New rules for political content in signatures and user profiles. See this thread for details.
Quote from: vdeane on August 31, 2016, 01:43:48 PMIs 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.
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)?
Quote from: roadman on August 31, 2016, 01:55:49 PMQuote from: vdeane on August 31, 2016, 01:43:48 PMIs 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
Keep in mind that for the DC beltway, 495 was on the whole thing first, from 1961-1975, while 95 went into DC
Quote from: Mapmikey on August 31, 2016, 02:13:25 PMKeep in mind that for the DC beltway, 495 was on the whole thing first, from 1961-1975, while 95 went into DCI assumed everyone on a roads forum knew that! :-)
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
Yeah, I know plenty US / Interstate concurrencies. I meant Interstate / State and US / State.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 31, 2016, 10:25:28 AMBest 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!
Best part is that everyone calls the I-96 multiplex "275" locally anyways, so much for 2d being more significant.
Quote from: TheStranger on August 31, 2016, 12:12:52 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on August 31, 2016, 10:25:28 AMBest 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!
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.
Any concurrencies where one route terminates at the end of it. Seriously, truncate that route back.
Quote from: roadman65 on August 31, 2016, 11:24:31 PMSome 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.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 31, 2016, 11:32:28 PMQuote from: roadman65 on August 31, 2016, 11:24:31 PMSome 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.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on August 26, 2016, 09:04:28 PMQuote from: hbelkins on August 26, 2016, 08:59:37 PMSeriously, 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- FTFYAlso I thought US 76 did that in Wilmington now.Finally, this thread existed 5 years ago but with no posts since 2011. Oddly HB started it.
Quote from: hbelkins on August 26, 2016, 08:59:37 PMSeriously, 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?
Seriously, VA 3 and VA 14 in the Middle Peninsula.
Val, how long will that NY 17 concurrency w/I-86 last once all of it is upgraded to Interstate standards?
I havent' seen US 74 & US 64 mentioned at all. US 64 and US 74 are concurrent from NC to I-75 in Chattanooga.