AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules for political content in signatures and user profiles. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: Same number concurrencies or highways meeting  (Read 5896 times)

ilpt4u

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1228
  • Location: Southern IL
  • Last Login: Today at 07:56:31 AM
Re: Same number concurrencies or highways meeting
« Reply #25 on: July 06, 2017, 11:21:46 PM »

So, you can't have a US highway and interstate in the same state.
Is this is a serious rule?

Yes, and until the 74/74 and 41/41 abominations came along, to the best of my knowledge Illinois had the only exception, with the reasoning being that the two routes were so far apart that no one would get them confused.
Learn something new every day

I'm sure others have done this before, but I might have to look hard at maps for the next few days, and see if there are other exceptions. I guess TX already is officially an exception, since there are parts of I-69 signed in Houston, and US 69 exists in TX as well

I didn't even realize it was uncommon, let alone a rule. I knew the WI US 41/I-41 thing was weird (same thing with NC and 74), but that can be (at least partially) blamed on us FIBs for not wanting to share I-55 or I-57. I figured they just had to be "away" from each other, a la US 24 and I-24

By "the grid" naturally, there should be few overlapping areas anyway, numerically speaking, with N/S US being E to W::Low to High and N/S Is being E to W::High to Low, and same with E/W US being N to S::Low to High and E/W Is being N to S::High to Low

Only in the "middle" of the country should there be opportunity to break this pattern. 74, 24, and 69 due to diagonal Interstate routes, and 41 being a pretty "middling" number
« Last Edit: July 06, 2017, 11:42:57 PM by ilpt4u »
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5920
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:57:42 AM
Re: Same number concurrencies or highways meeting
« Reply #26 on: July 07, 2017, 03:47:45 AM »

So, you can't have a US highway and interstate in the same state.
Is this is a serious rule?

They are in different parts of the state, but IL has I-24 in Southern IL, and US 24 in Central IL

Unless the statement is to mean a US Highway and Interstate cannot meet and/or be concurrent in the same state. That, I am down with, except for WI, NC, and someday TX
So, you can't have a US highway and interstate in the same state.
Is this is a serious rule?
Yes, and until the 74/74 and 41/41 abominations came along, to the best of my knowledge Illinois had the only exception, with the reasoning being that the two routes were so far apart that no one would get them confused.

Illinois, being a state with more N-S than E-W mileage, was likely considered to be an unavoidable exception to the "rule" (essentially an idiomatic guideline), as was California.  Before the '64 state renumbering effort, there were two in-state duplications: I-40/US 40 and I-80/US 80; which didn't seem to concern anyone at any level for the 6+ years the situation existed.  The fact that the renumberings dealt with the problem was pretty much incidental; the goal of the renumbering was to eliminate multi-route multiplexes; doing so meant truncating many of the US highways entering the state.

What's actually ironic & funny is that the Illinois situation concerning I-24/US 24 could have been avoided back in '57 by simply swapping I-24 and I-26; it would have been logical as well, considering the whole of I-26 exists at a more southerly mean latitude than does I-24! 
Logged

hbelkins

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13433
  • It is well, it is well, with my soul.

  • Age: 57
  • Location: Kentucky
  • Last Login: Today at 12:00:40 PM
    • Millennium Highway
Re: Same number concurrencies or highways meeting
« Reply #27 on: July 07, 2017, 11:08:23 AM »

I keep forgetting about California, even though I'm old enough to remember current maps with the US routes posted, and thinking how neat it was that a route that runs within about an hour of where I live (US 60) went all the way to California.

The "no duplication" rule is why there are no interstates numbered 50 or 60. Any interstates with those numbers would, out of necessity, have passed through states with the same numbers used on US routes.
Logged

bassoon1986

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 979
  • Finish I-49 north in LA!

  • Age: 33
  • Location: Woodworth, LA
  • Last Login: September 18, 2019, 11:09:53 PM
Re: Same number concurrencies or highways meeting
« Reply #28 on: July 07, 2017, 04:11:56 PM »

Arkansas now has I-49 and US 49. Smaller state, but they are still on E-W opposite ends of the state.


iPhone
Logged

texaskdog

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2494
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Austin, TX
  • Last Login: September 18, 2019, 04:43:27 PM
Re: Same number concurrencies or highways meeting
« Reply #29 on: July 07, 2017, 04:46:02 PM »


-MN 62 and Hennepin County 62 in Eden Prairie. The county portion remains after NIMBYs stopped the planned continuation of MN 62.

Where was that supposed to go?
Logged

texaskdog

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2494
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Austin, TX
  • Last Login: September 18, 2019, 04:43:27 PM
Re: Same number concurrencies or highways meeting
« Reply #30 on: July 07, 2017, 04:47:05 PM »

I wonder if you could make an interstate into I-50 and successfully keep US 50 out of those states (even if you had to reroute it). 
Logged

TheHighwayMan394

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2410
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Twin Ports/North Shore
  • Last Login: Today at 02:10:53 AM
    • Patrick Lilja's Minnesconsin Highways
Re: Same number concurrencies or highways meeting
« Reply #31 on: July 07, 2017, 05:13:58 PM »


-MN 62 and Hennepin County 62 in Eden Prairie. The county portion remains after NIMBYs stopped the planned continuation of MN 62.

Where was that supposed to go?

It was supposed to connect with an interchange at MN 101 at the Dell Road intersection.
Logged
It sucks that you think where Iím from is whack, but as long as thatís enough to keep your ass from coming back

Clinched 2dis: 24, 35, 39, 41, 43, 76 (W), 84 (E), 88 (both), 96, 97

MNHighwayMan

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3966
  • Blue and gold forever!

  • Age: 27
  • Location: Des Moines
  • Last Login: Today at 08:19:22 AM
Re: Same number concurrencies or highways meeting
« Reply #32 on: July 07, 2017, 05:52:08 PM »


-MN 62 and Hennepin County 62 in Eden Prairie. The county portion remains after NIMBYs stopped the planned continuation of MN 62.

Where was that supposed to go?

It was supposed to connect with an interchange at MN 101 at the Dell Road intersection.

Correct. Although I find it somewhat humorous considering MnDOT pretty much said "fuck MN-101 south of I-94" and that would've left MN-62, as you described, a spur route that would've made little sense, ending at an otherwise unimportant intersection.
Logged

ekt8750

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 491
  • Location: SE Pennsylvania
  • Last Login: Today at 11:11:01 AM
Re: Same number concurrencies or highways meeting
« Reply #33 on: July 07, 2017, 08:01:27 PM »

US 222 becomes PA 222 at the Allentown city limits due to a denial by the AASHTO of an extension of US 222 into Allentown.
Logged

US 89

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2107
  • 189 to Evanston!

  • Location: Salt Lake City, UT/Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: Today at 10:45:25 AM
Re: Same number concurrencies or highways meeting
« Reply #34 on: July 08, 2017, 01:12:29 AM »

US 222 becomes PA 222 at the Allentown city limits due to a denial by the AASHTO of an extension of US 222 into Allentown.

PA should pull an Oklahoma and just sign it as US 222.
Logged
Interstate clinches: 14 82 86west 215UT 225 345 444 575 985
US clinches: 91 491 550

Flickr
Imgur

texaskdog

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2494
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Austin, TX
  • Last Login: September 18, 2019, 04:43:27 PM
Re: Same number concurrencies or highways meeting
« Reply #35 on: July 10, 2017, 10:13:23 PM »

Guess I didn't mean roads that just turn into other roads, I meant completely different roads that meet or cross, causing confusion for inattentive drivers (i.e. anyone not like us)
Logged

bwana39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8
  • Location: Near Texarkana TX
  • Last Login: August 09, 2017, 03:56:43 PM
US 69 and Interstate 69 In Lufkin TX
« Reply #36 on: July 12, 2017, 09:00:25 PM »

US 69 and Interstate 69 In Lufkin TX

If left unresolved in Lufkin, they would definitely intersect and probably run concurrently.

There are three solutions.
1) Extend US175 from Jacksonville TX to Woodville and truncate US 69 in Jacksonville.
2) Extend US271 from Tyler to Woodville and truncate US69 in Tyler
3) Delete US175 altogether and extend US75 from Dallas to Woodville along the current US175 and US69.

Another US75 possibility would be to truncate US69 in Durant OK and reroute US 75 along the current US69 to Woodville. This would also require the current US75 being renumbered to IH45. This of course flies in the face of the idea that I45 will eventually extend along SH114 and US287 to Amarillo
Logged

US 89

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2107
  • 189 to Evanston!

  • Location: Salt Lake City, UT/Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: Today at 10:45:25 AM
Re: US 69 and Interstate 69 In Lufkin TX
« Reply #37 on: July 13, 2017, 01:54:09 AM »

Another US75 possibility would be to truncate US69 in Durant OK and reroute US 75 along the current US69 to Woodville. This would also require the current US75 being renumbered to IH45. This of course flies in the face of the idea that I45 will eventually extend along SH114 and US287 to Amarillo

Why would I-45 go to Amarillo?
Logged
Interstate clinches: 14 82 86west 215UT 225 345 444 575 985
US clinches: 91 491 550

Flickr
Imgur

plain

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 790
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Richmond Virginia
  • Last Login: Today at 10:51:45 AM
Re: Same number concurrencies or highways meeting
« Reply #38 on: July 13, 2017, 02:17:17 AM »

Does GA 10/ GA 10 LOOP count?
Logged
Newark born, Richmond bred

LM117

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2053
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Danville, VA 👎
  • Last Login: Today at 10:32:24 AM
Re: Same number concurrencies or highways meeting
« Reply #39 on: July 13, 2017, 05:52:13 AM »

You mean like where I-64 has an exit for IN 64 west of New Albany?

You beat me to it.  Was going to mention that.  Also, I-265 meets IN 265 at I-65, though I imagine IN 265 is going away before too long.

NC will eventually have an I-42/NC-42 interchange near Clayton once US-70 between I-40 and Morehead City officially becomes I-42.

On a brief off-topic note, once US-264 is upgraded to interstate standards between Zebulon and Greenville, NC will be the first state to have a 3-di interstate concurrency where both routes begin with an odd number: I-795/I-587 in Wilson.
Logged
ďI donít know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch!Ē - Jim Cornette

LM117

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2053
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Danville, VA 👎
  • Last Login: Today at 10:32:24 AM
Re: Same number concurrencies or highways meeting
« Reply #40 on: July 13, 2017, 06:00:06 AM »

I keep forgetting about California, even though I'm old enough to remember current maps with the US routes posted, and thinking how neat it was that a route that runs within about an hour of where I live (US 60) went all the way to California.

I know the feeling. I lived in Warsaw, NC for a couple of years when I was a kid and it's right off of I-40. Straight shot to Barstow! :-D
Logged
ďI donít know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch!Ē - Jim Cornette

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10757
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: September 19, 2019, 09:52:39 PM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: Same number concurrencies or highways meeting
« Reply #41 on: July 13, 2017, 09:50:41 AM »


-MN 62 and Hennepin County 62 in Eden Prairie. The county portion remains after NIMBYs stopped the planned continuation of MN 62.

Where was that supposed to go?

It was supposed to connect with an interchange at MN 101 at the Dell Road intersection.

Correct. Although I find it somewhat humorous considering MnDOT pretty much said "fuck MN-101 south of I-94" and that would've left MN-62, as you described, a spur route that would've made little sense, ending at an otherwise unimportant intersection.

Actually, it was supposed to meet MN 7 in the now-CSAH 101 vicinity.  The milemarkers along MN 62 (minus the 100 that was added to them) reflect this original proposed terminus.

Also, as I understand it, it wasn't NIMBY's that stopped it, but changing priorities at the county level.  Then-CSAH 18/now-US 169 in particular was becoming problematic to fund and construct.  I still remember when the last "inside the Beltline" segment next to Hopkins wasn't yet completed.
Logged

texaskdog

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2494
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Austin, TX
  • Last Login: September 18, 2019, 04:43:27 PM
Re: Same number concurrencies or highways meeting
« Reply #42 on: July 13, 2017, 01:26:32 PM »


-MN 62 and Hennepin County 62 in Eden Prairie. The county portion remains after NIMBYs stopped the planned continuation of MN 62.

Where was that supposed to go?

It was supposed to connect with an interchange at MN 101 at the Dell Road intersection.

Correct. Although I find it somewhat humorous considering MnDOT pretty much said "fuck MN-101 south of I-94" and that would've left MN-62, as you described, a spur route that would've made little sense, ending at an otherwise unimportant intersection.

Actually, it was supposed to meet MN 7 in the now-CSAH 101 vicinity.  The milemarkers along MN 62 (minus the 100 that was added to them) reflect this original proposed terminus.

Also, as I understand it, it wasn't NIMBY's that stopped it, but changing priorities at the county level.  Then-CSAH 18/now-US 169 in particular was becoming problematic to fund and construct.  I still remember when the last "inside the Beltline" segment next to Hopkins wasn't yet completed.


Looking at the maps after the previous posts, that looked like it made the most sense.  MN is not fast to build highways.
Logged

dvferyance

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1128
  • Location: New Berlin WI
  • Last Login: September 15, 2019, 04:15:32 PM
Re: Same number concurrencies or highways meeting
« Reply #43 on: July 13, 2017, 02:06:47 PM »

FL-29 and county road 29 in Collier County Florida just north of Everglades City. They change when they cross US 41.
Logged

MNHighwayMan

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3966
  • Blue and gold forever!

  • Age: 27
  • Location: Des Moines
  • Last Login: Today at 08:19:22 AM
Re: Same number concurrencies or highways meeting
« Reply #44 on: July 13, 2017, 02:52:13 PM »

Actually, it was supposed to meet MN 7 in the now-CSAH 101 vicinity.  The milemarkers along MN 62 (minus the 100 that was added to them) reflect this original proposed terminus.

Also, as I understand it, it wasn't NIMBY's that stopped it, but changing priorities at the county level.  Then-CSAH 18/now-US 169 in particular was becoming problematic to fund and construct.  I still remember when the last "inside the Beltline" segment next to Hopkins wasn't yet completed.

So was this proposed freeway/roadway/whatever then supposed to follow some new alignment? I ask because I measured the distance on Google Earth following CSAH-62 and it pretty well measures out (within error) to being the start of Mile 100 at the CSAH-62/101 intersection.

Edit: So the route logpoint states that the present-day Metro MN-62 begins at mile 103.592. There is no way to get to MN-7 with that short of a path (ie ~3.6 miles) without cutting a brand new route through all those suburban housing developments, and I find it hard to believe that ever was MnDOT's intention.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2017, 03:01:09 PM by MNHighwayMan »
Logged

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10757
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: September 19, 2019, 09:52:39 PM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: Same number concurrencies or highways meeting
« Reply #45 on: July 13, 2017, 04:58:27 PM »

It would have followed the existing CSAH 62 alignment west to roughly Scenic Heights Dr, then turned on new alignment northwest and north through what is now Purgatory Park to the general MN 7/CSAH 101 vicinity.  Back in the early 1960s when planning first began, there was little in the way of "suburban housing development" out there.  Now while that started changing in the mid 1960s, the general proposed corridor remained intact at least into the early 1970s.

Some iterations had it tying into CSAH 101 at Excelsior Blvd.  The length of this iteration roughly matches the mileposts along MN 62.

Also, this was planned under the county, not MnDOT.  MnDOT didn't take over the Crosstown until 1988, and even then the segment west of 494 remained under county control.

If I can find them when I get home, I'll post a couple map scans I have of the corridor online and share.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2017, 05:00:33 PM by froggie »
Logged

MNHighwayMan

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3966
  • Blue and gold forever!

  • Age: 27
  • Location: Des Moines
  • Last Login: Today at 08:19:22 AM
Re: Same number concurrencies or highways meeting
« Reply #46 on: July 14, 2017, 07:09:30 AM »

It would have followed the existing CSAH 62 alignment west to roughly Scenic Heights Dr, then turned on new alignment northwest and north through what is now Purgatory Park to the general MN 7/CSAH 101 vicinity.  Back in the early 1960s when planning first began, there was little in the way of "suburban housing development" out there.  Now while that started changing in the mid 1960s, the general proposed corridor remained intact at least into the early 1970s.

Some iterations had it tying into CSAH 101 at Excelsior Blvd.  The length of this iteration roughly matches the mileposts along MN 62.

Also, this was planned under the county, not MnDOT.  MnDOT didn't take over the Crosstown until 1988, and even then the segment west of 494 remained under county control.

If I can find them when I get home, I'll post a couple map scans I have of the corridor online and share.

Interesting. Guess it must just be coincidence that they're about the same length then. Would love to see those maps if you get a chance.
Logged

yakra

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1055
  • Location: Area Code 207
  • Last Login: Today at 01:09:41 AM
Re: Same number concurrencies or highways meeting
« Reply #47 on: July 17, 2017, 04:06:19 AM »

TX70 & US70 cross in Matador.
Logged
"Officer, I'm always careful to drive the speed limit no matter where I am and that's what I was doin'." Said "No, you weren't," she said, "Yes, I was." He said, "Madam, I just clocked you at 22 MPH," and she said "That's the speed limit," he said "No ma'am, that's the route numbah!"  - Gary Crocker

english si

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3515
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Buckinghamshire, England
  • Last Login: Today at 03:41:00 AM
Re: Same number concurrencies or highways meeting
« Reply #48 on: July 17, 2017, 06:35:09 AM »

Every intersection between a route and one of its banner routes!
Logged

roadman65

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9516
  • Location: Orlando, fl
  • Last Login: Today at 09:55:13 AM
Re: Same number concurrencies or highways meeting
« Reply #49 on: July 17, 2017, 07:28:16 AM »

Haines City, FL US 17 and FL 17 intersect since US 27 ALT was decommissioned.  I am not sure but I think Polk County 17 meets the two, as its not signed there, but at nearby US 27 it shows CR 17 going east to that location in signage.
Logged
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.