'm looking at you Minnesota and Iowa.)
Wow.  I agree that the original grid was sufficient.  I think it's pathetic that the system had to boil down to just people playing politics.
WI-13/WI-34 just end WI-34 at US-10. WI-13 was rerouted WI-34 should have just changed to WI-13 not became a duplex with it.

That's far from the only unnecessary concurrency in Wisconsin - WI-47 would logically be two or three different routes, and it even ends while concurrent with WI-182, which also ends at WI-47's terminus.  Either end 182 at 47 or 47 at 182; don't make a pointless concurrency.

And I'm certain there are others, too.  I agree with CNGL's point that any route that ends while concurrent with another should be truncated.

Edit: And what is the exact reason for the existence of I-894 when it is in its entirety concurrent with at least two other highways?  Just call it 41, people.

I know why Wis 34 was kept.  It was to give a consistent number for a connection between I-39 and Wisconsin Rapids.  As for Wis 182 and Wis 47, that is so they can both connect to US 51.  Wis 91 is concurrent with Wis 44 so it connects Berlin with I-41.  Wis 32 would qualify as an unnecessary concurrency with US 45 from Three Lakes to the Michigan Border.  The only reason why it exists is because it is the 32nd Division Memorial Highway, and it was routed from one state line to another to honor the Red Arrow Division. 

Could argue that the Wis 93 concurrency with US 53 is unnecessary since Wis 93 randomly ends at Wis 35.

I understand about those now - thanks. :nod:

Although I've also noticed that WI-32 and WI-57 seem to be very buddy-buddy with each other in that they are concurrent with each other and I-43 for a stretch, and then there's the long non-highway concurrency north of there and going through Calumet County and others.

And why exactly does the I-894 designation exist when all of it is concurrent with I-41?

By state statute, Wis 32 needs to go the length of the state to honor the 32nd Red Arrow Division.  Before the statute was enacted, Wis 32 ended at US 45 in Three Lakes, which would be the more logical end.  Wis 32 was extended along US 45 to meet that requirement.  In Howards Grove, Wis 42 and Wis 32 were swapped to the south.  Wis 32 once ended in Sheboygan and Wis 42 ended in Kenosha.  The switch was done so Wis 32 could run down to the Illinois state line 

Until the 1980s, Wis 32 traveled along current Wis 67, US 151, County W, and County PP between Kiel and De Pere.  Wis 57 was a far superior route than Wis 32 between Kiel and De Pere, so Wis 32 was turned back to Manitowoc and Brown County control north of US 151 and ran concurrent with Wis 57 between the 2 communities.  Between Kiel and US 151, WISDOT felt that the road was important enough to be a state highway so Wis 67 was extended along that stretch.

I-894 was once the lone number for the entire route and is considered the bypass for I-94.  I-43 was added in 1988, while I-41 was added in 2015.  On the new BGS on both ends, the route is labeled as "Bypass" along with the I-894 designation to make it clear to I-94 traffic that it should follow the route to bypass Downtown Milwaukee.  John Nordquist, the former mayor of Milwaukee wanted I-94 to replace I-894 years ago and extend I-794 to the Zoo Interchange so there was a proposal before I-41 was designated. 

 
I get it - so it's 43 and 41 that are unnecessary.
As usual I knew there would be some comment here regarding 894. I have explain this before but I guess I will again. By having jsut 41/43 on the east west portion you have a wrong way north south duplex on and east and west highway. That's insane that would lead to lots of confusion. I-41 is duplexed with another interstate south of the zoo interchange and it will never be extended south into Illinois. End it there folks problem solved. It's I-41 that's the unnecessary route number there. You already have US 41.
Thanks - I didn't realise that.

And besides, US 41 was fine as just US 41 anyway; no need to put a pretty red, white, and blue shield on it.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: cbeach40 on August 29, 2016, 03:34:43 PM
Any concurrencies where one route terminates at the end of it. Seriously, truncate that route back.

Owen Sound, ON is a great example of this.
The intersection of 10th St E and 9th Ave E (https://goo.gl/maps/Lp4umFrZQjE2) has the following route numbers:
From the west - 6 and 21 (also a wrong-way concurrency)
From the north - 26
From the south - 6 and 10

Hwys 10 and 21 could easily be truncated outside of town to prevent this unnecessary confusion. Then there would only be 2 highway numbers meeting in town instead of 4.


Then you get the additional confusion of truncating a route just short of its destination, which would be worse. It's better to truncate at a logical destination or decision point. Chatsworth and Springmount are not that.

A great example is I-69 and I-94 going to/from the Blue Water Bridge. Whichever one you're following to/from the bridge, you don't need to worry about the other number for that short distance. It's a lot cleaner that way.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: vdeane on August 29, 2016, 05:44:23 PM
I would say that having two routes end in an overlap is the very OPPOSITE of cleaner.  IMO I-69 should be truncated to end at I-94.  Having unnecessary concurrencies makes for a messy system.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: jp the roadgeek on August 29, 2016, 06:56:40 PM
I-87 and I-287 in NY.  Why not just number the Westchester portion to I-487, or the NJ portion to I-695 (so what if it goes 0.11 mi into NY)?
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: dgolub on August 29, 2016, 07:19:23 PM
The US 40/322 concurrency east of May's Landing is unnecessary.  Should just be US 40 since it's longer and 10 route.

This one might have something to do with the fact that you continue straight ahead to stay on US 322, but US 40 is the more major route, so it wouldn't make sense to truncate it to US 322.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: bulldog1979 on August 29, 2016, 11:23:01 PM
M-22/M-72 in Traverse City. However, by keeping it, M-22 forms a continuous loop for the Lake Michigan Circle Tour from US 31 in the Manistee area up through the Leelanau Peninsula back to US 31 at TC.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: mariethefoxy on August 30, 2016, 03:06:49 AM
I-87 and I-287 in NY.  Why not just number the Westchester portion to I-487, or the NJ portion to I-695 (so what if it goes 0.11 mi into NY)?

That one sorta makes sense, I-287 is the beltway around New York City and a good bypass route if you want to go around the George Washington Bridge traffic. Yes it does go a bit out of the way, but you'd probably spend that same amount of time sitting in bumper to bumper cross bronx traffic.

Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: cbeach40 on August 30, 2016, 09:08:42 AM
I would say that having two routes end in an overlap is the very OPPOSITE of cleaner.  IMO I-69 should be truncated to end at I-94.  Having unnecessary concurrencies makes for a messy system.

How is it messy? You follow one number from point A to B. Adding in an extra decision increases driver workload, which is precisely the opposite of what you'd want.

Guidance design is based on what makes sense while driving at speed, not what looks cleaner on a map.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: Max Rockatansky on August 30, 2016, 10:13:35 AM
Having I-495 multiplexed with I-95 on the Beltway always seemed stupid to me:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/21/Capital_Beltway_Map_Color.svg/564px-Capital_Beltway_Map_Color.svg.png)
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: bzakharin on August 30, 2016, 11:51:10 AM
The US 40/322 concurrency east of May's Landing is unnecessary.  Should just be US 40 since it's longer and 10 route.

This one might have something to do with the fact that you continue straight ahead to stay on US 322, but US 40 is the more major route, so it wouldn't make sense to truncate it to US 322.

Or

Then you get the additional confusion of truncating a route just short of its destination, which would be worse. It's better to truncate at a logical destination or decision point.

Another example of the above is US 206 which may or may not reach US 6 via US 209
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: roadman65 on August 30, 2016, 12:07:17 PM
FL State Road 15 in Belle Glade, FL.  Its useless as it is the secret route number for most of US 441 from north of there to Ashton, FL and was only routed down to its current terminus at Palm Beach County Road 880 when US 441 used to go there.  Now it got shifted to a new alignment taking it out of Belle Glade but they never truncated it, and being a mostly not signed route north of there, it makes no sense to have it any longer overlap with FL 80 for that few short miles.

In fact through Pahokee and Canal Point its useless to sign it with US 441 anyway, being its not signed at all unitl  the route becomes independent in Orlando between FL 528 and US 17 & 92 where it again goes into hiding.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: Max Rockatansky on August 30, 2016, 01:03:53 PM
FL State Road 15 in Belle Glade, FL.  Its useless as it is the secret route number for most of US 441 from north of there to Ashton, FL and was only routed down to its current terminus at Palm Beach County Road 880 when US 441 used to go there.  Now it got shifted to a new alignment taking it out of Belle Glade but they never truncated it, and being a mostly not signed route north of there, it makes no sense to have it any longer overlap with FL 80 for that few short miles.

In fact through Pahokee and Canal Point its useless to sign it with US 441 anyway, being its not signed at all unitl  the route becomes independent in Orlando between FL 528 and US 17 & 92 where it again goes into hiding.

I could have sworn it was signed on OBT at least at Sand Lake.  Personally I'd rather see 441 shifted east via Colonial, Semoran, Whatever east-west road between the former and Goldenrod, and Narcoosee all the way to St Cloud.  Just throw then secret 15 on the on the realigned 441 and give Conway Road a 5xx number.

Also US 441 is signed pretty throughly north of Okeechobee, not a bad scenic alternate to the Turnpike IMO.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: vdeane on August 30, 2016, 01:07:28 PM
I-87 and I-287 in NY.  Why not just number the Westchester portion to I-487, or the NJ portion to I-695 (so what if it goes 0.11 mi into NY)?
I believe the former was an actual proposal from NY at one point.  The latter would have worked too, since I-695 technically didn't exist in NY until 2008, according to FHWA (it was signed from 1986, but was technically a spur of I-295).

I would say that having two routes end in an overlap is the very OPPOSITE of cleaner.  IMO I-69 should be truncated to end at I-94.  Having unnecessary concurrencies makes for a messy system.

How is it messy? You follow one number from point A to B. Adding in an extra decision increases driver workload, which is precisely the opposite of what you'd want.

Guidance design is based on what makes sense while driving at speed, not what looks cleaner on a map.
Yeah, I'm thinking from the map.  In any case, I've never had trouble with ideas like "take I-69 to I-94, then take I-94 east to Canada".  Who are all these people who can't navigate from point A to point B unless the entire route has the same number, and when did they get so much power that they could influence the designations of I-69, I-11, and lobby for stuff like Continental One?

There are a few NY state routes that have odd routings or seem to be a collection of smaller routes strung together through overlaps (NY 812 comes to mind); I've always been asking "who thought this was a logical routing?".  Having multiple numbers to refer to a section of road strikes me as redundant, and I'm of the opinion that overlaps should be minimized (though sometimes they're necessary).
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: cbeach40 on August 30, 2016, 01:37:25 PM
Yeah, I'm thinking from the map.  In any case, I've never had trouble with ideas like "take I-69 to I-94, then take I-94 east to Canada".  Who are all these people who can't navigate from point A to point B unless the entire route has the same number, and when did they get so much power that they could influence the designations of I-69, I-11, and lobby for stuff like Continental One?

There are a few NY state routes that have odd routings or seem to be a collection of smaller routes strung together through overlaps (NY 812 comes to mind); I've always been asking "who thought this was a logical routing?".  Having multiple numbers to refer to a section of road strikes me as redundant, and I'm of the opinion that overlaps should be minimized (though sometimes they're necessary).

Yes, concurrencies are not desirable. But not at the cost of positive guidance.

N/E bound I-69/94 really doesn't need concurrency, the Canada destination would suffice provided its signed properly. But S/E bound, you have two significant movements there, via I-94 and via I-69. So you'd need to sign both anyway. And if you trailblaze it rather than assurance sign it, you're going to end up with even greater sign clutter.

Yes, it is possible to cut one route off sooner. But not prudent.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: vdeane on August 30, 2016, 01:45:35 PM
Isn't that what the "To" banner is for?  Yeah, I know Canada doesn't use it (Ontario using a different shield variant and Quebec not using it at all; not sure about other provinces), but that's why it was invented.

(though I wouldn't be surprised if another reason for that overlap is so MDOT could put in the second business loop)
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: LM117 on August 30, 2016, 01:47:14 PM
Having I-495 multiplexed with I-95 on the Beltway always seemed stupid to me:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/21/Capital_Beltway_Map_Color.svg/564px-Capital_Beltway_Map_Color.svg.png)

Agreed. Reminds me of the days when I-40 and I-440 were concurrent in Raleigh, NC. I'm glad that concurrency no longer exists.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: cbeach40 on August 30, 2016, 01:58:48 PM
Isn't that what the "To" banner is for?  Yeah, I know Canada doesn't use it (Ontario using a different shield variant and Quebec not using it at all; not sure about other provinces), but that's why it was invented.

Yes, but in the end you have the same number of signs. And your overhead signs have an extra piece of information on them. So there's no net benefit to not overlapping the routes.

Basically, if you have a short section of highway between a route terminus and a major destination, and you'd want to sign that gap with "To" banners, then odds are it would make more sense to simply overlap them.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: AsphaltPlanet on August 30, 2016, 02:33:34 PM
Isn't that what the "To" banner is for?  Yeah, I know Canada doesn't use it (Ontario using a different shield variant and Quebec not using it at all; not sure about other provinces), but that's why it was invented.

(though I wouldn't be surprised if another reason for that overlap is so MDOT could put in the second business loop)

This is kind of a personal gripe, but I hate reading the descriptor "Canada doesn't use it".  There is a lot of variation on how various provinces in Canada sign things.  As such, it's almost never accurate to say "Canada does, or doesn't do such and such."

It'd be the same as if someone wrote "America has a 120" sign height restriction on overhead signage".  California does, America doesn't.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: hbelkins on August 30, 2016, 02:42:52 PM
Another example of the above is US 206 which may or may not reach US 6 via US 209

It doesn't, at least not anymore.

I know at one time, great pains were taken to make sure three-digit US routes met their parent (such as running 641 along with 60 to the Henderson/Evansville area, so it could meet 41) but that just seems to be a waste of good signage and ink on a map.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: 1995hoo on August 30, 2016, 02:44:09 PM
Having I-495 multiplexed with I-95 on the Beltway always seemed stupid to me:

....

Agreed. Reminds me of the days when I-40 and I-440 were concurrent in Raleigh, NC. I'm glad that concurrency no longer exists.

For a long time it wasn't like that. I-495 was only on the west side and I-95 was alone in the east side. Lots of people apparently found it confusing, and VDOT's signing of the thru movement on the Beltway in Springfield as an "exit" came in for special derision (Maryland did not do the same thing). So I-495 was added back to the eastern side due to popular demand.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: Rothman on August 30, 2016, 02:50:51 PM
Having I-495 multiplexed with I-95 on the Beltway always seemed stupid to me:

....

Agreed. Reminds me of the days when I-40 and I-440 were concurrent in Raleigh, NC. I'm glad that concurrency no longer exists.

For a long time it wasn't like that. I-495 was only on the west side and I-95 was alone in the east side. Lots of people apparently found it confusing, and VDOT's signing of the thru movement on the Beltway in Springfield as an "exit" came in for special derision (Maryland did not do the same thing). So I-495 was added back to the eastern side due to popular demand.

You just can't please everyone.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: PHLBOS on August 30, 2016, 03:43:40 PM
I'm surprised that no one has yet mentioned the elephant in the Bay State known as Route 128 south/west of Peabody (I-95).
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: vdeane on August 30, 2016, 07:06:52 PM
My understanding is that MA 128 is officially truncated to Peabody but remains on signs to appease locals who would be out with the torches and pitchforks if it were removed.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: countysigns on August 30, 2016, 07:26:24 PM
How about the I-96/I-275 concurrency from I-96/M-14 in Plymouth to I-696/M-5?  Does I-275 need to be there?  I know, in the grand scheme of things, I-275 was supposed to connect to I-75 up around Clarkston, but since the NIMBY's got their way, shouldn't I-275 just end at I-96/M-14?
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: LM117 on August 30, 2016, 08:43:03 PM
How about the I-96/I-275 concurrency from I-96/M-14 in Plymouth to I-696/M-5?  Does I-275 need to be there?  I know, in the grand scheme of things, I-275 was supposed to connect to I-75 up around Clarkston, but since the NIMBY's got their way, shouldn't I-275 just end at I-96/M-14?

According to the FHWA, I-275 officially does end at the I-96/M-14 junction, but MDOT gave FHWA the middle finger and signed I-275 on I-96 anyway.

Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: The Nature Boy on August 31, 2016, 05:50:10 AM
I've always found the US 64/264 concurrency in eastern Wake County, NC to be unnecessary. US 264 ends at the I-440 junction and is never separated from US 64 again. It makes more sense for US 264 to simply end at the junction with 64 than to limp along as a secondary route until I-440.

This is made even worse by the fact that I-87 will also share that strip of pavement and I'm not entirely sure what's going to happen to I-495 but that's there too.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: LM117 on August 31, 2016, 09:44:32 AM
I've always found the US 64/264 concurrency in eastern Wake County, NC to be unnecessary. US 264 ends at the I-440 junction and is never separated from US 64 again. It makes more sense for US 264 to simply end at the junction with 64 than to limp along as a secondary route until I-440.

This is made even worse by the fact that I-87 will also share that strip of pavement and I'm not entirely sure what's going to happen to I-495 but that's there too.

I agree. I've said before that US-264 should be truncated back to Zebulon.

As for I-495, NCDOT plans to get rid of it. They haven't said when, but it'll likely be done during AASHTO's next meeting in November. There's also the strong possibility of a small section of I-440 being decommissioned between the Knightdale Bypass exit and I-40 in southeast Raleigh, since I-87 is planned to end at I-40, rather than I-440 as I-495 currently does.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: Max Rockatansky on August 31, 2016, 10:25:28 AM
How about the I-96/I-275 concurrency from I-96/M-14 in Plymouth to I-696/M-5?  Does I-275 need to be there?  I know, in the grand scheme of things, I-275 was supposed to connect to I-75 up around Clarkston, but since the NIMBY's got their way, shouldn't I-275 just end at I-96/M-14?

According to the FHWA, I-275 officially does end at the I-96/M-14 junction, but MDOT gave FHWA the middle finger and signed I-275 on I-96 anyway.

Best part is that everyone calls the I-96 multiplex "275" locally anyways, so much for 2d being more significant.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: TheStranger on August 31, 2016, 12:12:52 PM


Best part is that everyone calls the I-96 multiplex "275" locally anyways, so much for 2d being more significant.

Just from reading this thread (and thinking of this topic in the past) it does seem like concurrencies of this kind - at least on the Interstate level - are primarily the result of the public refusing to use a newer number for an existing road, as is the case with the Beltway/I-495 around DC (where at one point 495 didn't exist on the eastern half), Route 128 around Boston (where 128 signage has been reduced somewhat over the years, yet hasn't resulted in locals calling it "95"), and US 40 in St. Louis (I don't know if the segment of US 40/I-64 west of I-270 is called "US 40" as well).

Conversely, in the example of one of these types of multiplexes that is presently being removed (US 50/Business 80 in Sacramento), even though some form of 80 numbering had existed on that stretch since the 1960s, the through-route configuration in Oak Park for US 50 likely led to the dominance of 50 as the regular term for that route over the last 10-15 years - even though 50 is the newer (1982 to present) designation between West Sacramento and 99!

Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: roadman on August 31, 2016, 01:37:16 PM
My understanding is that MA 128 is officially truncated to Peabody but remains on signs to appease locals who would be out with the torches and pitchforks if it were removed.
Not exactly.  Per the current MassDOT Road Inventory Maps, mile 0.0 for MA 128 begins at the I-95/I-93 junction in Canton, although the 128 mileage does not appear on mileposts until just north of the Peabody split (MM 37.4) - mileposts between Canton and Peabody reference the I-95 mileage.  As for signs, the restriction on MA 128 between Canton and Peabody is that, per FHWA directive, the designation cannot appear on LGS or BGS signs along the I-95/MA 128 overlap**.  Placing route markers for MA 128 is perfectly fine.

** For the record, there are LGS panels at the Walnut Street and Salem Street interchanges that include both I-95 and MA 128 shields.  These panels were recently installed as part of private development projects at these interchanges. Whomever reviewed the designs for MassDOT apparently didn't understand the current restrictions regarding signing for MA 128 within the I-95 overlap section.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: vdeane on August 31, 2016, 01:43:48 PM
Is there a reason why this restriction only applies to MA 128 and not to any other state route overlapping an interstate (I-86 and NY 17 co-exist on many guide signs, for example)?
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: roadman on August 31, 2016, 01:55:49 PM
Is there a reason why this restriction only applies to MA 128 and not to any other state route overlapping an interstate (I-86 and NY 17 co-exist on many guide signs, for example)?
The directive regarding not posting MA 128 shields on BGS and LGS signs within the I-95/MA 128 overlap area, which was issued in the early 1990s, came from the FHWA Massachusetts regional office.  The signing folks at the New York FHWA regional office may have a different opinion on the matter of Interstate/state route overlaps where the state route does not continue past the overlap section at one or both ends.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: Mapmikey on August 31, 2016, 02:13:25 PM
Keep in mind that for the DC beltway, 495 was on the whole thing first, from 1961-1975, while 95 went into DC
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: bzakharin on August 31, 2016, 02:53:52 PM
Is there a reason why this restriction only applies to MA 128 and not to any other state route overlapping an interstate (I-86 and NY 17 co-exist on many guide signs, for example)?
The directive regarding not posting MA 128 shields on BGS and LGS signs within the I-95/MA 128 overlap area, which was issued in the early 1990s, came from the FHWA Massachusetts regional office.  The signing folks at the New York FHWA regional office may have a different opinion on the matter of Interstate/state route overlaps where the state route does not continue past the overlap section at one or both ends.
How common is it to actually have a state route overlap with an Interstate (or even US route)? I can only think of I-278 and NY 440 off the top of my head, and that one is not acknowledged if this sign is any indication: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6192858,-74.1632918,3a,75y,279.11h,96.45t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s4ymiJIsbMdm8-7N40IKzCA!2e0!5s20121001T000000!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: 1 on August 31, 2016, 03:11:16 PM
Is there a reason why this restriction only applies to MA 128 and not to any other state route overlapping an interstate (I-86 and NY 17 co-exist on many guide signs, for example)?
The directive regarding not posting MA 128 shields on BGS and LGS signs within the I-95/MA 128 overlap area, which was issued in the early 1990s, came from the FHWA Massachusetts regional office.  The signing folks at the New York FHWA regional office may have a different opinion on the matter of Interstate/state route overlaps where the state route does not continue past the overlap section at one or both ends.
How common is it to actually have a state route overlap with an Interstate (or even US route)? I can only think of I-278 and NY 440 off the top of my head, and that one is not acknowledged if this sign is any indication: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6192858,-74.1632918,3a,75y,279.11h,96.45t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s4ymiJIsbMdm8-7N40IKzCA!2e0!5s20121001T000000!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1

State routes:
I-93 and MA 3
I-89 and NH 11
I-293, NH 101, and NH 3A
I-86 and NY 17
I-465 and IN 37

Interstate/US combinations are much more common. I-25, I-86 (western), I-465, and I-393 are overlapped with US routes for most of their lengths, and I-25 is a relatively major Interstate.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: 1995hoo on August 31, 2016, 03:21:40 PM
Keep in mind that for the DC beltway, 495 was on the whole thing first, from 1961-1975, while 95 went into DC
I assumed everyone on a roads forum knew that! :-)
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: 1 on August 31, 2016, 03:46:30 PM
Keep in mind that for the DC beltway, 495 was on the whole thing first, from 1961-1975, while 95 went into DC
I assumed everyone on a roads forum knew that! :-)

We always have new members. I definitely didn't know that when I joined in 2013.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: Avalanchez71 on August 31, 2016, 03:50:36 PM
I-40 and TN SR 56 and also SR 58.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: hbelkins on August 31, 2016, 04:38:05 PM
How common is it to actually have a state route overlap with an Interstate (or even US route)? I can only think of I-278 and NY 440 off the top of my head, and that one is not acknowledged if this sign is any indication: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6192858,-74.1632918,3a,75y,279.11h,96.45t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s4ymiJIsbMdm8-7N40IKzCA!2e0!5s20121001T000000!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1

Quite common, actually.

Kentucky has KY 841 co-signed with I-265 for its entire length.

In Virginia you will find, for example, VA 55 signed with a portion of I-66 and VA 100 signed along I-81 for a decent distance.

There's at least one in Ohio (I-70 and OH 4) that comes to mind offhand.

I-77 and WV 2 is another example.

US/interstate concurrencies are much more common.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: bzakharin on August 31, 2016, 06:16:20 PM
Yeah, I know plenty US / Interstate concurrencies. I meant Interstate / State and US / State.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: US 81 on August 31, 2016, 08:03:35 PM
Yeah, I know plenty US / Interstate concurrencies. I meant Interstate / State and US / State.

Pretty common in western TX along I-10, I-20 and I-40.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: Eth on August 31, 2016, 10:11:06 PM
How common is it to actually have a state route overlap with an Interstate (or even US route)? I can only think of I-278 and NY 440 off the top of my head, and that one is not acknowledged if this sign is any indication: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6192858,-74.1632918,3a,75y,279.11h,96.45t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s4ymiJIsbMdm8-7N40IKzCA!2e0!5s20121001T000000!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1

In Georgia, nearly any Interstate/US overlap would necessarily bring a state route along for the ride*, but there actually aren't that many of those: I-75/US 41/SR 7 for a few miles north of Valdosta, I-516 with US 17/SR 25 and/or US 80/SR 26, and a 15-mile stretch of I-20/US 278/SR 12 east of Atlanta. (Exceptions: US 19 doesn't bring SR 9 with it when it briefly hops onto I-285 (unsigned SR 407), nor does US 23 bring along SR 13 on I-985 (unsigned SR 365/419).) If I'm not mistaken, there is only one are only two signed Interstate/state concurrency concurrencies in Georgia that doesn't don't also involve a US route: the entirety of I-575 is co-signed with SR 5 and the ends of I-516/SR 21 are independent of US 17 and US 80.

* besides the unsigned 4xx state route that's already on the Interstate
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: SSOWorld on August 31, 2016, 10:48:59 PM


Best part is that everyone calls the I-96 multiplex "275" locally anyways, so much for 2d being more significant.

Just from reading this thread (and thinking of this topic in the past) it does seem like concurrencies of this kind - at least on the Interstate level - are primarily the result of the public refusing to use a newer number for an existing road, as is the case with the Beltway/I-495 around DC (where at one point 495 didn't exist on the eastern half), Route 128 around Boston (where 128 signage has been reduced somewhat over the years, yet hasn't resulted in locals calling it "95"), and US 40 in St. Louis (I don't know if the segment of US 40/I-64 west of I-270 is called "US 40" as well).

Conversely, in the example of one of these types of multiplexes that is presently being removed (US 50/Business 80 in Sacramento), even though some form of 80 numbering had existed on that stretch since the 1960s, the through-route configuration in Oak Park for US 50 likely led to the dominance of 50 as the regular term for that route over the last 10-15 years - even though 50 is the newer (1982 to present) designation between West Sacramento and 99!


Same is true for locals in Wausau, Stevens Point - they still call it "highway 51" (emphasis on "highway").  This makes "highway 41" redundant :P
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: SSOWorld on August 31, 2016, 10:49:31 PM


Best part is that everyone calls the I-96 multiplex "275" locally anyways, so much for 2d being more significant.

Just from reading this thread (and thinking of this topic in the past) it does seem like concurrencies of this kind - at least on the Interstate level - are primarily the result of the public refusing to use a newer number for an existing road, as is the case with the Beltway/I-495 around DC (where at one point 495 didn't exist on the eastern half), Route 128 around Boston (where 128 signage has been reduced somewhat over the years, yet hasn't resulted in locals calling it "95"), and US 40 in St. Louis (I don't know if the segment of US 40/I-64 west of I-270 is called "US 40" as well).

Conversely, in the example of one of these types of multiplexes that is presently being removed (US 50/Business 80 in Sacramento), even though some form of 80 numbering had existed on that stretch since the 1960s, the through-route configuration in Oak Park for US 50 likely led to the dominance of 50 as the regular term for that route over the last 10-15 years - even though 50 is the newer (1982 to present) designation between West Sacramento and 99!


Same is true for locals in Wausau, Stevens Point - they still call it "highway 51" (emphasis on "highway").  This makes "highway 41" redundant :P

Excuse me... "HWY"! :awesomeface:
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: roadman65 on August 31, 2016, 11:24:31 PM
Some may argue that US 17 & 92 could be one.  If it were any state out west, the number of US 92 would have been decommissioned.  If it were California, US 17 would be concurrent with I-4 from DeLand to Lake Alfred and the rest between those points would be CA state designations except US 441 ( if it were allowed to continue south of Lake City) might stay on OBT though.

I believe US 92 is concurrent more with US 17 than being alone.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: Max Rockatansky on August 31, 2016, 11:32:28 PM
Some may argue that US 17 & 92 could be one.  If it were any state out west, the number of US 92 would have been decommissioned.  If it were California, US 17 would be concurrent with I-4 from DeLand to Lake Alfred and the rest between those points would be CA state designations except US 441 ( if it were allowed to continue south of Lake City) might stay on OBT though.

I believe US 92 is concurrent more with US 17 than being alone.

Technically both US 92 and US 292 ought not to be a thing anymore considering they are intra-state and under 300 miles.  But with that said I think they are viable enough corridors on their own to justify them still existing.  Most of the roads out west that were decomissioned were abandoned or the Interstate traffic was realigned to bypass them significantly.   At the very least they both connect to other parts of the US and Interstate systems which is good enough for me with the high traffic counts.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: WNYroadgeek on August 31, 2016, 11:53:58 PM
Any concurrencies where one route terminates at the end of it. Seriously, truncate that route back.

New York is full of these:

NY 15/NY 21 (NY 15 terminates at southern end of overlap)
NY 21/NY 332 (NY 332 terminates at southern end of overlap)
NY 14A/NY 245 (both terminate at northern end of overlap)
NY 31F/NY 350 (both terminate at southern end of overlap)
US 20A/NY 64 (US 20A terminates at northern end of overlap)
NY 31E/NY 271 (both terminate at southern end of overlap)
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: dzlsabe on September 01, 2016, 12:17:51 AM
Does twelve miles of I-90 AND 94 through downtown Chicago count?
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: Charles2 on September 01, 2016, 01:47:40 AM
Alabama US/State Route Concurrencies:

20/59: US-11 & AL-5 (Exit 97-108)
20: US-78 (Exit 153-156), US-431 (Exit 188-191)
22: US-78 (MS state line-Exit 85)
65: US-80 (Exit 167-168), US-82 (Exit 168-179), AL-14 (Exit 179-181), US-31 (Exit 284-287), AL-69 (Exit 299-304), US-31 (Exit 354-TN state line
85: US-80 (Exit 6-22), US-29 (Exit 51-64),US-280 (Exit 58-62)
359: US-11 & AL-69 (entire route)

Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: 74/171FAN on September 01, 2016, 04:37:02 AM
Some may argue that US 17 & 92 could be one.  If it were any state out west, the number of US 92 would have been decommissioned.  If it were California, US 17 would be concurrent with I-4 from DeLand to Lake Alfred and the rest between those points would be CA state designations except US 441 ( if it were allowed to continue south of Lake City) might stay on OBT though.

I believe US 92 is concurrent more with US 17 than being alone.

Technically both US 92 and US 192 ought not to be a thing anymore considering they are intra-state and under 300 miles.  But with that said I think they are viable enough corridors on their own to justify them still existing.  Most of the roads out west that were decomissioned were abandoned or the Interstate traffic was realigned to bypass them significantly.   At the very least they both connect to other parts of the US and Interstate systems which is good enough for me with the high traffic counts.

FTFY.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: Max Rockatansky on September 01, 2016, 09:14:18 AM
Some may argue that US 17 & 92 could be one.  If it were any state out west, the number of US 92 would have been decommissioned.  If it were California, US 17 would be concurrent with I-4 from DeLand to Lake Alfred and the rest between those points would be CA state designations except US 441 ( if it were allowed to continue south of Lake City) might stay on OBT though.

I believe US 92 is concurrent more with US 17 than being alone.

Technically both US 92 and US 192 ought not to be a thing anymore considering they are intra-state and under 300 miles.  But with that said I think they are viable enough corridors on their own to justify them still existing.  Most of the roads out west that were decomissioned were abandoned or the Interstate traffic was realigned to bypass them significantly.   At the very least they both connect to other parts of the US and Interstate systems which is good enough for me with the high traffic counts.

FTFY.

Yeah I had that rejected submission FDOT made about FL 50 being added as a US Route on my mind way long ago.  I don't know what route number they applied for but I was going to make a comment about US 292.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: Strider on September 01, 2016, 11:13:28 AM
Seriously, VA 3 and VA 14 in the Middle Peninsula.
Wasn't US 76 and US 74 concurrent in NC at one time with US 76 kinda serving as a business route then going back over to be concurrent with US 74 once again?

HB- FTFY

Also I thought US 76 did that in Wilmington now.

Finally, this thread existed 5 years ago (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3850.0) but with no posts since 2011.  Oddly HB started it.



Yeah you are correct. US 76 acts like a business route in Wilmington while US 74 bypasses it slightly to the north before dipping back into Wilmington.

Another unnecessary concurrencies: I-73/I-74/US 220. IMO, I-74 should just end at I-73, and US 220 should be moved back to its original routing (except around Greensboro as I-73 bypasses the city to the west, and the segment between Candor and Ellerbe as US 220 was recently being put back on its original routing.)
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: PHLBOS on September 01, 2016, 11:59:46 AM
Is there a reason why this restriction only applies to MA 128 and not to any other state route overlapping an interstate (I-86 and NY 17 co-exist on many guide signs, for example)?
The directive regarding not posting MA 128 shields on BGS and LGS signs within the I-95/MA 128 overlap area, which was issued in the early 1990s, came from the FHWA Massachusetts regional office.  The signing folks at the New York FHWA regional office may have a different opinion on the matter of Interstate/state route overlaps where the state route does not continue past the overlap section at one or both ends.
Val, how long will that NY 17 concurrency w/I-86 last once all of it is upgraded to Interstate standards?

Roadman, what's the deal behind newer MA 3 signage along the Southeast Expressway (concurrent w/I-93 & US 1) now restricted to just trailblazer signage & reassurance markers (all the newer BGS'/LGS' just have I-93 & US 1 shields)?

Unlike 128, MA 3 can't be truncated (not without redesignating the Pilgrim's Highway with another route number) per say because the route extends beyond the I-93/US 1 concurrency at both ends.  Personally, MA 3 between Cambridge & Neponset should revert back to its pre-1971 routing (MA 203 would be eliminated).

Heck, had Boston/MassDPW waited a few years before purging its C-route system (the MA 3 change occurred simultaneously w/such); MA 3 would've been left alone... especially given the extended I-93 & the de-facto I-95 corridor assignments.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: vdeane on September 01, 2016, 12:48:16 PM
Val, how long will that NY 17 concurrency w/I-86 last once all of it is upgraded to Interstate standards?
That's a good question.  There was the impression that NY 17 would be truncated when I-86 was complete, but the fact that the I-86 upgrade is on indefinite hold means that, in practice, it's going to be around for a while.  Region 6 had been slowly phasing out NY 17 signage, but I've heard that their current traffic engineer has directed the signs to be replaced in kind.  Region 5 might be phasing it out too - the new signs near exit 10 are I-86 only (and take a page from Region TO (http://www.nysroads.com/photos.php?route=i86&state=NY&file=101_4537.JPG)).
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: roadman65 on September 01, 2016, 01:09:46 PM
Why cannot US 76 be truncated to I-75 at Dalton?  Does it need to go all the way to Chatanooga anymore while with US 41?

Then again why can't US 23 be truncated to end at US 1 or even Atlanta?  Or US 25 to Ludwici being its concurrency with US 341 is ignored completely. 

GADOT of course runs it all is the answer, but considering GADOT has secret route numbers signed, having the extra US routes signed is causing more maintenance for their agency.  With US 76 it shadows an interstate that carries the load to the place of terminus, so that is really excessive.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: Avalanchez71 on September 01, 2016, 01:20:56 PM
I havent' seen US 74 & US 64 mentioned at all.  US 64 and US 74 are concurrent from NC to I-75 in Chattanooga.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: roadman65 on September 01, 2016, 01:45:41 PM
I havent' seen US 74 & US 64 mentioned at all.  US 64 and US 74 are concurrent from NC to I-75 in Chattanooga.
I forgot US 74, but its shorter.  However US 64 does continue on both sides of Chatanooga for hundreds of miles each way.  US 64 goes to Nags Head, NC while to the west it makes it to Teec Nos Poz, AZ a distance of 2326 miles total with I-75 being a good way along that line.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: roadman65 on September 01, 2016, 01:46:56 PM
The VA 2/ US 301 concurrency between Richmond, VA and Bowling Green, VA.  Does VA 2 really need to be signed here at all?
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: hbelkins on September 01, 2016, 01:51:46 PM
US/state concurrencies are very, very common. Kentucky's "biggest" concurrency is five routes, three US and two state, in Pikeville.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: roadman65 on September 01, 2016, 02:16:41 PM
While I am on a role, I think US 98 from Okeechobee to West Palm Beach is  with both US 441 and FL 80 totally unnecessary. Considering that FL 710 does a better job, and is the most direct route into West Palm from Okeechobee and shorter by 14 miles, it should become US 98.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: Max Rockatansky on September 01, 2016, 10:23:58 PM
While I am on a role, I think US 98 from Okeechobee to West Palm Beach is  with both US 441 and FL 80 totally unnecessary. Considering that FL 710 does a better job, and is the most direct route into West Palm from Okeechobee and shorter by 14 miles, it should become US 98.

Or just cut back US 441 to Okeechobee...or have it go to US 27 instead?
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: Avalanchez71 on September 02, 2016, 01:55:33 PM
Send US 441 down to Brown's Farm.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: Max Rockatansky on September 02, 2016, 02:15:04 PM
Send US 441 down to Brown's Farm.

Actually it wouldn't be such a bad quick exit of the Fort Lauderdale area if it was ever upgraded.  I'm fairly certain a good portion of CR 827 still isn't paved though.  Hell US 27 is pretty much my go-to route to get from Tampa or Orlando from Miami so I can avoid all the freeways or the Turnpike.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: roadman65 on September 15, 2016, 08:18:35 PM
You bring up an interesting point US 441 south of Okeechobee is kind of useless there.  First of all in Palm Beach and Broward Counties the independent section south of US 98 & FL 80 is called State Road 7 by locals there and is even signed that on street blades.  Having the US 441 shields are a waste of money if you cannot get local support.

Then in Miami-Dade, I am not sure if its also called State Road 7 or not, but I am sure its not called 441 or US 441.

So having it end there at US 98 and SR 70 would work or simply keep it and have it end at US 27 in South Bay.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: Max Rockatansky on September 15, 2016, 08:36:05 PM
Usually I would take 441 from Yeehaw Junction to Miami via US 27.  Basically it always seemed to me that 441 should just continue south through Belle Glade or bypass it on FL 715.  715 doesn't have the same BS 45 MPH speed zones north of Belle Glade that the current US 441/98 has.  If that was the case then FL 80 could be signed as a BL even to US 98 as it cuts east.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: renegade on September 15, 2016, 09:12:52 PM
US-223's concurrency with US-23 from the Monroe St. exit in Sylvania, Ohio to Exit 5 in Michigan seems unnecessary
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: TEG24601 on September 15, 2016, 09:59:00 PM
This might cause a bit of a row...


I-80/90 from Chicagoland to Ohio.  Either build an alternate Free route for one of the Interstates or replace I-94 to Detroit and Pt. Huron with I-90, then reconnect I-90 to the system in Buffalo heading to Boston.  Under this change, I-94 would terminate at I-90 at the Dan Ryan.


US-30/I-84 in Oregon.  US-30 is not much more than a scenic route through Oregon, and should be largely eliminated.  The western portion should become US-26, and US-26 should either become an extension of I-84 or I-505, with the portion after the freeway becoming an Oregon State Route.


I-96/I-275 near Detroit - FHWA already doesn't consider this in existence.  Just remove the signs.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: plain on September 15, 2016, 11:05:12 PM
I think that the concurrent routings of all those US and IN routes on the I-465 beltway Indianapolis of course) are the dumbest yet, especially since they are so poorly signed (not signed at all on the beltway itself) and it's hard to tell which direction on the beltway one should go for the quickest way to continue on said route, at least for those not very good with maps or directions. Indiana might as well just continued the designations through town smdh.

Virginia is filled with unnecessary concurrencies. VA 2 has already been mentioned. There's also VA 32, which should just end in Suffolk, US 360 which should end at US 58 in South Boston instead of Danville, VA 337 which shouldn't even exist at all anymore..

Maryland has a hidden concurreny on US 50/301 (I-595). I'm sure this was done so that stretch can receive interstate funding. They might as well just sign it
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: 20160805 on September 16, 2016, 06:47:27 AM
I think that the concurrent routings of all those US and IN routes on the I-465 beltway Indianapolis of course) are the dumbest yet, especially since they are so poorly signed (not signed at all on the beltway itself) and it's hard to tell which direction on the beltway one should go for the quickest way to continue on said route, at least for those not very good with maps or directions. Indiana might as well just continued the designations through town smdh.

Virginia is filled with unnecessary concurrencies. VA 2 has already been mentioned. There's also VA 32, which should just end in Suffolk, US 360 which should end at US 58 in South Boston instead of Danville, VA 337 which shouldn't even exist at all anymore..

Maryland has a hidden concurreny on US 50/301 (I-595). I'm sure this was done so that stretch can receive interstate funding. They might as well just sign it

I agree.  Refusing to sign Interstates is just stupid.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: cbeach40 on September 16, 2016, 08:45:33 AM
I-80/90 from Chicagoland to Ohio.  Either build an alternate Free route for one of the Interstates or replace I-94 to Detroit and Pt. Huron with I-90, then reconnect I-90 to the system in Buffalo heading to Boston.  Under this change, I-94 would terminate at I-90 at the Dan Ryan.

If you discount the notion that "10" interstates should go coast to coast, then yeah, having 80 and 90 overlap for such a long distance makes no sense.

I-96/I-275 near Detroit - FHWA already doesn't consider this in existence.  Just remove the signs.

Or if you want to "complete the loop" you could route I-275 along I-696 or I-96 and US-23 to reconnect to I-75.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: Avalanchez71 on September 16, 2016, 08:54:37 AM
I think that the concurrent routings of all those US and IN routes on the I-465 beltway Indianapolis of course) are the dumbest yet, especially since they are so poorly signed (not signed at all on the beltway itself) and it's hard to tell which direction on the beltway one should go for the quickest way to continue on said route, at least for those not very good with maps or directions. Indiana might as well just continued the designations through town smdh.

Virginia is filled with unnecessary concurrencies. VA 2 has already been mentioned. There's also VA 32, which should just end in Suffolk, US 360 which should end at US 58 in South Boston instead of Danville, VA 337 which shouldn't even exist at all anymore..

Maryland has a hidden concurreny on US 50/301 (I-595). I'm sure this was done so that stretch can receive interstate funding. They might as well just sign it

I agree.  Refusing to sign Interstates is just stupid.

Indiana has a state law that limits mileage of the state road system.  Since Marion County and the semi-unified Indianapolis government has the resources to maintain these routes Indiana moved the state routes out of the core of the city.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: TEG24601 on September 16, 2016, 11:42:42 AM
I-80/90 from Chicagoland to Ohio.  Either build an alternate Free route for one of the Interstates or replace I-94 to Detroit and Pt. Huron with I-90, then reconnect I-90 to the system in Buffalo heading to Boston.  Under this change, I-94 would terminate at I-90 at the Dan Ryan.

If you discount the notion that "10" interstates should go coast to coast, then yeah, having 80 and 90 overlap for such a long distance makes no sense.


Plus, Connecting Seattle to Detroit is a historic connection, dating back to US 10.  The break in 90 would be similar to the break in US 2.  Just designate a new route from Ohio to Buffalo, and you are all set.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: MNHighwayMan on September 16, 2016, 12:46:02 PM
MN-28's concurrency with MN-27 west of Little Falls. I get why it exists - the description of constitutional route 28 - but it's just silly in practice. MN-28 just silently vanishes in the middle of Little Falls at a relatively unimportant intersection without any signage.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: JCinSummerfield on September 16, 2016, 01:52:36 PM
This might cause a bit of a row...


I-80/90 from Chicagoland to Ohio.  Either build an alternate Free route for one of the Interstates or replace I-94 to Detroit and Pt. Huron with I-90, then reconnect I-90 to the system in Buffalo heading to Boston.  Under this change, I-94 would terminate at I-90 at the Dan Ryan.


I'd just terminate I-94 in Milwaukee. With I-41, I-94 isn't necessary for a Chi-Mil interstate.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: hbelkins on September 16, 2016, 09:03:43 PM
I was just on two of them in West Virginia.

WV 54 and WV 97. They are co-routed from their intersection point to WV 16 near Beckley, where WV 54 ends but WV 97 continues concurrently with WV 16. WV 97 then ends at the West Virginia Turnpike (I-64/I-77) while WV 16 continues.

I realize the purpose is to allow for a continuous route from the turnpike to Twin Falls State Park, but there's no need to continue WV 54.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: kphoger on September 17, 2016, 02:11:45 PM
Does twelve miles of I-90 AND 94 through downtown Chicago count?

Not unless you have a solution.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: kphoger on September 17, 2016, 02:17:49 PM
I-135 in Kansas.  Literally 99% of it is cosigned with US-81.

Southbound, that remaining half-mile in Wichita should be signed "to I-35 / KTA."  The exit from the Turnpike should be signed "to I-235 / US-81."
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: 1995hoo on September 17, 2016, 02:23:57 PM
....

Maryland has a hidden concurreny on US 50/301 (I-595). I'm sure this was done so that stretch can receive interstate funding. They might as well just sign it

If they did sign it, it would just be another example of the 128 thing noted earlier—almost everyone would almost certainly continue to call it "Route 50," especially since that number continues beyond I-595 on both ends. I think it's an example of a place where there's no real benefit to signing it as an Interstate. Once upon a time when Interstate status was needed in order to post a speed limit higher than 55 mph it might have made sense, but that was never an issue in this case because the governor of Maryland from 1987 to 1995 was adamantly against raising any speed limits above 55 mph. He left office in January 1995, Maryland adopted a limited 65-mph speed limit in July 1995, and the NMSL was gone in December of that year.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: TheHighwayMan394 on September 17, 2016, 08:04:10 PM
MN-28's concurrency with MN-27 west of Little Falls. I get why it exists - the description of constitutional route 28 - but it's just silly in practice. MN-28 just silently vanishes in the middle of Little Falls at a relatively unimportant intersection without any signage.

I believe that intersection was formerly US 10 until the Little Falls bypass was built in the 60s or 70s. Last I checked, the final mention of MN 28 heading east was at the MN 238 junction.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: wanderer2575 on September 18, 2016, 01:00:02 AM
I-96/I-275 near Detroit - FHWA already doesn't consider this in existence.  Just remove the signs.

I disagree.  Maybe the case could have been made at the time the freeway was first opened, but 40 years later everyone around here knows it as I-275.  Nobody calls that stretch I-96 even though it's officially the primary route.  Removing the I-275 designation now would confuse the hell out of everyone solely for the sake of satisfying an academic technicality.  Especially since a lot of traffic uses it as a connector between I-696 and M-14, and driving directions like I-696 west --> I-96 east --> M-14 west (and vice versa) would really blow people's minds.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: KEVIN_224 on September 18, 2016, 01:53:19 AM
Is that like I-74/I-465 around much of Indianapolis? The hotel I stayed at in August of 2010 was by the Rockville Road (US Route 36) exit. It seemed like I-465 had more emphasis.

(http://i.imgur.com/cRTINw1.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/hL0zPBX.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/7JDjnxb.jpg)
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: MNHighwayMan on September 18, 2016, 02:10:27 AM
I believe that intersection was formerly US 10 until the Little Falls bypass was built in the 60s or 70s. Last I checked, the final mention of MN 28 heading east was at the MN 238 junction.

Oh, that makes sense, I hadn't thought of that. I also find it amusing that, at the back of the MN-238 intersection, it's only marked as MN-28 west: https://goo.gl/maps/4N2FpfbyucQ2
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: epzik8 on September 18, 2016, 08:23:08 AM
Did anyone say U.S. 40 and U.S. 322 in Atlantic City? They end at the exact same point.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: plain on September 18, 2016, 09:30:57 AM
I think that the concurrent routings of all those US and IN routes on the I-465 beltway Indianapolis of course) are the dumbest yet, especially since they are so poorly signed (not signed at all on the beltway itself) and it's hard to tell which direction on the beltway one should go for the quickest way to continue on said route, at least for those not very good with maps or directions. Indiana might as well just continued the designations through town smdh.

Virginia is filled with unnecessary concurrencies. VA 2 has already been mentioned. There's also VA 32, which should just end in Suffolk, US 360 which should end at US 58 in South Boston instead of Danville, VA 337 which shouldn't even exist at all anymore..

Maryland has a hidden concurreny on US 50/301 (I-595). I'm sure this was done so that stretch can receive interstate funding. They might as well just sign it

I agree.  Refusing to sign Interstates is just stupid.

Indiana has a state law that limits mileage of the state road system.  Since Marion County and the semi-unified Indianapolis government has the resources to maintain these routes Indiana moved the state routes out of the core of the city.

Weird law.. but then again Virginia has some weird practices too lmao
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: Bitmapped on September 18, 2016, 09:55:41 AM
I was just on two of them in West Virginia.

WV 54 and WV 97. They are co-routed from their intersection point to WV 16 near Beckley, where WV 54 ends but WV 97 continues concurrently with WV 16. WV 97 then ends at the West Virginia Turnpike (I-64/I-77) while WV 16 continues.

I realize the purpose is to allow for a continuous route from the turnpike to Twin Falls State Park, but there's no need to continue WV 54.

You also sort of have WV 121 in the mix here, which ends at the WV 16/WV 54/WV 97 interchange complex.

WV 54 is a through high speed route to Mullens, so I think it makes sense to keep that signed. I'd cut back WV 97 to where it originally intersects WV 54 and just beef up signing for Twin Falls RSP as needed. If it wasn't for WV 121 eventually coming through, I'd look at swapping WV 16 and WV 54 but that seems like it will be a moot point in a couple years.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: Takumi on September 18, 2016, 10:08:21 AM
The VA 2/ US 301 concurrency between Richmond, VA and Bowling Green, VA.  Does VA 2 really need to be signed here at all?
VA 2 is signed there because it was there before US 301. Not that I don't think it should be truncated.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: TEG24601 on September 18, 2016, 10:11:35 AM
This might cause a bit of a row...


I-80/90 from Chicagoland to Ohio.  Either build an alternate Free route for one of the Interstates or replace I-94 to Detroit and Pt. Huron with I-90, then reconnect I-90 to the system in Buffalo heading to Boston.  Under this change, I-94 would terminate at I-90 at the Dan Ryan.


I'd just terminate I-94 in Milwaukee. With I-41, I-94 isn't necessary for a Chi-Mil interstate.


I had actually thought you would end I-41 in Milwaukee.


However, with your idea, if I-94 ends in Milwaukee, you could, in theory, replace I-96 with I-94, and either officially or unofficially, extend I-94 over the ferry between Milwaukee and Muskegon. :)
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: Bitmapped on September 18, 2016, 10:12:15 AM
With the signing of US 48, almost all of WV 55 is a useless multiplex. Other than a brief connector road in Moorefield, it is multiplexed with WV 20, WV 39, US 219, US 33, WV 28, and US 48 for its entire length east of Moorefield. It could be cut back to Craigsville.

WV 92 basically functions as two routes with a 70-mile useless multiplex along US 250 and WV 28 between. It wouldn't be hard to split this into two routes by moving US 33 back to its historic alignment around Elkins and extending WV 28.

If you got rid of these multiplexes, the 4-route multiplex of US 219/US 250/WV 55/WV 92 between Elkins and Huttonsville would drop to just US 219 and US 250.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: hbelkins on September 18, 2016, 03:55:25 PM
WV 54 is a through high speed route to Mullens, so I think it makes sense to keep that signed. I'd cut back WV 97 to where it originally intersects WV 54 and just beef up signing for Twin Falls RSP as needed. If it wasn't for WV 121 eventually coming through, I'd look at swapping WV 16 and WV 54 but that seems like it will be a moot point in a couple years.

It doesn't look like any progress whatsoever has been made on extending the Coalfields Expressway beyond its current end at Slab Fork Road (CR 34). The road appears to be at grade, but no work on the final grade or surface has been done.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: Bitmapped on September 18, 2016, 04:36:57 PM
WV 54 is a through high speed route to Mullens, so I think it makes sense to keep that signed. I'd cut back WV 97 to where it originally intersects WV 54 and just beef up signing for Twin Falls RSP as needed. If it wasn't for WV 121 eventually coming through, I'd look at swapping WV 16 and WV 54 but that seems like it will be a moot point in a couple years.

It doesn't look like any progress whatsoever has been made on extending the Coalfields Expressway beyond its current end at Slab Fork Road (CR 34). The road appears to be at grade, but no work on the final grade or surface has been done.

There are a couple projects in the STIP in the next 2 years that will grade/drain and pave the Coalfields Expressway into Mullens via a connector roadway. They'll probably be done by about 2020.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: Bickendan on September 20, 2016, 04:33:49 PM
This might cause a bit of a row...

US-30/I-84 in Oregon.  US-30 is not much more than a scenic route through Oregon, and should be largely eliminated.  The western portion should become US-26, and US-26 should either become an extension of I-84 or I-505, with the portion after the freeway becoming an Oregon State Route.
This would cause I-405 to be largely redundant for the suddenly long overlap with US 26.
Also, I'm not convinced the Canyon Road portion of the Sunset is interstate-grade, particularly the Vista Ridge Tunnel.

Secondly, US 30 functioning as I-84's business loops works very well, much the same with I-5 and OR 99. US 30 and I-84 serve two different functions: I-84 the long distance traffic, and US 30 serves the local, tourist and scenic traffic. There's no redundancy here.
Thirdly, US 30 is the only true coast-to-coast transcontinental US highway left.
10 got cut back from Seattle all the way to Fargo and ends at Lake Huron anyway.
20 doesn't exist in Yellowstone, which kills about 80 miles off its transcontinental status -- it still manages to be longer than 30, though!
40 got cut back from San Francisco to Park City.
50 got cut back from San Francisco to Sacramento.
60 got cut back from Los Angeles to Arizona.
70 got cut back from Los Angeles to Globe.
80 got cut back from San Diego all the way to Dallas.
90 never made it west out of Texas to begin with.

Now, if you had said US 26 in Idaho, a case could be very well made here. Theoretically, if you swung 26 north to Ontario, then over on ID 44 toward Boise, you could eliminate the Boise-Idaho Falls portion altogether and reassign the eastern portion of the route to another number, like 28.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: ftballfan on September 21, 2016, 08:42:37 PM
How about the I-96/I-275 concurrency from I-96/M-14 in Plymouth to I-696/M-5?  Does I-275 need to be there?  I know, in the grand scheme of things, I-275 was supposed to connect to I-75 up around Clarkston, but since the NIMBY's got their way, shouldn't I-275 just end at I-96/M-14?
IMHO, I-275 and I-696 could easily be one interstate as the two form a northern and western bypass of the City of Detroit
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: theline on September 21, 2016, 10:07:39 PM
Is that like I-74/I-465 around much of Indianapolis? The hotel I stayed at in August of 2010 was by the Rockville Road (US Route 36) exit. It seemed like I-465 had more emphasis.

Image removed
(http://i.imgur.com/hL0zPBX.jpg)
Image removed

Actually, my recollection is that I-74 is rather well marked with reassurance and pull-through signs along its concurrency with I-465. (If anyone from the area has a different observation, please let me know.) The primary exception is mileposts, as shown in the one photo that I did not remove. It would certainly be logical to have mileposts for both interstates along the concurrency.

What is almost entirely unmarked are the many other concurrencies with 465, like US-40, US-31, SR-37, SR-67, etc. They are marked, often poorly, only where they join and leave 465. As one drives along 465, you are scarcely aware that other highways have joined along.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: roadman65 on September 22, 2016, 05:03:33 PM
Usually I would take 441 from Yeehaw Junction to Miami via US 27.  Basically it always seemed to me that 441 should just continue south through Belle Glade or bypass it on FL 715.  715 doesn't have the same BS 45 MPH speed zones north of Belle Glade that the current US 441/98 has.  If that was the case then FL 80 could be signed as a BL even to US 98 as it cuts east.
Maybe have US 441 go all the way to Homestead via FL 997.  Take it like you said along FL 715 to bypass Belle Glade and make the current 441 just FL 15, as Palm Beach County does not make it a secret like the other counties do with hidden state routes. Have it turn west with FL 80 to US 27 and concur it with US 27 (again) all the way down to the 997 turn off and use 997 and make its southern terminus at US 1 in Florida City at the beginning of the Overseas Highway.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: Max Rockatansky on September 22, 2016, 09:56:40 PM
Usually I would take 441 from Yeehaw Junction to Miami via US 27.  Basically it always seemed to me that 441 should just continue south through Belle Glade or bypass it on FL 715.  715 doesn't have the same BS 45 MPH speed zones north of Belle Glade that the current US 441/98 has.  If that was the case then FL 80 could be signed as a BL even to US 98 as it cuts east.
Maybe have US 441 go all the way to Homestead via FL 997.  Take it like you said along FL 715 to bypass Belle Glade and make the current 441 just FL 15, as Palm Beach County does not make it a secret like the other counties do with hidden state routes. Have it turn west with FL 80 to US 27 and concur it with US 27 (again) all the way down to the 997 turn off and use 997 and make its southern terminus at US 1 in Florida City at the beginning of the Overseas Highway.

Actually that's not bad.  Little bit of a long multiplex through the Everglades with US 37 but it would sure advertise the alignment of 997 as a viable bypass of Miami if you don't want to use the Turnpike Extension....better payoff in my book than with US 98 eastward.  Plus Everglades National Park is down there as well, wouldn't help having another US Route that way.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: CNGL-Leudimin on September 23, 2016, 06:02:48 AM
I-90 and I-94 in Chicago, according to certain poster who should have been banned a long time ago.

I was to concur with all of I-41, but then I wouldn't have an interstate shield with my favorite number :sombrero:. Anyway, it is unnecessary South of I-43. And I-894 should go away, as it is now redundant to other numbers.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: national highway 1 on September 23, 2016, 09:29:28 AM
This might cause a bit of a row...

US-30/I-84 in Oregon.  US-30 is not much more than a scenic route through Oregon, and should be largely eliminated.  The western portion should become US-26, and US-26 should either become an extension of I-84 or I-505, with the portion after the freeway becoming an Oregon State Route.
This would cause I-405 to be largely redundant for the suddenly long overlap with US 26.
Also, I'm not convinced the Canyon Road portion of the Sunset is interstate-grade, particularly the Vista Ridge Tunnel.

Secondly, US 30 functioning as I-84's business loops works very well, much the same with I-5 and OR 99. US 30 and I-84 serve two different functions: I-84 the long distance traffic, and US 30 serves the local, tourist and scenic traffic. There's no redundancy here.
Thirdly, US 30 is the only true coast-to-coast transcontinental US highway left.
10 got cut back from Seattle all the way to Fargo and ends at Lake Huron anyway.
20 doesn't exist in Yellowstone, which kills about 80 miles off its transcontinental status -- it still manages to be longer than 30, though!
40 got cut back from San Francisco to Park City.
50 got cut back from San Francisco to Sacramento.
60 got cut back from Los Angeles to Arizona.
70 got cut back from Los Angeles to Globe.
80 got cut back from San Diego all the way to Dallas.
90 never made it west out of Texas to begin with.

Now, if you had said US 26 in Idaho, a case could be very well made here. Theoretically, if you swung 26 north to Ontario, then over on ID 44 toward Boise, you could eliminate the Boise-Idaho Falls portion altogether and reassign the eastern portion of the route to another number, like 28.
I would reroute US 30 onto US 20 west of Ontario, ID all the way to US 101 at Newport. It would fit the grid perfectly being south of US 26 and eliminating an anomaly of the warped grid. The remaining section of US 30 between Portland and Astoria either becomes US 226 or gets demoted to a state highway.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: paulthemapguy on September 23, 2016, 09:54:53 AM
I-90 and I-94 in Chicago, according to certain poster who should have been banned a long time ago.

I was to concur with all of I-41, but then I wouldn't have an interstate shield with my favorite number :sombrero:. Anyway, it is unnecessary South of I-43. And I-894 should go away, as it is now redundant to other numbers.

Now I'm just curious as to why it's your favorite number XD

Idk if this has been brought up, but I find I-39 and US51 to be an unnecessary concurrency in Illinois, when there's already a state-maintained surface road that can be carrying the US route.  In other words, I'd prefer US51 to use the current IL-251 and take IL-251 out of the game.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: roadman65 on September 24, 2016, 09:56:49 AM
Usually I would take 441 from Yeehaw Junction to Miami via US 27.  Basically it always seemed to me that 441 should just continue south through Belle Glade or bypass it on FL 715.  715 doesn't have the same BS 45 MPH speed zones north of Belle Glade that the current US 441/98 has.  If that was the case then FL 80 could be signed as a BL even to US 98 as it cuts east.
Maybe have US 441 go all the way to Homestead via FL 997.  Take it like you said along FL 715 to bypass Belle Glade and make the current 441 just FL 15, as Palm Beach County does not make it a secret like the other counties do with hidden state routes. Have it turn west with FL 80 to US 27 and concur it with US 27 (again) all the way down to the 997 turn off and use 997 and make its southern terminus at US 1 in Florida City at the beginning of the Overseas Highway.

Actually that's not bad.  Little bit of a long multiplex through the Everglades with US 37 but it would sure advertise the alignment of 997 as a viable bypass of Miami if you don't want to use the Turnpike Extension....better payoff in my book than with US 98 eastward.  Plus Everglades National Park is down there as well, wouldn't help having another US Route that way.
You know back in the 90's the 997 split off of US 27 was signed for both Homestead and Key West.  I asked FDOT about that one at the time, and they informed me that it was done to give motorists an alternate toll free route to the Keys over the nearby Turnpike.  So basically it was a shunpike route even in the eyes of FDOT. 

To me once I used it as a means to get from US 1 NB to US 41 NB coming back from the Keys to visit my friend in Fort Myers as it is a good bypass of Metro Dade.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: Max Rockatansky on September 24, 2016, 11:34:06 AM
Usually I would take 441 from Yeehaw Junction to Miami via US 27.  Basically it always seemed to me that 441 should just continue south through Belle Glade or bypass it on FL 715.  715 doesn't have the same BS 45 MPH speed zones north of Belle Glade that the current US 441/98 has.  If that was the case then FL 80 could be signed as a BL even to US 98 as it cuts east.
Maybe have US 441 go all the way to Homestead via FL 997.  Take it like you said along FL 715 to bypass Belle Glade and make the current 441 just FL 15, as Palm Beach County does not make it a secret like the other counties do with hidden state routes. Have it turn west with FL 80 to US 27 and concur it with US 27 (again) all the way down to the 997 turn off and use 997 and make its southern terminus at US 1 in Florida City at the beginning of the Overseas Highway.

Actually that's not bad.  Little bit of a long multiplex through the Everglades with US 37 but it would sure advertise the alignment of 997 as a viable bypass of Miami if you don't want to use the Turnpike Extension....better payoff in my book than with US 98 eastward.  Plus Everglades National Park is down there as well, wouldn't help having another US Route that way.
You know back in the 90's the 997 split off of US 27 was signed for both Homestead and Key West.  I asked FDOT about that one at the time, and they informed me that it was done to give motorists an alternate toll free route to the Keys over the nearby Turnpike.  So basically it was a shunpike route even in the eyes of FDOT. 

To me once I used it as a means to get from US 1 NB to US 41 NB coming back from the Keys to visit my friend in Fort Myers as it is a good bypass of Metro Dade.

The clarification of where the route actually went back in those days probably helped even more when it was FL 27.  :-D
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: TheHighwayMan394 on September 25, 2016, 11:13:35 AM
There's the US 14/218 duplex in Owatonna, MN where 218 hops on 14 to end at I-35. Although this is treated weirdly where all the signs for some reason indicate that US 218 ends at the nondescript interchange one exit east of the I-35 interchange.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 25, 2016, 11:15:30 AM
US-29/211 from Warrenton to DC. Evidently other people agreed that it was an unnecessary concurrency because it was removed in 1980 when 211 was truncated to end in Warrenton.

I understand  that the U.S. 29/U.S. 211 concurrency existed as long as it did because U.S. 211 was 'there first' before U.S. 29 came along and followed U.S. 211 up to D.C. (and then through D.C. and into Maryland).
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 25, 2016, 11:21:41 AM
Maryland has a hidden concurreny on US 50/301 (I-595). I'm sure this was done so that stretch can receive interstate funding. They might as well just sign it

I-595 exists for one reason - so that the state could get Interstate funding to reconstruct U.S. 50/(U.S. 301) from Md. 410 (Exit 5, East-West Highway) in Prince George's County to Md. 70 (Exit 24, Rowe Boulevard) in Anne Arundel County.  It was a deliberate policy decision by the state to not sign it, as the freeway has long been known as "U.S. 50" or John Hanson Highway (though that name is no longer signed anywhere), and it was felt that I-595 would add confusion to a corridor that has been a freeway since the 1950's.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 25, 2016, 11:33:22 AM
Somewhat surprised that nobody has mentioned the concurrency of U.S. 17 and U.S. 50 from Paris, Virginia to Winchester (which is the current northern terminus of U.S. 17).

Why not just truncate U.S. 17 back to Paris - or, perhaps even better, truncate it back to I-66 (Exit 28 at Marshall), remove the U.S. 17 concurrency from I-66, and demote the section of U.S. 17 from Delaplane to Paris to a secondary system road, since the people that live along it have gotten a strict truck ban put in place (and it does have a hazardous grade crossing between Va. 712 and Va. 623).
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 25, 2016, 11:36:48 AM
The VA 2/ US 301 concurrency between Richmond, VA and Bowling Green, VA.  Does VA 2 really need to be signed here at all?
VA 2 is signed there because it was there before US 301. Not that I don't think it should be truncated.

Rather like U.S. 211 east of Warrenton.  It was there before U.S. 29, though it was eventually removed.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: Avalanchez71 on September 25, 2016, 11:40:42 AM
I think FL SR 997 could become a rerouted US 27 and the current route of US could become US 27 ALT.  Another possbility could be to make SR 997 as US 27W.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: jwolfer on September 25, 2016, 01:31:14 PM
I think FL SR 997 could become a rerouted US 27 and the current route of US could become US 27 ALT.  Another possbility could be to make SR 997 as US 27W.
As alluded to in a previous post... FL SR 997 and  SR 9336 were Florida SR 27 until the 1980s or 90s(?).. it was changed to avoid confusion nearby US 27. 

 Much like Florida SR 1 was changed to A1A to avoid confusion with US 1 ( US27 is secret SR 25 from Miami to Leesburg. US 1 is SR 5 from Key West to Jacksonville for the most part)
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: dzlsabe on September 25, 2016, 02:32:28 PM
I-90 and I-94 in Chicago, according to certain poster who should have been banned a long time ago.

+1 So you agree with me, but I should have been banned a long time ago?  :rofl:


Not unless you have a solution.


I do. Also involves another great concurrency theory...USs 12, 20 and 45. A future plan would make US 12 and 20 AND I-90 a "necessary concurrency" for a short while, but that would be WAY better than the #1 traffic mess Chicago is now.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: hbelkins on September 25, 2016, 03:05:26 PM
The westernmost portion of WV 39 near Gauley Bridge. WV 39 joins WV 16 to continue to US 60, where WV 39 ends and WV 16 continues concurrent with US 60. Why not end WV 39 at WV 16 and sign "To WV 39" at Gauley Bridge and "To US 60" at the 16/39 intersection?
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: paulthemapguy on September 27, 2016, 03:14:24 PM
There's the US 14/218 duplex in Owatonna, MN where 218 hops on 14 to end at I-35. Although this is treated weirdly where all the signs for some reason indicate that US 218 ends at the nondescript interchange one exit east of the I-35 interchange.

This one makes sense.  People on I-35 south want to know how to access US218 south out of town.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: kphoger on September 27, 2016, 03:19:41 PM
There's the US 14/218 duplex in Owatonna, MN where 218 hops on 14 to end at I-35. Although this is treated weirdly where all the signs for some reason indicate that US 218 ends at the nondescript interchange one exit east of the I-35 interchange.

This one makes sense.  People on I-35 south want to know how to access US218 south out of town.

Agreed.  A short concurrency that is useful to travelers.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: Avalanchez71 on September 27, 2016, 04:00:09 PM
US 41/ US 41A and US 70/ US 70S both in Nashville, TN.  Couldn't they just end and then reform?
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: Rover_0 on September 27, 2016, 06:28:04 PM
It's probably been said 10 times in this thread but I'll go ahead and say it: US 62/180.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: roadman65 on September 28, 2016, 09:50:23 AM
I-2 and US 83 :bigass:

Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: CNGL-Leudimin on September 29, 2016, 09:36:16 AM
It's probably been said 10 times in this thread but I'll go ahead and say it: US 62/180.

US 62 West of where it hits US 83.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: ChiMilNet on September 29, 2016, 09:55:21 PM
Anything in Illinois and Missouri with CKC 110!
Also, just in my opinion, IL Route 56 with I-88 and then the short connector to I-30 (just doesn't seem needed).
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: Broadway Extension on September 30, 2016, 10:13:18 PM
US 62/277 between Chickasha and Newcastle, OK. Especially seeing as US 277 ends in Newcastle
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: fillup420 on November 10, 2016, 12:35:54 PM
US-64/US-264 in NC between Zebulon and I-440 in Raleigh. The western end of US-264 originally ended in Zebulon until 1997.

Also, I-77/I-74 in NC from the NC/VA state line to the I-77/I-74 split near Mount Airy. Considering that I-74 east of Cincinnati will most likely never leave NC, there's no reason for that concurrency since I-74 disappears immediately after crossing into VA on I-77. I-74 should just end at I-77.

I agree with the US 64/264 concurrency being useless. I remember when 264 wasn't signed west of Zebulon. The signs all read "EAST US 64; TO US 264". Not sure why they extended 264 to end randomly at I-440. As for the I-74/77 concurrency, I figure what NC is trying to do is force VA to sign I-74 along 77 because I think 74/77 would run together through VA entirely. However, I do agree that 74 should end at the current northern split with 77 at least until the pipe dream of I-74 comes to fruition, if it ever does.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: Jmiles32 on November 10, 2016, 04:33:13 PM
US-64/US-264 in NC between Zebulon and I-440 in Raleigh. The western end of US-264 originally ended in Zebulon until 1997.

Also, I-77/I-74 in NC from the NC/VA state line to the I-77/I-74 split near Mount Airy. Considering that I-74 east of Cincinnati will most likely never leave NC, there's no reason for that concurrency since I-74 disappears immediately after crossing into VA on I-77. I-74 should just end at I-77.

I agree with the US 64/264 concurrency being useless. I remember when 264 wasn't signed west of Zebulon. The signs all read "EAST US 64; TO US 264". Not sure why they extended 264 to end randomly at I-440. As for the I-74/77 concurrency, I figure what NC is trying to do is force VA to sign I-74 along 77 because I think 74/77 would run together through VA entirely. However, I do agree that 74 should end at the current northern split with 77 at least until the pipe dream of I-74 comes to fruition, if it ever does.

The only way I see I-74 ever being extended into VA is if NC pays for it.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: roadman65 on November 12, 2016, 09:03:37 AM
Kansas Highway 10 (K-10) is concurrent with I-435 just to allow it to connect to I-35 near Lenexa.  Considering that it is only signed on the ground (and not that good either) as KDOT even does not sign the US 50, US 56, & US 169 routes through that same interchange where K-10 ends.  As they omit concurrent other routes with the interstates in the area, why bother having it on paper?
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: Max Rockatansky on November 12, 2016, 09:13:32 AM
US 17/92/441 all stuffed on Orange Blossom Trail.  US 441 could be routed on FL 50 east to to Semoran/FL 436, Hoffner/Narcoossee/FL15/CR15 to US 192 St. Cloud.  US 92 could stay on OBT while US 17 could be shifted back to it's original alignment on Orange Ave/FL 527 and Dixie Highway.  Granted that would require some maintenance pickups but that multiplex of three US Routes in downtown Orlando always bothered me.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: cjk374 on November 12, 2016, 07:17:44 PM
US 63 between El Dorado, AR & Ruston, LA. It runs with US 167 for the sole purpose of connecting 63 to I-20. LaDOTD don't even sign it on I-20's BGSs.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: cl94 on November 12, 2016, 10:05:22 PM
Oh, boy. Here are quite a few in New York:

- US 44/NY 55. Either make the portion of NY 55 west of US 209 another number or truncate US 44 at US 9.
- NY 9G/23B: This should be one single designation.
- NY 32/213: 213 ends at Broadway after a 4-block concurrency. Why it does confuses me, as that part of Broadway does not appear to have ever been US 9W.
- US 9W/NY 443: 443 ends at US 20
- NY 30A/162 north of US 20
- NY 8/10 in Deposit
- NY 80/205 west of Cooperstown
- NY 28N/30 near Long Lake

And for Vermont, VT 8/100. Don't know why 100 ends at the MA border.

As far as NY 17, Region 5 has eliminated most signage. Region 6 is working on it. Being as I-86 is designated through the entirety of both regions, it makes sense.

Edit: posted too early...
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: TheOneKEA on November 12, 2016, 11:23:17 PM
MD 2-4 (signed just like that in the field) in Calvert County, MD. Since MD 2 extends no further than the minimum distance needed to separate from MD 4 and link to the access road to Solomons Island, it makes little sense to retain the concurrency.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: Beeper1 on November 13, 2016, 12:01:06 AM
All of ME-100 can be eliminated. 

MA/CT-10 along the concurrency with US-202.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: 1 on November 13, 2016, 06:30:53 AM
MA/CT-10 along the concurrency with US-202.

Then there would be a gap in the route.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: roadman65 on November 13, 2016, 12:10:30 PM
US 17/92/441 all stuffed on Orange Blossom Trail.  US 441 could be routed on FL 50 east to to Semoran/FL 436, Hoffner/Narcoossee/FL15/CR15 to US 192 St. Cloud.  US 92 could stay on OBT while US 17 could be shifted back to it's original alignment on Orange Ave/FL 527 and Dixie Highway.  Granted that would require some maintenance pickups but that multiplex of three US Routes in downtown Orlando always bothered me.
US 17 & 92 should be on John Young Parkway and Lee Road.  The rest of 17/92 in Winter Park and Orlando can be SR 15 to Colonial and then just 50 and 441 the rest.

JYP is US 17 & 92 in Kissimmee so why not do it the whole 100 yards.  Heck even make FL 434 part of US 17 & 92 into Longwood and truncate SR 434 to there. Extend SR 15 in signage (as US 17 & 92 from Orlando to DeLand is secret SR 15) from the 434 intersection down to where its signed in Orlando.

Then while we are on a long concurrency of US routes how about ridding NJ of the US 1 & 9 overlap.  Place US 9 in Staten Island along what is NY 440 and then back into NJ via the Bayonne Bridge up current 440 then Truck US 1 & 9 up to where it is along Tonelle Avenue.  US 1 would go into NYC via the Holland Tunnel up the couplet of Hudson and Varick to Houston Street east, then paired along First and Second Avenues into the Bronx where it would use Willis/Melrose/ Webster to its current alignment at I-95.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: Max Rockatansky on November 13, 2016, 12:31:16 PM
US 17/92/441 all stuffed on Orange Blossom Trail.  US 441 could be routed on FL 50 east to to Semoran/FL 436, Hoffner/Narcoossee/FL15/CR15 to US 192 St. Cloud.  US 92 could stay on OBT while US 17 could be shifted back to it's original alignment on Orange Ave/FL 527 and Dixie Highway.  Granted that would require some maintenance pickups but that multiplex of three US Routes in downtown Orlando always bothered me.
US 17 & 92 should be on John Young Parkway and Lee Road.  The rest of 17/92 in Winter Park and Orlando can be SR 15 to Colonial and then just 50 and 441 the rest.

JYP is US 17 & 92 in Kissimmee so why not do it the whole 100 yards.  Heck even make FL 434 part of US 17 & 92 into Longwood and truncate SR 434 to there. Extend SR 15 in signage (as US 17 & 92 from Orlando to DeLand is secret SR 15) from the 434 intersection down to where its signed in Orlando.

Then while we are on a long concurrency of US routes how about ridding NJ of the US 1 & 9 overlap.  Place US 9 in Staten Island along what is NY 440 and then back into NJ via the Bayonne Bridge up current 440 then Truck US 1 & 9 up to where it is along Tonelle Avenue.  US 1 would go into NYC via the Holland Tunnel up the couplet of Hudson and Varick to Houston Street east, then paired along First and Second Avenues into the Bronx where it would use Willis/Melrose/ Webster to its current alignment at I-95.

How about this...have US 441 take all of FL 436 to Hoffner at FL 15 while giving current US 441 to Colonial a state road number.  Have US 17 follow John Young Parkway to Kissimmee while US 92 would stay on the current alignment down OBT. 

I don't know about FL 15...part of me says that Road ought just to stay hidden.  I used to run that whole downtown corridor Mills and it seemed weird to split a route like that through a neighborhood on one-way streets like Brown and Thompson.  That whole use of South Street and Anderson Street which are basically just frontage roads of the 408 nowadays is....odd.  It always seemed like there was a simple solution just to have 15 split east on Colonial/50 and take Maguire Blvd south to the alignment around Lake Underhill.  It would give FL 526 an actual end point on another Florida State Road and simplify the hell out of that crazed route 15 takes through downtown.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: dzlsabe on November 13, 2016, 02:00:14 PM
TWO unnecessary... USs 12/20/45 and Is-90/94 turned into one necessary 12/20 & I-90?

(http://i.imgur.com/3ie4fL9.png)
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: Max Rockatansky on November 13, 2016, 02:22:39 PM
TWO unnecessary... USs 12/20/45 and Is-90/94 turned into one necessary 12/20 & I-90?

(http://i.imgur.com/3ie4fL9.png)

Man...little in love with Chicago aren't we?  I don't get it, I lived there too and I couldn't stand the place after awhile.  I'm not saying dismiss all conversation about Illinois and Chicago...but man you sure love beating those dead horses in hopes that some how makes them "not dead."  :-D
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: dzlsabe on November 13, 2016, 05:18:34 PM
Lemme guess. You could not stand the place mostly cuz of the traffic (ie unnecessary concurrencies)? Idling in bumper to bumper in your V8 MadMaxmobile Id bet were beating your bank account. Couldnt pass emissions? Where are the Plains of Silence?
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: 1 on November 13, 2016, 05:46:49 PM
traffic (ie unnecessary concurrencies)

Congestion has nothing to do with how roads are signed.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: Max Rockatansky on November 13, 2016, 06:40:06 PM
Lemme guess. You could not stand the place mostly cuz of the traffic (ie unnecessary concurrencies)? Idling in bumper to bumper in your V8 MadMaxmobile Id bet were beating your bank account. Couldnt pass emissions? Where are the Plains of Silence?

Hell things could be worse, I could be driving something like...oh say a certain Swedish brand that was bastardized by badge engineering after it was swallowed up by a larger and much less quirky American corporate entity.  Diesel hasn't really haven't been my cup of tea either, not that I've ever dismissed it outright.  It just never seems like it will ever find a significant piece of the American market after all the missteps automakers made in the 70s and 80s.  It started to pick up steam in the market during the last gas crunch but VW sure screwed that up fudging the emissions controls to meet EPA requirements.

But hey don't take it too personally I didn't care much for Detroit either.  It was much more about the weather being unpleasant and having the option to get out of that part of the country more than anything else.  Traffic wasn't one of the factors in leaving the rust belt behind.  Horrible violent crime in both cites doesn't endear one to stay either....

Just an observation though, you seem hell bent of having a personal figurative fist fight with every member on the forum who doesn't agree with you.  I mean seriously, you keep writing all this stuff as though you want to persuade people to your opinion only to turn around and snap at everyone who doesn't.  What's the end game here?  Are you trying to convince people about your opinions or just piss them off more and more?  :eyebrow:  I'm honestly just curious at this point since some of your threads have taken an interesting twist lately.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: jwolfer on November 14, 2016, 12:06:56 AM



How about this...have US 441 take all of FL 436 to Hoffner at FL 15 while giving current US 441 to Colonial a state road number. 

It is SR 500 already I think.  If its not 500 its something



LGMS428

Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: Max Rockatansky on November 14, 2016, 12:14:02 AM



How about this...have US 441 take all of FL 436 to Hoffner at FL 15 while giving current US 441 to Colonial a state road number. 

It is SR 500 already I think.  If its not 500 its something




LGMS428

It is, I couldn't think of what it was earlier....Ocala to Kissimmee I think?  I would imagine FDOT would want to keep that on US 441 since  X00 State Road numbers usually go with something multiplexed with a US Route or Interstate.  I-4 would be the another example I can think of off the top my head that has the hidden FL 400.  I guess FL 200 would be kind of in line with this except it isn't hidden as much aside from US 301. 
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: paulthemapguy on November 14, 2016, 02:27:31 PM



How about this...have US 441 take all of FL 436 to Hoffner at FL 15 while giving current US 441 to Colonial a state road number. 

It is SR 500 already I think.  If its not 500 its something




LGMS428

It is, I couldn't think of what it was earlier....Ocala to Kissimmee I think?  I would imagine FDOT would want to keep that on US 441 since  X00 State Road numbers usually go with something multiplexed with a US Route or Interstate.  I-4 would be the another example I can think of off the top my head that has the hidden FL 400.  I guess FL 200 would be kind of in line with this except it isn't hidden as much aside from US 301.

If anyone drives through a US441 construction site, you might be able to figure it out by looking at the sign detailing the project.  That's how I found out that I-10 was SR 8  :)
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: Max Rockatansky on November 14, 2016, 02:37:31 PM



How about this...have US 441 take all of FL 436 to Hoffner at FL 15 while giving current US 441 to Colonial a state road number. 

It is SR 500 already I think.  If its not 500 its something




LGMS428

It is, I couldn't think of what it was earlier....Ocala to Kissimmee I think?  I would imagine FDOT would want to keep that on US 441 since  X00 State Road numbers usually go with something multiplexed with a US Route or Interstate.  I-4 would be the another example I can think of off the top my head that has the hidden FL 400.  I guess FL 200 would be kind of in line with this except it isn't hidden as much aside from US 301.

If anyone drives through a US441 construction site, you might be able to figure it out by looking at the sign detailing the project.  That's how I found out that I-10 was SR 8  :)

The state roads are actually a grid.  Even numbers start at the top and work downward.  The odds start on the coast and work west.  For the east/west roads the X0 even numbers are considered the major highways.  The diagonals usually get their first number from whatever X0 route they are south.  For example that's why you see almost all 5XXs south of Colonial/FL50 in Orlando.  Even the relinquished county routes tend to still abide by the grid.  The crappy thing is that you have some of place roads in the 100s down around Miami.  Might interest you to know that most of US 90 is actually FL 10. 

Edit:  Forgot something important; the x5 Florida Roads are usually the major north/south ones.  The reasons the Interstates and the Turnpike aren't X0 or X5 is due to the current system being from the 1945 renumbering.   For example I-95 is FL 9 while U.S. 1 is FL 5, a large part of US 441 is FL 15 while the Turnpike is FL 91, and US 90 is FL 10 while I-10 is FL 8.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: jwolfer on November 14, 2016, 05:20:22 PM



How about this...have US 441 take all of FL 436 to Hoffner at FL 15 while giving current US 441 to Colonial a state road number. 

It is SR 500 already I think.  If its not 500 its something




LGMS428

It is, I couldn't think of what it was earlier....Ocala to Kissimmee I think?  I would imagine FDOT would want to keep that on US 441 since  X00 State Road numbers usually go with something multiplexed with a US Route or Interstate.  I-4 would be the another example I can think of off the top my head that has the hidden FL 400.  I guess FL 200 would be kind of in line with this except it isn't hidden as much aside from US 301.
X00 roads are diagonals... 100 from GA state line nw of Lake City to Flagler Beach.. 200 from Fernandina to Dunellon area.. 400 is i4.. 600 is US92..700 is a lot of US 98 in South FL..

Many x0, x5 and x00 roads are hidden under US routes

LGMS428

Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: jwolfer on November 14, 2016, 11:00:06 PM



How about this...have US 441 take all of FL 436 to Hoffner at FL 15 while giving current US 441 to Colonial a state road number. 

It is SR 500 already I think.  If its not 500 its something




LGMS428

It is, I couldn't think of what it was earlier....Ocala to Kissimmee I think?  I would imagine FDOT would want to keep that on US 441 since  X00 State Road numbers usually go with something multiplexed with a US Route or Interstate.  I-4 would be the another example I can think of off the top my head that has the hidden FL 400.  I guess FL 200 would be kind of in line with this except it isn't hidden as much aside from US 301.
SR 500 is hidden under US 192 to Melbourne Beach

LGMS428

Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: dzlsabe on November 15, 2016, 01:49:40 AM
traffic (ie unnecessary concurrencies)

Congestion has nothing to do with how roads are signed.

Usually, but not always.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: 20160805 on November 15, 2016, 05:27:19 PM
Why does Florida even have those hidden designations (such as FL 5) if they're never signed and they're concurrent with another route for their whole length?  Seems kind of silly to me.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: Max Rockatansky on November 15, 2016, 09:01:35 PM
Why does Florida even have those hidden designations (such as FL 5) if they're never signed and they're concurrent with another route for their whole length?  Seems kind of silly to me.

They're legislative route numbers, they actually form a grid.  Check out reply 178, I detailed how the system is plotted.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: thenetwork on November 15, 2016, 10:07:05 PM
US-20 and OH-113 between Elyria and Lakewood (Cleveland), OH. 

Once in Elyria, US-20 and OH-113 briefly multiplex with OH-57/OH-301 in opposite directions before being out on their own -- only to intersect one more time in Bellevue.  (where OH-113 ends).
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: jwolfer on November 15, 2016, 10:36:53 PM
Why does Florida even have those hidden designations (such as FL 5) if they're never signed and they're concurrent with another route for their whole length?  Seems kind of silly to me.

They're legislative route numbers, they actually form a grid.  Check out reply 178, I detailed how the system is plotted.
Florida I do nont mind just because it forms a grid.. It makes my ADD self very happy..  They are not usually signed.. Unless a contractor mistake. But they are on traffic tickets and the "your tax dollars at work" type signs...

Now Georgia is another story... Just willy nilly no pattern that i can see.. And the horrible sign salads.. The worst in Folkston US 1/23/301 SR 4/15/23/121 all together.. Yes US 23 and SR 23 are different... when SR 23 goes toward S towards Macclenny there is an assembly that has US 1 and an erroneous SR23 shield

LGMS428

Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: dzlsabe on November 15, 2016, 11:57:54 PM
Lemme guess. You could not stand the place mostly cuz of the traffic (ie unnecessary concurrencies)? Idling in bumper to bumper in your V8 MadMaxmobile Id bet were beating your bank account. Couldnt pass emissions? Where are the Plains of Silence?

Hell things could be worse, I could be driving something like...oh say a certain Swedish brand that was bastardized by badge engineering after it was swallowed up by a larger and much less quirky American corporate entity.  Diesel hasn't really haven't been my cup of tea either, not that I've ever dismissed it outright.  It just never seems like it will ever find a significant piece of the American market after all the missteps automakers made in the 70s and 80s.  It started to pick up steam in the market during the last gas crunch but VW sure screwed that up fudging the emissions controls to meet EPA requirements.

But hey don't take it too personally I didn't care much for Detroit either.  It was much more about the weather being unpleasant and having the option to get out of that part of the country more than anything else.  Traffic wasn't one of the factors in leaving the rust belt behind.  Horrible violent crime in both cites doesn't endear one to stay either....

Just an observation though, you seem hell bent of having a personal figurative fist fight with every member on the forum who doesn't agree with you.  I mean seriously, you keep writing all this stuff as though you want to persuade people to your opinion only to turn around and snap at everyone who doesn't.  What's the end game here?  Are you trying to convince people about your opinions or just piss them off more and more?  :eyebrow:  I'm honestly just curious at this point since some of your threads have taken an interesting twist lately.

Its not about YOUR "cup of tea". Diesel moves the world for the foreseeable future. Higher cetane fuel would make ALL those engines run even cleaner.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: Max Rockatansky on November 16, 2016, 12:02:35 AM
Lemme guess. You could not stand the place mostly cuz of the traffic (ie unnecessary concurrencies)? Idling in bumper to bumper in your V8 MadMaxmobile Id bet were beating your bank account. Couldnt pass emissions? Where are the Plains of Silence?

Hell things could be worse, I could be driving something like...oh say a certain Swedish brand that was bastardized by badge engineering after it was swallowed up by a larger and much less quirky American corporate entity.  Diesel hasn't really haven't been my cup of tea either, not that I've ever dismissed it outright.  It just never seems like it will ever find a significant piece of the American market after all the missteps automakers made in the 70s and 80s.  It started to pick up steam in the market during the last gas crunch but VW sure screwed that up fudging the emissions controls to meet EPA requirements.

But hey don't take it too personally I didn't care much for Detroit either.  It was much more about the weather being unpleasant and having the option to get out of that part of the country more than anything else.  Traffic wasn't one of the factors in leaving the rust belt behind.  Horrible violent crime in both cites doesn't endear one to stay either....

Just an observation though, you seem hell bent of having a personal figurative fist fight with every member on the forum who doesn't agree with you.  I mean seriously, you keep writing all this stuff as though you want to persuade people to your opinion only to turn around and snap at everyone who doesn't.  What's the end game here?  Are you trying to convince people about your opinions or just piss them off more and more?  :eyebrow:  I'm honestly just curious at this point since some of your threads have taken an interesting twist lately.

Its not about YOUR "cup of tea". Diesel moves the world for the foreseeable future.

Yeah in trucking, trains, and ships.  You were referring to cars and responded in kind.  None of those things have anything to do with your biodiesel 9-3 or my "supposed" wallet beating MadMaxMobile.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: dzlsabe on November 16, 2016, 12:10:08 AM
That certain Swedish brand that was bastardized, sodomized, and made to walk the plank would be a whole nother topic which Im sure you would hate too.

Scanned this... http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=17891.0 and it made my head hurt. Would agree that US autos were a sorry state of affairs in the 70s. 80s and 90s though.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: Max Rockatansky on November 16, 2016, 12:16:26 AM
That certain Swedish brand that was bastardized, sodomized, and made to walk the plank would be a whole nother topic which Im sure you would hate too.

Not really:

http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=17891.0

Feel free to add it to the list...  I'd say it more than qualifies with GM trying to take control in the late 1980s and ultimately succeeding circa 2000.  I'm pretty without rereading said thread that I caught some vintage Motorweek segments had a Saab or a Volvo.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: Brian556 on November 16, 2016, 12:50:24 AM
If you want to know the hidden designations in FL, just look at the FDOT County maps on their website
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: TXtoNJ on November 17, 2016, 10:34:32 AM
Lemme guess. You could not stand the place mostly cuz of the traffic (ie unnecessary concurrencies)? Idling in bumper to bumper in your V8 MadMaxmobile Id bet were beating your bank account. Couldnt pass emissions? Where are the Plains of Silence?

Hell things could be worse, I could be driving something like...oh say a certain Swedish brand that was bastardized by badge engineering after it was swallowed up by a larger and much less quirky American corporate entity.  Diesel hasn't really haven't been my cup of tea either, not that I've ever dismissed it outright.  It just never seems like it will ever find a significant piece of the American market after all the missteps automakers made in the 70s and 80s.  It started to pick up steam in the market during the last gas crunch but VW sure screwed that up fudging the emissions controls to meet EPA requirements.

But hey don't take it too personally I didn't care much for Detroit either.  It was much more about the weather being unpleasant and having the option to get out of that part of the country more than anything else.  Traffic wasn't one of the factors in leaving the rust belt behind.  Horrible violent crime in both cites doesn't endear one to stay either....

Just an observation though, you seem hell bent of having a personal figurative fist fight with every member on the forum who doesn't agree with you.  I mean seriously, you keep writing all this stuff as though you want to persuade people to your opinion only to turn around and snap at everyone who doesn't.  What's the end game here?  Are you trying to convince people about your opinions or just piss them off more and more?  :eyebrow:  I'm honestly just curious at this point since some of your threads have taken an interesting twist lately.

Its not about YOUR "cup of tea". Diesel moves the world for the foreseeable future.

Yeah in trucking, trains, and ships.  You were referring to cars and responded in kind.  None of those things have anything to do with your biodiesel 9-3 or my "supposed" wallet beating MadMaxMobile.

And two of those are diesel-electric too, which means that it's really electricity making the world go round. Capital expenditures into mainline electrification and high-efficiency capacitors and/or small, non-breeder nuclear reactors would change the diesel game for a long time.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: fillup420 on November 17, 2016, 11:24:08 AM
NC 194 runs concurrent with US 321/421 from about 6 miles west of Boone, through town, and 3 miles east of it. In my opinion, the part of 194 northeast of Boone could have its own route number, as it has no real connection to the part of 194 west of Boone.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: Roadgeekteen on April 22, 2017, 12:13:52 PM
Mass 4 and 225
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: bing101 on December 07, 2018, 01:10:59 AM
As mentioned in other threads US-50's west end is concurrent with I-305 in Sacramento,CA except locals only call I-305 as simply US-50. Also Business 80 should stop the concurrent designation with CA-51 given that its been nearly 4 decades that I-80 was resigned at beltline freeway and that's been upgraded in the past 5 years though.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: sbeaver44 on December 07, 2018, 03:01:10 PM
The US 40/322 concurrency east of May's Landing is unnecessary.  Should just be US 40 since it's longer and 10 route.

This one might have something to do with the fact that you continue straight ahead to stay on US 322, but US 40 is the more major route, so it wouldn't make sense to truncate it to US 322.
I think this is for historical reasons, as US 322 is the old Lakes-to-Sea highway, and US 40 was transconintental.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: gr8daynegb on December 07, 2018, 04:24:30 PM
Heading back into Wisconsin......US 141 south of Abrams either runs concurrent with I-41/US-41/Wis-29 to it's termination at I-43.  I'm old fashioned to wanting US 141 to go to Milwaukee as from long ago, but as it is most of the overlap is pointless IMHO
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: US 89 on December 07, 2018, 10:34:35 PM
Any US highway in Georgia. </thread>  :-D

In all seriousness, my nomination for this thread is the weird SR-30 concurrencies in Utah. The state doesn't bother to sign them, and 30 doesn't really make sense as a unified route at this point. IMO, it should really be three separate routes.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: skluth on December 07, 2018, 10:55:00 PM
Heading back into Wisconsin......US 141 south of Abrams either runs concurrent with I-41/US-41/Wis-29 to it's termination at I-43.  I'm old fashioned to wanting US 141 to go to Milwaukee as from long ago, but as it is most of the overlap is pointless IMHO

Actually, US 141 runs alone in Green Bay along Velp from I/US-41 (I don't know which it is there) to Mather, then Dousman, across the Nitschke Bridge to Main at Monroe where it joins WI 29. It probably should be truncated at Abrams anyway.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: Big John on December 07, 2018, 11:54:43 PM
^^ You forgot Broadway :bigass: The alone segment lasts about 4 1/2 miles. https://www.aaroads.com/guides/us-141-north-green-bay-wi/
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: DandyDan on December 08, 2018, 04:05:30 AM
Two of them in Minnesota I would do without:
1. MN 5 with I-494 and then US 212
2. MN 60 with US 169 and then US 14.

To me, both of those highways are fundamentally different from each other on each side of the concurrency that one half should be given a new number.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: MNHighwayMan on December 08, 2018, 05:11:27 AM
Two of them in Minnesota I would do without:
1. MN 5 with I-494 and then US 212
2. MN 60 with US 169 and then US 14.

To me, both of those highways are fundamentally different from each other on each side of the concurrency that one half should be given a new number.

For number one, I agree with you, and I suspect MnDOT would too, given that the route east of the airport/the Mississippi is largely a local surface road and probably a turnback candidate.

Number two, on the other hand, I'm not so sure about. Honestly, I can see the argument going both ways. Breaking it into two would eliminate the only state-numbered route that crosses a border at both ends, though!
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: Bitmapped on December 08, 2018, 07:22:16 PM
In Ohio, there are a bunch of pointless multiplexes to take a number of routes into Cleveland's Public Square including US 42, US 322, US 422, SR 3, SR 43, SR 8, SR 14, and SR 87. I'd truncate back the multiplexed state routes and 3-digit US routes instead of overloading with a bunch of routes.

West Virginia now has the useless multiplex of US 48 with US 33 and then US 219 for 70 miles between Weston and Thomas so that all of Corridor H has a single number. US 48 also has useless multiplexes with WV 32, WV 93, WV 55, and VA 55 where the state routes could all be truncated back.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: Roadsguy on December 09, 2018, 01:31:53 PM
US 202 on I-95 and DE 141. Cut it back to 95 north of Wilmington, perhaps even extending it south to take over DE 202.

PA 88 should either be rerouted back through West Brownsville and off PA Turnpike 43 and US 40, or it should stick to 43 until Exit 32 and not go on 40 at all. The current routing doesn't make much sense.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: hbelkins on December 09, 2018, 02:31:23 PM
In Ohio, there are a bunch of pointless multiplexes to take a number of routes into Cleveland's Public Square including US 42, US 322, US 422, SR 3, SR 43, SR 8, SR 14, and SR 87. I'd truncate back the multiplexed state routes and 3-digit US routes instead of overloading with a bunch of routes.

West Virginia now has the useless multiplex of US 48 with US 33 and then US 219 for 70 miles between Weston and Thomas so that all of Corridor H has a single number. US 48 also has useless multiplexes with WV 32, WV 93, WV 55, and VA 55 where the state routes could all be truncated back.

Most of WV 55 is concurrent with at least one other route. Prior to the advent of US 48, only the westernmost and easternmost segments, short mileage each, were standalone.

As far as US 48 goes, I suspect that either WV 32 or WV 93 will be truncated, and the other extended over existing US 219/US 48 once the four-lane west of Davis/Thomas is completed.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: gr8daynegb on December 10, 2018, 01:38:39 PM
Heading back into Wisconsin......US 141 south of Abrams either runs concurrent with I-41/US-41/Wis-29 to it's termination at I-43.  I'm old fashioned to wanting US 141 to go to Milwaukee as from long ago, but as it is most of the overlap is pointless IMHO

Actually, US 141 runs alone in Green Bay along Velp from I/US-41 (I don't know which it is there) to Mather, then Dousman, across the Nitschke Bridge to Main at Monroe where it joins WI 29. It probably should be truncated at Abrams anyway.


Not reading my typing before hitting ok/send does me in again lol.  But south of Abrams split 141 is concurrent with another highway almost the whole way until it's second meeting with I-43.  I guess maybe end 141 as where WI 29/54/57 all meet if you want the designation to stay on Velp etc..  Otherwise maybe extend to Denmark to WI 96 to I-43 to maybe give some legitimacy to the Green Bay concurrency(just imaginative thinking).


Outside of interstate "prestige" I-39 is a concurrency waste of signage......but that's beating a dead horse from viewing postings here
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: PHLBOS on December 10, 2018, 02:06:47 PM
US 202 on I-95 and DE 141. Cut it back to 95 north of Wilmington, perhaps even extending it south to take over DE 202.
Such was already mentioned on Page 1, Reply #15 of this thread (reposted below):

US 202 and DE 141/I-95.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: bing101 on December 11, 2018, 06:25:13 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_4

Why does Interstate 4 in Florida needs to be concurrent with FL-400 for the entire route. What is the point of this concurrency?
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: kphoger on December 11, 2018, 06:50:01 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_4

Why does Interstate 4 in Florida needs to be concurrent with FL-400 for the entire route. What is the point of this concurrency?

Isn't that just the way Florida does things?  I-95 in Florida is concurrent with unsigned FL-9 and FL-9A for its entirety.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: formulanone on December 11, 2018, 08:56:41 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_4

Why does Interstate 4 in Florida needs to be concurrent with FL-400 for the entire route. What is the point of this concurrency?

Isn't that just the way Florida does things?  I-95 in Florida is concurrent with unsigned FL-9 and FL-9A for its entirety.

The concurrencies are effectively just for internal purposes. After the 1945 Renumbering, Florida's x00 roads (100 to 700) were designated as diagonal corridors; many of the US Routes were later extended along them later on. Some, such as SR 9 or SR 93, were reserved for future use. With the exception of speeding tickets, construction projects, and roadgeeks...these numbers rarely see the light of day.

There is the little section of FL 400 from I-95 to US 1 which isn't designated as I-4.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: bing101 on December 11, 2018, 09:39:49 PM
How about I-580 Nevada its completely co-signed with US-395 in Nevada for the entire route from Carson City to Reno is it unnecessary or is there supposed to be I-11 approaching Reno at some point though.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: TheHighwayMan394 on December 12, 2018, 02:08:44 AM
How about I-580 Nevada its completely co-signed with US-395 in Nevada for the entire route from Carson City to Reno is it unnecessary or is there supposed to be I-11 approaching Reno at some point though.

I-580 was unsigned until the last 10-15 years when it was extended to Carson City. It’s been mentioned as the future path of 11, but as much as interests want it there’s really no need for it north of Las Vegas. I hope they don’t waste a bunch of money on an unneeded project like that.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: Max Rockatansky on December 12, 2018, 08:00:55 AM
How about I-580 Nevada its completely co-signed with US-395 in Nevada for the entire route from Carson City to Reno is it unnecessary or is there supposed to be I-11 approaching Reno at some point though.

I-580 was unsigned until the last 10-15 years when it was extended to Carson City. It’s been mentioned as the future path of 11, but as much as interests want it there’s really no need for it north of Las Vegas. I hope they don’t waste a bunch of money on an unneeded project like that.

Personally I’ve never had an issue passing Land Trains on US 95 between Fallon and Mercury on the two-lane sections of the road, it truly is a desolate stretch perfectly adequate as is. 
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: Henry on December 12, 2018, 02:36:52 PM
I-80 and I-294 is my nomination for this. While the former continues east to the IN border and beyond, the latter ends at the I-94/IL 394 junction. Just an extension of a 3di for the sake of having both ends at its parent 2di.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: frankenroad on December 12, 2018, 06:01:37 PM
OH-3 from Columbus to Cincinnati.  All of it is multiplexed with either US-22 (Cincinnati to Washington CH) or US-62 (Washington CH to Columbus).   Historically, OH-3 precedes the US numbering system, and many sections of it are called 3-C highway (Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati).   But let's be real - anyone traveling between Columbus and Cincinnati will use I-71 anyway.

OH-3 from Columbus to Cleveland is mostly independent, other than a 24 mile overlap with US-36 and a short overlap with US-30.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: Super Mateo on December 12, 2018, 07:14:32 PM
I-80 and I-294 is my nomination for this. While the former continues east to the IN border and beyond, the latter ends at the I-94/IL 394 junction. Just an extension of a 3di for the sake of having both ends at its parent 2di.

It's also a way to justify sticking a toll on the mainline for I-80.  The tollway logically should end at I-80, but IL loves toll money.  I have no problem paying the toll and it's inexpensive, but it's a sneaky way to trick people onto the toll system, even if the tollway was built first.  All they would have to do is not toll the ramps to/from I-80 for I-80 to be free on the mainline.  Obviously not going to happen, though.

Of what I have been on:
-US 25/42/127:  US 25 terminates at the OH border, making US 25 unneeded on this concurrency.  The easiest solution would be to truncate US 25 back to the US 42/127 intersection, but I would actually terminate US 42 there instead and change US 42 in OH to US 25.
-I 865/US 52:  No need for an Interstate number on a glorified ramp.  US 52 is fine there.
-I 73/74:  Mentioned earlier, but I don't see why NC needs I-74.  The part NW of Mt. Airy can be I-777, or just a state route; US 52 has the segment from Mt. Airy to Winston-Salem; I-x73, x85, or x40 can cover the High Point section (I'd do 385 myself); US 74 works fine on the Laurinburg section; and the 73 and 77 overlaps can be dropped.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: Bitmapped on December 12, 2018, 08:31:07 PM
In Ohio, there are a bunch of pointless multiplexes to take a number of routes into Cleveland's Public Square including US 42, US 322, US 422, SR 3, SR 43, SR 8, SR 14, and SR 87. I'd truncate back the multiplexed state routes and 3-digit US routes instead of overloading with a bunch of routes.

West Virginia now has the useless multiplex of US 48 with US 33 and then US 219 for 70 miles between Weston and Thomas so that all of Corridor H has a single number. US 48 also has useless multiplexes with WV 32, WV 93, WV 55, and VA 55 where the state routes could all be truncated back.

Most of WV 55 is concurrent with at least one other route. Prior to the advent of US 48, only the westernmost and easternmost segments, short mileage each, were standalone.

As far as US 48 goes, I suspect that either WV 32 or WV 93 will be truncated, and the other extended over existing US 219/US 48 once the four-lane west of Davis/Thomas is completed.

WV 90 would be the most logical route to extend over the current US 219 alignment. It wouldn't have a long multiplex with US 48 and wouldn't be doubling back on itself like WV 32.

Frankly, though,  I don't think there's a real need to keep the existing US 219 signed as a state route once Corridor H is completed. It's closely paralleled by the new route and doesn't have independent utility other than to serve downtown Parsons. I wouldn't mind seeing WV 72 rerouted to end at US 219 on the north/east side of the future Parsons bypass. Downgrade the rest of WV 72 to a county route since it is not useful for through traffic.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: DJ Particle on December 13, 2018, 01:53:03 AM
1. MN 5 with I-494 and then US 212

They already truncated MN-5 back from MN-36 to MN-120 in the last few years (I guess they did that after they realized they weren't continuing that expressway west of 120)

There's still that piece of MN-5 freeway between I-494 and W 7th St.  Maybe an I-94 3di?  I-794?  After all, as a connector to an airport and a major military base, it does fit within the "crucial infrastructure" guidelines.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: paulthemapguy on December 13, 2018, 10:13:20 AM
All of Maine.

 :-D :clap:

Any concurrencies where one route terminates at the end of it. Seriously, truncate that route back.

Disagree, and here is my perfect example for why:

I-80 and I-294 is my nomination for this. While the former continues east to the IN border and beyond, the latter ends at the I-94/IL 394 junction. Just an extension of a 3di for the sake of having both ends at its parent 2di.

I want people from NW Indiana and beyond to easily find the beltway around the Chicago area on their way to Wisconsin.  I want route numbering systems to be easy to use by even the dumbest, GPS-lacking hack.  It's easier for someone of any level of intelligence to remember 94-294-94 than 94-80-294-94.

My contribution to this thread is IL-13 and IL-127 in southern Illinois.  The section of IL-13 west of Pinckneyville and the section of IL-13 east of Murphysboro should be separate routes.  (The southern section from Murphysboro to Old Shawneetown should be IL-13, and it should absorb the section of IL-149 west of Murphysboro, to make one big straight road.  The northern section from Pinckneyville to near Belleville should be renumbered.)
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: kphoger on December 13, 2018, 10:30:32 AM
My contribution to this thread is IL-13 and IL-127 in southern Illinois.  The section of IL-13 west of Pinckneyville and the section of IL-13 east of Murphysboro should be separate routes.  (The southern section from Murphysboro to Old Shawneetown should be IL-13, and it should absorb the section of IL-149 west of Murphysboro, to make one big straight road.  The northern section from Pinckneyville to near Belleville should be renumbered.)

I'm down with that.  I used to do a LOT of driving in southern Illinois (I was a delivery driver based out of Herrin, and I regularly topped 300 miles per day), and I wouldn't even really consider using IL-13 to get from—say—Freeburg to Harrisburg.  I would go through Benton instead, either by way of Sesser or I-64.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: US 89 on December 13, 2018, 11:14:39 AM
Any concurrencies where one route terminates at the end of it. Seriously, truncate that route back.

This is true in most cases, like the US 277 northern terminus (which should be at US 62 in Chickasha) and the US 412 western terminus, which should be at US 64 in Guymon; US 412 has no reason to exist in New Mexico.

But I'm going to have to agree with Paul: there are cases where this does not apply, and my example would be the US 40/189 concurrency east of Salt Lake. US 40 is over 2000 miles long, so it seems just a little bit wrong to end it at a minor 3dus in Heber City. Keeping it for 15 more miles allows the route to end at a major interstate (I-80), which is undoubtedly where almost all westbound 40 traffic is headed.

Not to mention the fact that the 40/189 overlap is almost universally known as US 40, and 189 wasn't even signed on that overlap until summer 2017.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: paulthemapguy on December 13, 2018, 12:30:57 PM
^ I totally agree with all of this.  There are cases where a concurrency at a route's end makes sense, and other cases where it doesn't.  US412's west end can be truncated, for example, but I would leave US40 on US189 and I would leave I-294 on I-80.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: hbelkins on December 13, 2018, 07:53:27 PM
WV 90 would be the most logical route to extend over the current US 219 alignment. It wouldn't have a long multiplex with US 48 and wouldn't be doubling back on itself like WV 32.

You mean like WV 62 does when it was routed over the old US 33 alignment?

[/quote]
Frankly, though,  I don't think there's a real need to keep the existing US 219 signed as a state route once Corridor H is completed. It's closely paralleled by the new route and doesn't have independent utility other than to serve downtown Parsons. I wouldn't mind seeing WV 72 rerouted to end at US 219 on the north/east side of the future Parsons bypass. Downgrade the rest of WV 72 to a county route since it is not useful for through traffic.
[/quote]

I figured they would keep it as a state route because of the high school. I think the only reason that WV 72 is a primary state route beyond Hendricks is because 1.) West Virginia doesn't leave state routes hanging, and 2.) in my experience, every incorporated place in the state is served by a primary state route. If there is an incorporated municipality that's served only by a county route, I'm unaware of it. I think this may be the same reason WV 71 is a primary state route, so it can serve Matoaka.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: roadfro on December 16, 2018, 02:04:00 AM


How about I-580 Nevada its completely co-signed with US-395 in Nevada for the entire route from Carson City to Reno is it unnecessary or is there supposed to be I-11 approaching Reno at some point though.

I-580 was unsigned until the last 10-15 years when it was extended to Carson City. It’s been mentioned as the future path of 11, but as much as interests want it there’s really no need for it north of Las Vegas. I hope they don’t waste a bunch of money on an unneeded project like that.

I'll note that I-580 was not actually signed until 2012. While it was studied as one possible corridor for the northward extension of I-11 from Las Vegas, 580 is no longer being considered as an option to connect I-11 to I-80.

In this vein, I-515 has also had a kinda pointless overlap with US 93 & 95 in Las Vegas & Henderson since 1994/1995.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: DandyDan on January 21, 2019, 11:37:18 PM
One more from Minnesota, since I was up there this weekend. MN 55 and I-94. The Olson Memorial Highway section westward to North Dakota should keep the MN 55 designation, but the Hiawatha Avenue section eastward to Hastings should get renumbered, probably to MN 155.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: Flint1979 on January 22, 2019, 01:54:40 AM
I think US-23 should still follow the old route between Bay City and Standish instead of run together for another 24 miles with I-75, then have the freeway connector ramp in the Standish area where M-13 ends and the roadway becomes US-23 which comes in off the freeway. The old route would follow the M-13 Connector to M-13 and then M-13 into the route now ending M-13 at Kawkawlin.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: Ben114 on January 22, 2019, 07:53:15 PM
Mass. 4/225
Mass. 146/122A
I-93/US 1/Mass. 3
I-95/Mass. 128
Mass. 140/30
I-295/US 6 (RI)
I-291/US 20 (MA)
I-91/Mass. 2

For the last three, they should have been routed down the alt. route
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: PHLBOS on January 23, 2019, 12:20:21 PM
FYI, some on your list were already mentioned and/or discussed.
Mass. 4/225
Already mentioned
Mass. 146/122A
Judging by GSV, Park Hill Ave. & Granite St. don't appear up to snuff to be designated as a state route... in this case MA 122A.  Note that MA 122A northbound does veer off MA 146 prior to the latter meeting I-290.
I-93/US 1/Mass. 3
This one I believe was discussed before.  However, since both US 1 & MA 3 leave I-93 at both ends (but different locations) and continue as stand-alone routes; the best one can do IMHO is either mute or silent the US 1/MA 3 concurrencies.
I-95/Mass. 128
Definitely already discussed.
I-295/US 6 (RI)
You may want to read up on the history of what was once proposed as I-84.  This short concurrency exists as a result of I-84 in RI not happening.  This concurrency is no worse than the I-95 (MA 128)/US 3 concurrency in Burlington.  Again, such was the result of the US 3 Expressway south of Burlington not happening.
I-91/Mass. 2
If MA 2 utilized MA 2A in Greenfield; what would the leg between US 5 & I-91 be?  If anything, I mute/silence the MA 2/2A concurrency east of US 5 from Adams St. (MA 2A West) to West Orange Rd. (MA 2A East) in Erving.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: Hurricane Rex on January 23, 2019, 12:25:00 PM
SR 99 and SR 38 in Oregon.  South of Drain, 99 has been removed as a number and it is now a Douglas County route.  It renders the 99 part of the concurrency as a dead end.  38 on the other hand is a primary E-W route connecting US 101 and I-5.  That is the number which deserves to remain.

Rick
42 and 99 are also useless, as 42 just terminates at I-5 and 99 becomes concurrent with I-5: street view: Winston, Oregon

https://goo.gl/maps/s8GLn7q3swq

LG-TP260

Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: Bitmapped on January 23, 2019, 03:01:28 PM
WV 90 would be the most logical route to extend over the current US 219 alignment. It wouldn't have a long multiplex with US 48 and wouldn't be doubling back on itself like WV 32.

You mean like WV 62 does when it was routed over the old US 33 alignment?
Exactly. WVDOH should have followed ODOT's lead and renumered the extension of WV 62 as WV 833.

I figured they would keep it as a state route because of the high school.
That's generally not a big concern for WVDOH. Part of old WV 55, now a county route, near Baker has East Hardy High School on it.

I think the only reason that WV 72 is a primary state route beyond Hendricks is because 1.) West Virginia doesn't leave state routes hanging, and 2.) in my experience, every incorporated place in the state is served by a primary state route. If there is an incorporated municipality that's served only by a county route, I'm unaware of it. I think this may be the same reason WV 71 is a primary state route, so it can serve Matoaka.
I imagine Hendricks and Hambleton are probably part of why WV 72 was extended, but there are a decent number of towns in WV not on a state route. Top of head: Anawalt (McDowell County), Davy (McDowell County), Grant Town (Marion County), Coalton/Womelsdorf (Randolph County), and Rhodell (Raleigh County, disincorporated 2017).
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: DJ Particle on January 28, 2019, 03:29:40 AM
Despite my nostalgia, I think they can remove the MA-6A designation from N Truro and Provincetown, MA... the only parts that aren't under local maintenance now are the Commercial St. and Provincelands Rd. sections (about 1 mile each of the 9-mile-total spur).  Hell, even the US-6 expressway in Provincetown is under local maintenance now.

Why am I mentioning this?  Because as it stands right now, there's officially a US-6/MA-6A concurrency from the Orleans Rotary to N Truro.  Removing the 6A designation from the northern segment would end that concurrency.
Title: Re: Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..
Post by: PHLBOS on January 29, 2019, 05:44:03 PM
Despite my nostalgia, I think they can remove the MA-6A designation from N Truro and Provincetown, MA... the only parts that aren't under local maintenance now are the Commercial St. and Provincelands Rd. sections (about 1 mile each of the 9-mile-total spur).  Hell, even the US-6 expressway in Provincetown is under local maintenance now.

Why am I mentioning this?  Because as it stands right now, there's officially a US-6/MA-6A concurrency from the Orleans Rotary to N Truro.  Removing the 6A designation from the northern segment would end that concurrency.
The concurrency that you speak of is a silent concurrency based on the signage (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.798136,-69.9839901,3a,75y,57.05h,68.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFvTVjz5d_kcLhzGFi5Tn_Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).  There's plenty of silent-X/XA concurrencies in MA and are not really a big deal IMHO. 

The oddballs are actually the non-silent concurrencies like US 1/MA 1A in Newburyport/Salisbury of two of the MA 2/2A concurrencies.