Changing the signed direction-of-travel

[usends]

One of the more well-known examples is US 101: as you head north along the Pacific Coast, the road is signed "North" (as expected).  But at Sappho, where the highway turns inland, signage changes to "East".  And then around Discovery Bay, signage changes to "South", the rest of the way to the route's terminus in Olympia.

Or, rather than just a "90-degree" change in direction, US 321 makes a 180-degree change, as it is signed "South" heading both directions out of Elizabethton TN.  I think that's a unique example, but there are numerous other 90-degree instances, and it seems that most of these signed direction changes occur in the same state where the route eventually terminates.  For example, US 68 changes to a north-south road in Ohio, and it ends in Findlay.  Or US 24 changes to a north-south road in Michigan, and it ends near Pontiac.

But not all examples are in states where the route terminates.  US 1 is signed east-west in Connecticut, and US 52 changes signed direction 4 times between its endpoints.

My intention for this thread is not to list all examples.  Rather, I'm wondering about your thoughts and opinions about this practice.  If a US route (or an interstate) ends in a given state, is it acceptable for that state's DOT to change the signed direction of that route if it pleases?  Has AASHTO ever weighed in on this issue? 

And what about if the route does not end in that state?  e.g. is it ok that CT signs US 1 east-west, or do you think it should be north-south even in that state, for the sake of consistency with its neighboring states?

And if you think it's ok, then what should be the minimum requirements?  For example, southbound I-25 in NM actually heads north and west for some distance as it approaches Santa Fe.  But is that segment long enough to justify changing the signed direction?

[vtk]

45-degree changes would be much more palatable to me, but most of the 90-degree changes don't bother me (assuming the route doesn't geographically change direction too drastically without a good reason).

US 321 should totally be east—west in Tennessee, though.

[hbelkins]

Since AASHTO is in charge of coordinating US route numbers, one would think the states would coordinate with them on the signing of US routes. Ohio seems to be one of the most frequent players when this is discussed. US 42 (even numbered) parallels I-71, and I-71 in Kentucky is signed north-south but US 42 is signed east-west. Diagonals are probably a special situation, but in the case of US 68, it goes from being a NW-to-SE route in Kentucky to an E-W route, then a SW-to-NE route until it crosses the river, then it goes pretty much due north. One would think US 6868 would get the same treatment, but it stays E-W despite also having a significant northward turn.

EDIT: I meant US 62 for that last US 68.

[vtk]

One would think US 68 would get the same treatment, but it stays E-W despite also having a significant northward turn.

68 is indeed signed consistently north—south in Ohio.

[NE2]

US 83 (Texas) and US 98 (Florida) change at county (DOT district?) lines.

[Brian556]

How about US 41 being signed N-S, but changing to E-W where it crosses the Everglades

[TEG24601]

I-69.  There used to be a sign around US-27/127 North of Lansing, MI that informed you that I-69 North was now I-69 East.  After the rehabilitation of the roads around Lansing, and the removal of US-27, the sign was removed, and now the only indication of the change is the Exit from I-69/96 North/West to I-69 East.

[pumpkineater2]

  I think that on interstates, the signed directions should remain constant throughout the whole length of the route. Like on I-25 between Santa Fe and Las Vegas, even though the southbound lanes travel in a very different direction than what is signed, and sometimes almost the opposite, (south, to west, to northwest, to southwest, again to northwest, then southwest, and finally back south), as a whole, they are traveling in a southern direction for most of their 1,062 mile length, and should be signed as such the entire way. I think the same should go for all other interstates, though there may be a few places on certain interstates where exceptions could be made.

[hbelkins]

One would think US 68 would get the same treatment, but it stays E-W despite also having a significant northward turn.

68 is indeed signed consistently north—south in Ohio.

See my edit. I meant that to be US 62.

[TEG24601]

  I think that on interstates, the signed directions should remain constant throughout the whole length of the route. Like on I-25 between Santa Fe and Las Vegas, even though the southbound lanes travel in a very different direction than what is signed, and sometimes almost the opposite, (south, to west, to northwest, to southwest, again to northwest, then southwest, and finally back south), as a whole, they are traveling in a southern direction for most of their 1,062 mile length, and should be signed as such the entire way. I think the same should go for all other interstates, though there may be a few places on certain interstates where exceptions could be made.

I could see that... if fractional directions were allowed.  Then we could sign I-69 and NE/SW and I-65 as NW/SE.

[noelbotevera]

It is better to be correct rather than being consistent. For example, US 11 is not signed as "East" between the Maryland line and Camp Hill (about 64 miles). US 11 is heading NE-SW during that, but it is more east than north. So, to be exact, US 11 should be signed as "East".

[admtrap]

I completely disagree.  I'd rather be consistent than "right." 

Directional trailblazers are there to assist the motorist in figuring out whether they're traveling the right way.  If I turn to go North on US 11, I'm going to be more than a bit confused if the reassurance shield later on says West.  I'm going to make an immediate U-Turn if it says South (which is why US 321's example is so horrible).    It's not so big an issue if you don't stop while you're on the road, but if you stop to get gas, eat, or do other necessary tasks mid-trip, then want to resume, you're going to look to the directional signs to know which way to go again.

Diagonal routes can be 'faked' somewhat by concurrency when they're actually needed.  Simply slap a PA state route number on that stretch going East-West, if you really need to have the East-West direction signed for locals.  The overall trend of the route is North-South, so the US Highway signage should be N/S from Canada to New Orleans.

[pumpkineater2]

If a different direction is signed for every time a highway changes general direction for a period of time, why have directional trailblazers at all then?
Being on a road like US 11 for an extended amount of time will eventually bring you either north or south, more so than it would bring you east or west.(even if it may be not by much)

If someone wants to know exactly what direction they're going at all times, it's likely that they can use their car's built in compass, as cars have been made with those for quite a while now.

[hbelkins]

I could see that... if fractional directions were allowed.  Then we could sign I-69 and NE/SW and I-65 as NW/SE.

The ones Ohio used to use made plenty of sense.

[usends]

US 83 (Texas) ... change at county (DOT district?) lines.

True: heading southbound, signage changes to "east" at the Starr-Hidalgo line.  But I believe the signed direction then changes back to "south" in Harlingen, where 83 merges with 77.

For that 60-mile stretch (and even beyond), 83 does have a strong east-west bearing through the Rio Grande Valley.  Is it appropriate that signage was changed to east-west?  Consider that 83 has now been overlaid with I-2, which is obviously an east-west number, and is signed east-west.  Also, does it make a difference that this anomaly occurs in Texas, near the terminus of US 83 (as opposed to some other state that's closer to the middle of the highway)?

[usends]

How about US 41 being signed N-S, but changing to E-W where it crosses the Everglades

This is an interesting example, because prior to 1950, US 41 ended in Naples.  The remainder of the road from there to Miami was designated US 94, and was signed east-west.

So which approach works better?  Change the highway designation (as was done here from 1926-1949)?  Or use a single designation but change the signed direction (as it is currently)?  Or neither: keep the whole thing designated US 41, and sign the whole thing north-south, including the stretch heading west out of Miami?

And again, does it make a difference that this anomaly occurs in Florida, where the US 41 designation terminates?

[mrsman]

My feelings on this issue:

2di and 2dus and most 3 dus should maintain a consistent direction throughout its length.  US 101 in the Olympic Peninsula is a noted exception and it works well.

For 3dis, I believe that you can certainly follow the cardinal direction, if it makes sense.  Certainly for the beltways.  And I believe that I-278 should be north/south through Brooklyn and Queens, even though the rest of the length is properly east/west.

For state and local highways, it would make sense to follow the cardinal directions, especially if they are routed on surface streets and the addresses on the surface street are different than the highway itself.

[Pete from Boston]

What's nuts about US 1 in Connecticut is that is parallels 95 the whole way, and 95 is signed North-South.

[TEG24601]

So the question comes up, how would you sign US-24 if you didn't change directions?

[GaryV]

... and I-65 as NW/SE.

What about those parts between Montgomery and Mobile, and to a lesser extent between Nashville and Louisville?  Would you change the direction to NE/SW?     Point is that no matter what direction you decide upon, some routes will have a directional change for some portion of their length.

[SSOWorld]

on a local level in WI - WIS 23 is signed N/S from Shullsburg to the Dells, then E/W from there to Plymouth.

on the other hand, WIS-13 does a near 135 to the south west at the indianhead but is still signed N/S as if continuing NB into Lake Superior - even though some of it is completely 180.

[Rothman]

NY 85 still confuses people around here from I-90 to Krumkill Road, if not all the way to NY 140, since it "feels" more N-S in that short section, despite being E-W overall.

[usends]

What's nuts about US 1 in Connecticut is that is parallels 95 the whole way, and 95 is signed North-South.

Yes, good point.  So by signing I-95 north-south, can we infer that CT was admitting they made a mistake in signing US 1 as east-west? 
Or is the FHWA perhaps more restrictive about signed directions on interstates than AASHTO is about signed directions on US routes?

[roadman]

For many years, MA 111 was signed as west-east between Concord and Harvard, and then as north-south between Harvard and the MA/NH border.  This 'feature' was finally changed in the mid-1990s when MassHighway replaced the BGS and LGS panels at both the MA 111/I-495 and MA 111/Route 2 interchanges to reflect the proper north-south cardinals.  Shortly thereafter, the District forces folowed suit and replaced the incorrect route markers between Concord and Harvard.

[usends]

So the question comes up, how would you sign US-24 if you didn't change directions?

I think there are three different precedents for signing an east-west highway that changes to a north-south bearing:
*1.) US 24's existing solution (i.e. signage changes to north-south at the Michigan line).
*2.) strict adherence to number-direction parity (i.e. sign the whole thing east-west, including the Michigan segment).
*3.) don't use an east-west designation on a north-south road.  US 24 was designated way back in 1926, so at that time, AASHO could've opted to terminate the US 24 designation at its junction with US 23 or US 25 in Toledo, and then the highway running north from there through Michigan would have a different designation, such as US 125.

My opinion is that #3 would've been the best option, if it had been implemented from the outset.  (So, yes, I'd prefer that US 41 still ended in Naples, and the Naples-Miami corridor was still US 94.)  However, US 24 has been established in Michigan for 90 years, so I don't advocate changing its number now.

I think #2 should be used in cases where the route eventually resumes its expected bearing.  So if, after heading north through Michigan, US 24 resumed heading eastward again (and Ontario was a part of the US  , then I might argue that the whole thing should be signed east-west.

But since US 24 never does return to an east-west bearing, I think #1 is the best solution, given the circumstances.  In other words, US 24 stops functioning as an east-west route in Toledo, so it's ok to stop signing it that way, and to instead acknowledge that its north-south functionality begins there.