Can't follow the through route

[hbelkins]

I'm not talking about route discontinuities. I'm talking about being on a continuous route that you cannot follow for whatever reason. Isolated examples have come up in different threads, but I don't think we've ever had a catch-all.

* US 61 in Turrel, AR (the most recent) - cannot jump onto I-55 heading SB, missing ramp

Being discussed here in greater detail

[Mergingtraffic]

I ould like to add: NY120-A in Rye Brook.  Doesn't it siz-zag into CT for a bit? I don't think CT names it CT120-A. 

Also, CT-34 in New Haven along the frontage roads.  The South Frontage Road is techincally CT-34 but the NB is not.  Of course, it was that way b/c of the proposed expressway that was and will never be built.

[deathtopumpkins]

Unless I'm mistaken, doofy103, this thread is not about roads that enter other states briefly, but about roads that have a physical discontinuity, i.e. you physically cannot follow them. Things like a road being converted to one-way without the route changing, roads being cut off, or left turns being prohibited where a route turns.

[froggie]

More than once, the District of Columbia has denied left turns at intersections where one of the U.S. routes passing through D.C. is supposed to make that left.

Several times on U.S. 29, and at least once on U.S. 1.  Not sure if it has happened on U.S. 50 or not.

None on 50, regardless of whether you consider westbound 50/southbound 1 to follow 6th or 9th.

The only one on 1 is where you can't turn left from westbound Constitution to southbound 14th.  Likewise, there's only one I know of on 29...at 7th and Rhode Island.

[NE2]

The only one on 1 is where you can't turn left from westbound Constitution to southbound 14th.

Where US 1 southbound uses 15th according to almost every detailed map I've seen (including USGS, implied). The change happened before 1956: http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~212314~5500349:Shell-Central-Washington--D-C---12-?sort=Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No (the oneway arrows appear to refer to routes rather than streets, given the lack of any on streets not carrying routes)

Likewise, there's only one I know of on 29...at 7th and Rhode Island.

US 29 uses 6th between RI and Florida. The sign on RI is missing, but the Goog shows a sign on 6th at Florida (and southbound 6th at RI).

[vdeane]

I ould like to add: NY120-A in Rye Brook.  Doesn't it siz-zag into CT for a bit? I don't think CT names it CT120-A. 

Also, CT-34 in New Haven along the frontage roads.  The South Frontage Road is techincally CT-34 but the NB is not.  Of course, it was that way b/c of the proposed expressway that was and will never be built.

It is NY 120A in CT and maintained by NYSDOT.

[froggie]

Where US 1 southbound uses 15th according to almost every detailed map I've seen (including USGS, implied).

Unofficially, yes.  But every official DATASET I've seen has US 1 only on 14th.  Including recent GIS datasets from both DDOT and FHWA.

US 29 uses 6th between RI and Florida. The sign on RI is missing, but the Goog shows a sign on 6th at Florida (and southbound 6th at RI).

Yes, I've seen the signs, but the datasets still have US 29 along 7th between Rhode Island and Florida.

[Bickendan]

Slightly tangential to the topic: CA 83's northern terminus is at CA 210. There are no ramps from CA 210 to Euclid Ave at all, yet CA 83 does not terminate at the preceding nor following arteries.

[NE2]

Where US 1 southbound uses 15th according to almost every detailed map I've seen (including USGS, implied).

Unofficially, yes.  But every official DATASET I've seen has US 1 only on 14th.  Including recent GIS datasets from both DDOT and FHWA.

US 29 uses 6th between RI and Florida. The sign on RI is missing, but the Goog shows a sign on 6th at Florida (and southbound 6th at RI).

Yes, I've seen the signs, but the datasets still have US 29 along 7th between Rhode Island and Florida.

Since there's no official routing sent down by Moses's imaginary friend, it's likely that whoever was creating the data guessed (and didn't realize you couldn't follow their routing).

[agentsteel53]

Since there's no official routing sent down by Moses's imaginary friend, it's likely that whoever was creating the data guessed (and didn't realize you couldn't follow their routing).

I'm pretty sure it's Moses himself.  you think now that he's got cosmological powers, he's gonna stick to just New York?

[roadman65]

NJ Secondary Route 527 (Middlessex County 527) in New Brunswick, NJ has a left turn prohibition at the intersection of George Street and Albany, Street where NB CR 527 turns left from George Street onto Albany Street to leave its concurrency with NJ 171 and join NJ 27 for a few short blocks.

I am not sure, but NJS 527 also has problems heading southbound at NJ 124 where Morris Avenue is one way NB and you must use WB NJ 124. WB CR 512, and then EB CR 512 to make the connection.  Whether its on state line diagrams or not, I have no idea, but if it is not then the way via NJ 124 and CR 512 is defacto.

Also, I believe if you are heading on US 9 Southbound from NY into NJ, you cannot access the lower level of the George Washington Bridge.  Although, the upper level is accessible and does not disrupt your travel, both levels are technically US 9 and only if you are going from I-95 & US 1 Southbound to US 9 Southbound you can accomplish this maneuver.

[kphoger]

Eastbound FM-487 at Jarrell, TX

As it reaches I-35 from the west, there is no bridge over the interstate.  The nearest bridge is about four blocks north, but the frontage road is one-way, so turning north is not allowed.  The next crossover to the south is about a mile away, and is not signed for FM-487.  It would be possible to use 1st Street and Avenue I as a detour through town, but these residential streets are not signed as FM-487 either, and trucks are prohibited.

On the other side of I-35, westbound traffic has no such gap, since FM-487 is signed on Sixth Street to the bridge, and can then continue south and west.

[Billy F 1988]

You can't get off of Interstate 90 westbound to access Interstate 115/I-90/15 Bus and you can't access eastbound Interstate 90 from I-115. Somehow, I find this very confusing. The way MDT has it designed is that you can only access I-115 by being in the left lane on the eastbound side of I-90. The bad thing is this. What if you were on I-115 already but you want to go back on to EB I-90? You can't. You have to access I-90 at another intersection down the road further from I-115. And this design does not make sense.

[corco]

It was built on a budget- instead of building a massive flyover they only had to build one little overpass. For the amount of traffic in that area, it's fine.
The directional restrictions are well-signed, and it's only another half mile down Montana St to get back to I-90 west.

Those one way interchanges can be bad though- you want to see an ugly one that actually has lots of traffic, check out I-70/I-76 in Denver and I-70/I-270 in Denver, or I-84/I-15 south of Ogden UT

[NE2]

Partial interchanges have nothing to do with following the through route.

[kphoger]

You can't get off of Interstate 90 westbound to access Interstate 115/I-90/15 Bus and you can't access eastbound Interstate 90 from I-115. Somehow, I find this very confusing. The way MDT has it designed is that you can only access I-115 by being in the left lane on the eastbound side of I-90. The bad thing is this. What if you were on I-115 already but you want to go back on to EB I-90? You can't. You have to access I-90 at another intersection down the road further from I-115. And this design does not make sense.

OK, I'm totally confused.  Which through route is it impossible to follow?

[vdeane]

You can't get off of Interstate 90 westbound to access Interstate 115/I-90/15 Bus and you can't access eastbound Interstate 90 from I-115. Somehow, I find this very confusing. The way MDT has it designed is that you can only access I-115 by being in the left lane on the eastbound side of I-90. The bad thing is this. What if you were on I-115 already but you want to go back on to EB I-90? You can't. You have to access I-90 at another intersection down the road further from I-115. And this design does not make sense.

Business routes tend to do that.

[Duke87]

Something I noticed today: NYCDOT recently restriped the intersection of Fordham Road and Webster Avenue in The Bronx in order to add bus lanes to Webster Avenue. As part of doing so, left turns off of Fordham Road onto Webster Avenue are now prohibited. In order to follow US 1 southbound, you must... turn left off of Fordham Road onto Webster Avenue. So, here we have a newly created example of this!

To NYCDOT's credit, however, they recognized this problem and installed signs guiding motorists along a permanent detour. Which is impressive for a city that's usually loathe to sign routes on surface streets at all!

[vdeane]

What will AASHTO think?

[NE2]

I don't think AASHTO officially cares about changes that minor, though some states do submit them.

[Brandon]

What will AASHTO think?

WWAASHTOT?

[PHLBOS]

Downtown Beverly, MA:

If one follows MA 22 North along Cabot St., it eventually veers to the right onto Essex St.  From Cabot to Dane St. (MA 62), Essex St. is a one-way northbound street.  North of MA 62, Essex St. is a two-way carrying both directions of MA 22.

Cabot St. between Essex & Dane, while still being two-way is only designated MA 22 in the southbound direction.  Dane St. between Cabot & Essex Sts. is designated as MA 62 for both east/west directions and MA 22 south.  22 South is multiplexed w/62 West along Dane.

Cabot St. north of Dane is designated as MA 62, again for both directions, for a short distance to Elliot St.

While one heading north on Cabot can ignore getting on Essex and turn right on Dane, then left on Essex; they aren't fully following MA 22 North.

Side note to roadman: while there was some decent trailblazer/affirmation signage erected back in 1981, most of the ones at the key turning points have been either knocked down (in accidents) and/or stolen but never replaced.  One has to use the Force in order to follow 22 South in this area. 

Additionally, the NORTH 22 trailblazer sign at the beginning of Essex St. is not at the most visable location and its advance signage was gone years ago.  It needs to be either moved or supplemental signage needs to be added.

[agentsteel53]

Those one way interchanges can be bad though

I think CA-67 has the record for "smallest proportion of interchanges with full movements".  out of 7, including the terminus at I-8 (which requires shunting onto old 67), only two are full interchanges: Bradley and Riverford, and even Riverford is pushing it because two of the ramps push you out onto Woodside instead.

[1995hoo]

This thread has caused me to think of a semi-related/semi-unrelated issue relating to clinching routes. I'm curious how you folks handle situations where you either cannot follow the through route or where the route uses different roads in each direction.

For the former, my approach is to drive each disconnected piece and if I'm concerned about the clinch I make sure whatever route I use to connect between them allows me to drive each full segment. (Referring to the example froggie and NE2 were discussing in DC, if I didn't live around here and I wanted to be certain I'd clinched US-1 there, instead of going left on 15th Street as NE2 mentions, I'd make a right on 15th and then two more rights so as to go around the block, i.e., "three rights to make a left" approach.) I assume this is probably what most people do, but I'm just curious what others think. It's easy to do in an urban situation where the detour is relatively minor. In theory it could be more difficult in situations involving partial interchanges depending on how far out of the way you have to go.

I've never thought much about the latter question involving stuff like twinned one-way streets or a situation where one direction simply uses different roads (US-250 Business in Charlottesville is a good example where the eastbound and westbound routes both go totally different ways but use two-way streets). Normally for a clinch I feel that going in one direction is sufficient, even if I'm on an Interstate with a wide median where you can't see the other side. Under that principle, going in one direction would sufficient for these sorts of routes too, but somehow city streets "feel different" to me than the opposite carriageways on an Interstate. I'm just curious what others think.

Those one way interchanges can be bad though

I think CA-67 has the record for "smallest proportion of interchanges with full movements".  out of 7, including the terminus at I-8 (which requires shunting onto old 67), only two are full interchanges: Bradley and Riverford, and even Riverford is pushing it because two of the ramps push you out onto Woodside instead.

The portion of I-66 from I-495 to the DC line has 12 interchanges (including I-495) and only one of them (Exit 66, VA-7) is a full interchange, although some of the interchanges are "twinned half-interchanges" some distance apart from each other. I remember a big deal was made of this when it opened in December 1982. But if you count all of I-66 obviously it's a lot less remarkable a statistic.

[Mapmikey]

If there is a one-way pair and the route cannot be followed in one direction, then I drive it in the other direction.  This is how I would do US 33 in Richmond today.

If there is not a one-way pair, then I have to figure out a way to come back the other way, which is how you would have to do VA 131 if you started from US 460 Bus east of downtown.

Mapmikey