Poorly Signed Bypass Route

[Avalanchez71]

So are there cases out there were the bypass route is promoted but then not signed well?  Any routes out there were you are better off using the through route than the bypass?

[coatimundi]

For poorly signed, the Lahaina Bypass (SR 3000) on Maui only currently has state route markers at either end, with no signs indicating what it is. It's longer, but it's quicker.

For unnecessary, I've always thought Louisiana's I-210 was the worse choice, even thought it's signed as the bypass. It's longer, but there's no real reason to avoid I-10 beyond a relatively tight (50mph) curve.

I also think that I-285 in Atlanta is, most of the time, the worse choice, even though it's often less mileage. If you're on 75 and skipping around town, it seems like the western side is usually fairly clear, but nothing else works well.

And I should add the Salem, Indiana bypass. To stay on SR 60, it's much shorter and usually a bit quicker to go through town. However, there are no signs. They were all taken down when the bypass was built and moved to the bypass itself. You just have to know where to turn now.

[Avalanchez71]

I agree with the I-285 "bypass".  I usually also find that using I-75 through town to be quicker most of the time.

[dvferyance]

I agree with the I-285 "bypass".  I usually also find that using I-75 through town to be quicker most of the time.

Same can be said with Indianapolis. I find I-65 the better route over I-465

[jakeroot]

Not all even-prefixed 3di's were meant as bypass routes, from what I can tell. Many were built straight through existing suburbs, mostly as a way to serve said suburbs (not necessarily to provide a bypass from the main freeway).

The 405 around Lake Washington, east of Seattle, was steadily built throughout the late 60s and early 70s, through what was mostly suburban development. Was it intended as a bypass? Maybe. It's hard to say. Before the 405, communities east of the lake were poorly connected -- the 405 provided a solid connection from one end of the lake to the other. Nowadays, its southern stretch is more crowded than the 5 (although the 5 is still plenty busy).

[coatimundi]

The 405 around Lake Washington, east of Seattle, was steadily built throughout the late 60s and early 70s, through what was mostly suburban development. Was it intended as a bypass?

Yes, it was. And the east side of Lake Washington was not suburban at the time of the road's planning but, rather, mostly rural and agrarian. The towns that are now mostly bedroom communities for Seattle were originally independent in most respects. Providing a quick way into Seattle, first via the floating bridge and later 405, simply allowed for people to live that far outside of the city.

And not all odd-numbered 3dis are spur routes: I-505 in California is a bypass and was always intended as such.

[jakeroot]

The 405 around Lake Washington, east of Seattle, was steadily built throughout the late 60s and early 70s, through what was mostly suburban development. Was it intended as a bypass?

Yes, it was. And the east side of Lake Washington was not suburban at the time of the road's planning but, rather, mostly rural and agrarian. The towns that are now mostly bedroom communities for Seattle were originally independent in most respects. Providing a quick way into Seattle, first via the floating bridge and later 405, simply allowed for people to live that far outside of the city.

It is literally a bypass of Seattle, but I don't think that was its primary purpose. As I see it, the 405 was, first, an upgraded road to better connect the Eastside (which in my opinion, was pretty well developed by that point), and second, a bypass of Seattle. The 405 was built at exactly the same time as the 5, because it, along with several other freeways, were seen as part of a whole network of freeways for the Puget Sound region. None of these freeways were necessarily intended as bypasses. They were just "connecting roads", part of a much larger network. I mean, think about it: they built the 520 freeway across the water. What, if not the 405, was it to connect to? Maybe for a blip in time, the 405 was to be, solely, a bypass, but its purpose very quickly grew beyond just "bypass Seattle".

[coatimundi]

The 520 bridge was built many years after what is now the I-90 bridge was first completed. Bellevue didn't really develop at all until that bridge was completed (it had about 1,000 people at that time) and Kirkland used to be the largest town in the Eastside region. None of the population that existed there by even 1960 warranted a freeway link.
Like most cities, Seattle received several "lines on a map" in the 1955 "Yellow Book" at the time of the planning of the larger interstate system. One of those lines is now I-405. It was intended as a bypass. Is it a bypass now though? Not necessarily. But that's a separate point.

You have to remember that the emergence of suburban employment centers (which Seattle has quite a few of) is a fairly recent concept. At the time of the creation of the interstate highway system, employment centers were almost without exception in urban cores, and highway planning - not just at the national level, but also at the local level - was geared toward bringing people in from the suburbs to the downtown areas, including in Seattle and Tacoma. And that mindset is really more an effect of transit planning pre-WWII, when streetcars were built to serve the suburban areas and bring workers into the employment centers.

I think it's interesting how these theoretical lines on a map, that probably weren't even given that much thought at the time, have really driven the development and history of a number of American metro areas. And Seattle is definitely one of them. It's hard to imagine it now without I-405.

[cappicard]

I think I-476 in Pennsylvania functions as a very long spur instead a bypass.


iPhone

[paulthemapguy]

I think I-476 in Pennsylvania functions as a very long spur instead a bypass.

iPhone

Yeah.  It's a classic case of a 3di formerly serving a certain function, before it was extended.  Now it serves a bunch of different functions.  Same with I-376 on the western side of the state.  Heck, even 2di's can be extended in a way that renders their number irrelevant to the numbering scheme (see: I-26).

[vdeane]

If PA were NC, I-476 would probably have become a 2di.

[TheStranger]

Shore Road around Hollister is pretty much a bypass loop for Route 25 though I don't know if it is signed as such.

Route 85 serves as a bypass for US 101 in San Jose though (probably due to the restrictions on heavy trucks) it is only signed for US 101's destinations at certain places (i.e. for Gilroy off of I-280 in Cupertino).  I don't think it is signed for San Francisco northbound until around Route 237.

In that vein, while 280 is the bypass route for 101 through the Peninsula, it isn't suggested as such at the two junctions with 101 (signed for "Daly City" in San Francisco at the Alemany Maze; signed for "Downtown San Jose" at the southern terminus), probably because nearer to those two those points it is not serving as much of that purpose as the stretch between 380 and 85 does.

210 east is signed for Pasadena and San Bernardino, but not any of the long-distance I-10 control cities (Indio, Phoenix) - this is more a reflection of CalTrans emphasis on local control cities in urban areas though.

805 in San Diego is inconsistently signed for "San Diego" or "Los Angeles" northbound but generally doesn't have any control cities southbound, even though it actually provides a somewhat shorter route to downtown (using Route 163) than 5 going through Mission Bay, and provides a second connection to the San Ysidro border crossing that avoids downtown, airport, and the older suburban area traffic.

Route 154 northwest of Santa Barbara is an interesting case: it's a shorter route from there to Los Olivos than US 101, but is only two-lane for most of its run, unlike the four-lane mostly freeway 101.

At the Route 70/99 split in Catlett, Route 99 is still signed for Chico even though the primary expressway/freeway route in the Feather River area is now Route 70 (with Route 149).

[bzakharin]

I don't know if this is the same thing, but the Garden State Parkway has Atlantic City as one of the control cities for Exit 36 Northbound and Exit 37 Southbound, which I guess serves as a bypass (more like shunpike) to the Atlantic City Expressway. Anyway, at both exits, there is a sign for Atlantic City with a left arrow, and that's it. I assume they want you to take the Black Horse Pike (US 322/40), but this is not mentioned anywhere and, even if you knew that, if you're coming off of Exit 37, 322/40 is signed with a right arrow, while "Atlantic City" has a left arrow.

[roadman65]

I-287 does not get signed as a bypass of Greater NYC Metro area.  From I-78 you would think to see signs for the NJ Shore Points or Albany, NY at its interchange with I-287, but no.  Not even Staten Island is signed there.

I-287 uses local control cities from I-78 like Morristown and Somerville from I-78, and Mahwah is used in many places all because of the long delay it took to get the section completed from Montville to the NY Thruway.  It used that cause it lets people (even from US 1 in Edison) know that NB goes all the way to the Thruway as only New Jerseyans would know the name Mahwah.

In Kansas City the I-435 loop is not signed with control cities in Kansas, but Missouri uses Des Moines and Wichita along I-70 to inform the traveling public it is a bypass between the two interstates.  I think I-35 in MO uses St. Louis and St. Joseph at its junction as well for the same purpose.  However, Kansas not using them, does sign "Des Moines" as NB I-35 control city from its I-35 & I-435 interchange.  Making it appear that they want you to stay on 35 through the city and even want you to go through the city even if you are on 435 as well.  Although "Des Moines" is used on pretty much all the NB I-35 freeway entrance ramps signs in Olathe, a bedroom community south of KC, which is miiles from Downtown, that should really still be using its mother city as a control destination.

[coatimundi]

Shore Road around Hollister is pretty much a bypass loop for Route 25 though I don't know if it is signed as such.

What's funny about this is that there was a project by San Benito County called the "Highway 25 Bypass" to build this road out, and it was completed within the last couple of years. But there is no signage on the intersecting roads. I don't know if they just haven't gotten to it yet or it's going to be a "locals' secret".
Actually, I'm going to correct myself. I got confused about this. The post is referring to Fairview Road (as it's signed at its intersection with SR 156), which cuts off SR 25 at the south end of town. On Fairview, both shoulder and lane widths are not in compliance with state highway standards. So it can't be signed.

Route 85 serves as a bypass for US 101 in San Jose though (probably due to the restrictions on heavy trucks) it is only signed for US 101's destinations at certain places (i.e. for Gilroy off of I-280 in Cupertino).  I don't think it is signed for San Francisco northbound until around Route 237.

The BGS on 17 northbound says San Francisco.
I drove through the 101/85 sputhern split just this morning, and a guy in a rental SUV jumped from the left/HOV lane all the way to the right to abruptly take the exit to 85. The problem: there's a dedicated HOV ramp that he could have taken without any lane changes. But the signs aren't the same: the HOV has no control cities while the mainland ramp has Cupertino. It's confusing and it's stupid.

Really, are any of the even-numbered Bay Area 3dis actually loops or bypasses? I would say no. I guess you could say 680 bypasses the East Bay, but it's bypassing 101 and other x80 3dis. And I don't think they were really intended to be bypasses.

[cappicard]

In Kansas City the I-435 loop is not signed with control cities in Kansas, but Missouri uses Des Moines and Wichita along I-70 to inform the traveling public it is a bypass between the two interstates.  I think I-35 in MO uses St. Louis and St. Joseph at its junction as well for the same purpose.  However, Kansas not using them, does sign "Des Moines" as NB I-35 control city from its I-35 & I-435 interchange.  Making it appear that they want you to stay on 35 through the city and even want you to go through the city even if you are on 435 as well.  Although "Des Moines" is used on pretty much all the NB I-35 freeway entrance ramps signs in Olathe, a bedroom community south of KC, which is miiles from Downtown, that should really still be using its mother city as a control destination.

I-635 guide signs in Missouri use "Kansas" as the control city. This is seen from I-29 and MO-9's sign bridges.

Des Moines is used as the control city for I-35 ramps in the other Kansas suburbs as well.

[cappicard]

Yeah.  It's a classic case of a 3di formerly serving a certain function, before it was extended.  Now it serves a bunch of different functions.  Same with I-376 on the western side of the state.  Heck, even 2di's can be extended in a way that renders their number irrelevant to the numbering scheme (see: I-26).

I-135 is another one. It functions as a western bypass of I-35, connecting I-35 and I-235 in Wichita to I-70 in Salina. It received its number due to it being renumbered from I-35W in 1976.

[TheStranger]

Shore Road around Hollister is pretty much a bypass loop for Route 25 though I don't know if it is signed as such.

What's funny about this is that there was a project by San Benito County called the "Highway 25 Bypass" to build this road out, and it was completed within the last couple of years. But there is no signage on the intersecting roads. I don't know if they just haven't gotten to it yet or it's going to be a "locals' secret".
Actually, I'm going to correct myself. I got confused about this. The post is referring to Fairview Road (as it's signed at its intersection with SR 156), which cuts off SR 25 at the south end of town. On Fairview, both shoulder and lane widths are not in compliance with state highway standards. So it can't be signed.

My mistake on forgetting about the Fairview part! 

The other road that Shore/Fairview bypasses very effectively, yet isn't signed for, is Route 152 between Route 156 and US 101.  (pretty much Route 25 southeast to Shore, then to 156 then 152)

In Gilroy, was Ferguson Road and Leavesley Road ever designed to be an alternate to the 152 routing by the outlets and towards 101?  Seems to be way more direct.

Route 85 serves as a bypass for US 101 in San Jose though (probably due to the restrictions on heavy trucks) it is only signed for US 101's destinations at certain places (i.e. for Gilroy off of I-280 in Cupertino).  I don't think it is signed for San Francisco northbound until around Route 237.

The BGS on 17 northbound says San Francisco.

My guess on that one: more a pointer to take 85 north to 280 north (kinda like something I saw today, 880 south in Hayward signed for San Mateo as a connection to the 92 west/San Mateo Bridge exit a few miles down)

Really, are any of the even-numbered Bay Area 3dis actually loops or bypasses? I would say no. I guess you could say 680 bypasses the East Bay, but it's bypassing 101 and other x80 3dis. And I don't think they were really intended to be bypasses.

1950s interstates:

I-280: Absolutely, as a bypass of US 101.  Original proposals in late-1950s planning maps even had it following today's Route 85 from Cupertino to south San Jose, and the 1950s-1968 plan for it in San Francisco would have bypassed Mission Bay/Dogpatch/South of Market completely by continuing up the Route 1 corridor to the Presidio.  The decision to connect through downtown San Jose ca. 1965 (after the initial, awkward Route 17/current I-880 wrong-way concurrency plan that did get signed for a year or two) and to reroute 280 through Glen Park and the Dogpatch ca. 1968 muddles this somewhat, but 280 between San Bruno and Route 85 is semi-rural.

I-480: As a loop, not quite a bypass.  Always was meant as a connector between 1950s-1968 I-280 (and the Golden Gate Bridge) and I-80; had the freeway revolts not taken hold, 480 would have formed a mini-beltway around downtown and the Richmond district with I-80 as the southern portion and I-280 along Park Presidio as the western segment.

I-680: I still think of it as a bypass, though it would have been much more effective in that regard had the 238 freeway been constructed from Fremont north to Castro Valley.  Had that occurred, 680 to 238 to Macarthur Freeway would have provided an alternate Oakland-San Jose route that does not exist now (and partially contributes to the Nimitz Freeway's rush hour issues in Hayward).

It does allow drivers off I-80 to go to San Jose without going through Oakland, and forms part of a loop/beltway with I-280.  The effect was way more pronounced when 680 continued northwest into Vallejo

I-880: Not the current I-880, which was more a matter of using an even number to provide interstate funding for a segment of Route 17 that did connect two interstate routes (I-80 to I-280).

The Sacramento I-880 that existed from about 1968 to 1982 is the only time an even-numbered x80 in California actually provided a traditional loop/bypass function for a through Interstate!

Interestingly, there is one way you can argue 880 does have somewhat of a loop function: along with I-238, it offers a trucks-allowed freeway between the MacArthur Maze and Castro Valley (as the MacArthur Freeway has had truck restrictions since the 1950s even though it is Interstate standard).

[US 41]

If I remember right the Duncan, OK bypass is not really advertised all that well.

[roadman65]

To add more to I-435, I remember that west of KC, the I-70 & I-435 interchange also has no control cities and the pull through on I-70 East is using "St. Louis" already as a control city indicating that the I-435 loop is no bypass. 

Again, KDOT uses the next following major city on its KC area roads when signing its freeways instead of the next one.  That might be just an oversight to that being that I-470 is there in the heart of the metro KC area so it gets signed like the rest not thinking that I-470 is actually a better alternative at some times of travel.


Then in Indiana is I-465 ever signed as bypass?  Even where the NE leg connects I-69 to I-70 on either route there is no mention of the other.  Plus where I-65 and I-74 meet south of Indy there are no control cities even though its a major two route junction.  You figure that Peoria and Cincinnati would be used on I-65 there at least, but no they are not.

[tdindy88]

Then in Indiana is I-465 ever signed as bypass?  Even where the NE leg connects I-69 to I-70 on either route there is no mention of the other.  Plus where I-65 and I-74 meet south of Indy there are no control cities even though its a major two route junction.  You figure that Peoria and Cincinnati would be used on I-65 there at least, but no they are not.

I-465 is a beltway, it can be a bypass but most of the time it isn't necessary. As for the lack of control cities at the point where I-65 and I-74 meet I give you this...

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6991391,-86.1069286,3a,75y,347.59h,88.47t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skqXegjce8Of_2totvO07pA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

This is for I-65 northbound at I-465/74. Southbound exit signage is older and does not feature the control cites...yet. So I guess you are half right but the next signage change at that point will likely add Cincy and Peoria.

[TheStranger]

If I remember right the Duncan, OK bypass is not really advertised all that well.

I wonder if that is because there are still more segments still to be completed, i.e. this southern connector to US 81:

http://www.duncanbanner.com/news/local_news/odot-looks-to-close-th-street-with-bypass-addition/article_e1736828-23ef-5952-bf20-d86059b82410.html


In similar vein, an east bypass of Salem, Indiana were constructed in the last year or two, yet when I went through there in April, I ended up missing a turnoff to State Road 160. (It's strangely set up where State Road 60 traffic continuing east is made to go through the north side of Salem along State Road 56, then south on the bypass for a longer route than simply following the original State Road 60 alignment in town)

[US 41]

If I remember right the Duncan, OK bypass is not really advertised all that well.

I wonder if that is because there are still more segments still to be completed, i.e. this southern connector to US 81:

http://www.duncanbanner.com/news/local_news/odot-looks-to-close-th-street-with-bypass-addition/article_e1736828-23ef-5952-bf20-d86059b82410.html


In similar vein, an east bypass of Salem, Indiana were constructed in the last year or two, yet when I went through there in April, I ended up missing a turnoff to State Road 160. (It's strangely set up where State Road 60 traffic continuing east is made to go through the north side of Salem along State Road 56, then south on the bypass for a longer route than simply following the original State Road 60 alignment in town)

I'm pretty sure the Duncan Bypass is already complete. The article was from 2011 and I've seen no signs of extending it any farther south than it already goes.

Salem is its own kind of special. They rerouted SR 60 and SR 135 onto it.

I'm kind of interested what SR 641 will be signed as at US 41 whenever it gets complete. I'm assuming Indianapolis will be the control city used, but I could be completely wrong as well. Right now "McDaniel Rd" is the control city (point) on the sign.

[coatimundi]

In similar vein, an east bypass of Salem, Indiana were constructed in the last year or two, yet when I went through there in April, I ended up missing a turnoff to State Road 160. (It's strangely set up where State Road 60 traffic continuing east is made to go through the north side of Salem along State Road 56, then south on the bypass for a longer route than simply following the original State Road 60 alignment in town)

I mentioned this bypass in the second post of this thread. And that really says it right there, doesn't it: two posts in the same thread independently bringing up a bypass in a random Midwestern town as being poorly designed.
It opened in 2012. I remember because, living in Bloomington at the time, I used to go to Louisville a few times per year to periodically escape Indiana (amazing how different it is just across the river). One day, the turnoff for SR 60 was not signed, and I missed it because I second guessed myself on where it was. I ended up at the southern end of the bypass and then saw on Google Maps what they had done.

The worst part seems to be that there's no longer a way to reach SR 160 from any other state route by signs, since there are no signs at Main & Jackson, and the bypass has a bridge over 160. So you just have to know... All that Salem-Henryville traffic.

When they were building it, I could have sworn I read that it was going to eventually be extended, and I had assumed that would be back to SR 56, west of town. But I couldn't find anything about it online now. The INDOT page has no information.

[TheStranger]

The worst part seems to be that there's no longer a way to reach SR 160 from any other state route by signs, since there are no signs at Main & Jackson, and the bypass has a bridge over 160. So you just have to know... All that Salem-Henryville traffic.

That was a night where I had taken I-69 for a bit from Bloomington to explore that route, but had to find my way back to Louisville through a mixture of guesswork and some routes I recognized (i.e. 135, 60)...I was hoping to take 160 to get to I-65 faster than I would by staying on that long stretch of 60 going southeast to the Jeffersonville area, but ended up missing that turn.