What highway would be the biggest pain in the ass to clinch?

[hbelkins]

You do not want the pain in the ass search, i went to a Furry convention in Toronto, i left the USA via buffalo, came back via thousand Islands, 90 minutes later i had my laptop, and phone searched. "we did not know what a furry convention was, so we searched you, next time you may want to show us a brochure" It does help to cross and return at the same location you left the country.

They probably searched you because they DID know what a furry convention was. 

[bugo]

Arkansas has institutional drives that are roads serving state parks, prisons, highway department buildings, colleges and other state-owned properties which would make clinching the state's highway system would be very difficult. Most of these roads are not linear - for example, most or all of the drives on a college campus (some of which are closed to vehicular traffic) are part of the state highway system and they all have the same route and section numbers. I have only seen a couple of maps showing these institutional drives (one was the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville) and I don't think these maps are generally available online (correct me in I'm wrong) so it would be hard to figure out just what roads are part of the institutional drive system. These roads are usually unsigned and other than the design of the road and signage you would never know they were a part of the state highway system. Here is a list I came up with a few years ago:

AR 600 - State Park roads all over the state (Most state park roads that are maintained by AHTD are numbered 600)
AR 803 - Clarksville state police headquarters (decommissioned)
AR 805 - Warren state police headquarters
AR 806 - Forrest City state police headquarters
AR 809 - Arkansas State Capitol grounds in Little Rock
AR 810 - Arkansas Services Center at Jonesboro (decommissioned?)
AR 811 - Lon Mann Cotton Research Station
AR 813 - University of Arkansas Experiment Station in Independence County
AR 814 - University of Arkansas Experiment Station in Hempstead County
AR 815 - University of Arkansas Experiment Station Rice Branch
AR 817 - Experiment Station in Mississippi County
AR 818 - University of Arkansas Agriculture Experimental Station (there are rumors that this is partially signed)
AR 819 - Joe Hogan Fish Hatchery road near Lonoke.  It is also known as Game and Fish Access Route 943.
AR 820 - University of Arkansas Agriculture Experiment Station in Newport
AR 821 - Phillips County Community College in Helena
AR 823 - Southeast Branch of the University of Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station
AR 824 - Pine Tree Branch of the University of Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station
AR 825 - Governor's Mansion
AR 830 - AHTD headquarters across the state
AR 831 - Cummins Prison
AR 832 - Tucker Prison
AR 833 - Woman's Unit Prison
AR 834 - Dermott Unit Prison
AR 835 - Arkansas Training School for Girls at Alexander (probably decommissioned)
AR 839 - Arkansas State Fairgrounds
AR 840 - Southeast Arkansas Human Development Center in Warren
AR 841 - State Hospital drives
AR 846 - Game and Fish complex
AR 871 - University of Arkansas at Monticello
AR 872 - Arkansas Tech University
AR 873 - University of Arkansas and UALR
AR 874 - Henderson State University
AR 875 - Southern Arkansas University
AR 876 - University of Central Arkansas
AR 877 - Arkansas State University
AR 878 - UAPB
AR 879 - School for the Deaf and Blind
AR 881 - Huntsville state police headquarters
AR 883 - Arkansas State University at Beebe
AR 885 - School for the Blind and Deaf
AR 887 - Garland County Community College
AR 888 - Morrilton's community college
AR 889 - Arkansas State University at Searcy
AR 890 - Assigned to a large number of vo tech drives.  Many of these old vo tech schools became community colleges and the state still maintains the roads under the AR 890 designation
AR 917 - Marine Tax Road (This one is signed at least part of the time)
AR 926 - Marine Tax Road (This one is usually signed)
AR 949, 949-2, 949-3. and 949-4 - These four spurs of US 270 connect the highway to the south shore of the crystal clear Lake Ouachita are Marine Tax Roads and are fully signed.  As far as I know, these are the only three 4 digit highways in Arkansas
AR 959 - Lake Des Arc
AR 980 - This one is the one everybody knows about, and they are usually fully signed.  There are literally dozens of instances of Airport 980 all over the state.                                     

[SteveG1988]

One road that is impossible to do, Normandy Road in New Jersey, driving on it will get a military police officer to escort you off, and you have to visit a federal magistrate to pay the fine in person. It is used for movement between sections of naval weapons station earle.

[Max Rockatansky]

One road that is impossible to do, Normandy Road in New Jersey, driving on it will get a military police officer to escort you off, and you have to visit a federal magistrate to pay the fine in person. It is used for movement between sections of naval weapons station earle.

Interesting you bring that up.  Joseph Boil Avenue in Marine Corps Logistics Base Barstow is an old alignment of US 66.  Boca Chica Road and Midway Avenue on Boca Chica Key are former alignments of US 1 along the Overseas Highway.  It would be certainly impossible to do any former route clinches unless you were some how affiliated with the military.

[SteveG1988]

One road that is impossible to do, Normandy Road in New Jersey, driving on it will get a military police officer to escort you off, and you have to visit a federal magistrate to pay the fine in person. It is used for movement between sections of naval weapons station earle.

Interesting you bring that up.  Joseph Boil Avenue in Marine Corps Logistics Base Barstow is an old alignment of US 66.  Boca Chica Road and Midway Avenue on Boca Chica Key are former alignments of US 1 along the Overseas Highway.  It would be certainly impossible to do any former route clinches unless you were some how affiliated with the military.

Burlington County NJ route 545 and NJ state route 68 have sections within Fort Dix, that were closed off post 9/11.

[Duke87]

You could clinch 168 by foot, just like 339. Does WSDOT consider 339 to exist on the ferry? If not, it no longer exists.

Yeah, I would not consider the county ferry to be part of State Route 339- it's just a random ferry that happens to travel the same trajectory.

I don't think it's possible to clinch either 168 or 339- WSDOT doesn't have right of way or state maintenance/a state operated ferry on either corridor, so it's impossible to know exactly where the highway is.

I must admit that I forgot that no state ferry runs between Vashon and Seattle proper (only Fauntleroy). I guess it is equally as unclinchable (unless you have a boat).

In order to clinch Highway 168, you would probably need to tunnel as one was included in the plan (Naches tunnel). Although, semantically, a tunnel is not mentioned in the RCW, so I guess you could get away with tracing the original route on foot.

To me this seems like an absurd consideration. If a road does not physically exist, it does not physically exist. There is nothing to clinch. It's no different than trying to clinch WA 43274.3f9q. There simply is no such thing.

And I would argue that ferries are an entirely separate thing from roads, so the use of a ferry is not a necessary condition of clinching a route that is split by one, even if the route officially includes the ferry on paper. My hobby is clinching roads, not boat rides.


As for the original question, I would have to second US 1 as a significant contender. It's not that it's slow in any one particular state, it's that significant lengths of it in a lot of states are pretty slow. That's what being a local road up the often densely developed east coast will get you.

[jakeroot]

You could clinch 168 by foot, just like 339. Does WSDOT consider 339 to exist on the ferry? If not, it no longer exists.

Yeah, I would not consider the county ferry to be part of State Route 339- it's just a random ferry that happens to travel the same trajectory.

I don't think it's possible to clinch either 168 or 339- WSDOT doesn't have right of way or state maintenance/a state operated ferry on either corridor, so it's impossible to know exactly where the highway is.

I must admit that I forgot that no state ferry runs between Vashon and Seattle proper (only Fauntleroy). I guess it is equally as unclinchable (unless you have a boat).

In order to clinch Highway 168, you would probably need to tunnel as one was included in the plan (Naches tunnel). Although, semantically, a tunnel is not mentioned in the RCW, so I guess you could get away with tracing the original route on foot.

To me this seems like an absurd consideration. If a road does not physically exist, it does not physically exist. There is nothing to clinch. It's no different than trying to clinch WA 43274.3f9q. There simply is no such thing.

The issue is that WA-168 physically exists on paper. You can't skip it as a route just because it wasn't built. Just traverse where the route should have been on foot, and you're golden.

[Flint1979]

You could clinch 168 by foot, just like 339. Does WSDOT consider 339 to exist on the ferry? If not, it no longer exists.

Yeah, I would not consider the county ferry to be part of State Route 339- it's just a random ferry that happens to travel the same trajectory.

I don't think it's possible to clinch either 168 or 339- WSDOT doesn't have right of way or state maintenance/a state operated ferry on either corridor, so it's impossible to know exactly where the highway is.

I must admit that I forgot that no state ferry runs between Vashon and Seattle proper (only Fauntleroy). I guess it is equally as unclinchable (unless you have a boat).

In order to clinch Highway 168, you would probably need to tunnel as one was included in the plan (Naches tunnel). Although, semantically, a tunnel is not mentioned in the RCW, so I guess you could get away with tracing the original route on foot.

To me this seems like an absurd consideration. If a road does not physically exist, it does not physically exist. There is nothing to clinch. It's no different than trying to clinch WA 43274.3f9q. There simply is no such thing.

And I would argue that ferries are an entirely separate thing from roads, so the use of a ferry is not a necessary condition of clinching a route that is split by one, even if the route officially includes the ferry on paper. My hobby is clinching roads, not boat rides.


As for the original question, I would have to second US 1 as a significant contender. It's not that it's slow in any one particular state, it's that significant lengths of it in a lot of states are pretty slow. That's what being a local road up the often densely developed east coast will get you.

To clinch a highway such as US-10 it would actually be quicker to take the ferry across rather than driving all the way around Lake Michigan. It would take about 6 hours to drive from Ludington to Manitowoc or vice versa. The boat ride takes about 4 hours. Lake Michigan is 62 miles wide between Ludington and Manitowoc. Even with the 2 extra hours you would have to drive through Chicago and Milwaukee as well.

[formulanone]

You could clinch 168 by foot, just like 339. Does WSDOT consider 339 to exist on the ferry? If not, it no longer exists.

Yeah, I would not consider the county ferry to be part of State Route 339- it's just a random ferry that happens to travel the same trajectory.

I don't think it's possible to clinch either 168 or 339- WSDOT doesn't have right of way or state maintenance/a state operated ferry on either corridor, so it's impossible to know exactly where the highway is.

I must admit that I forgot that no state ferry runs between Vashon and Seattle proper (only Fauntleroy). I guess it is equally as unclinchable (unless you have a boat).

In order to clinch Highway 168, you would probably need to tunnel as one was included in the plan (Naches tunnel). Although, semantically, a tunnel is not mentioned in the RCW, so I guess you could get away with tracing the original route on foot.

To me this seems like an absurd consideration. If a road does not physically exist, it does not physically exist. There is nothing to clinch. It's no different than trying to clinch WA 43274.3f9q. There simply is no such thing.

The issue is that WA-168 physically exists on paper. You can't skip it as a route just because it wasn't built. Just traverse where the route should have been on foot, and you're golden.

If it only exists on paper, then writing Washington State Route 168 on a blank sheet of paper constitutes a route clinch.

Next discussion: does chocolate milk come from chocolate cows?

[MNHighwayMan]

The issue is that WA-168 physically exists on paper. You can't skip it as a route just because it wasn't built. Just traverse where the route should have been on foot, and you're golden.

If it only exists on paper, then writing Washington State Route 168 on a blank sheet of paper constitutes a route clinch.

Does the ROW exist for it? If WSDOT does own the land for the route, then I would think a clinch would require walking the length of the land.

[jakeroot]

You could clinch 168 by foot, just like 339. Does WSDOT consider 339 to exist on the ferry? If not, it no longer exists.

Yeah, I would not consider the county ferry to be part of State Route 339- it's just a random ferry that happens to travel the same trajectory.

I don't think it's possible to clinch either 168 or 339- WSDOT doesn't have right of way or state maintenance/a state operated ferry on either corridor, so it's impossible to know exactly where the highway is.

I must admit that I forgot that no state ferry runs between Vashon and Seattle proper (only Fauntleroy). I guess it is equally as unclinchable (unless you have a boat).

In order to clinch Highway 168, you would probably need to tunnel as one was included in the plan (Naches tunnel). Although, semantically, a tunnel is not mentioned in the RCW, so I guess you could get away with tracing the original route on foot.

To me this seems like an absurd consideration. If a road does not physically exist, it does not physically exist. There is nothing to clinch. It's no different than trying to clinch WA 43274.3f9q. There simply is no such thing.

The issue is that WA-168 physically exists on paper. You can't skip it as a route just because it wasn't built. Just traverse where the route should have been on foot, and you're golden.

If it only exists on paper, then writing Washington State Route 168 on a blank sheet of paper constitutes a route clinch.

As long as that paper forms a trail roughly following this route:

Beginning at a junction with state route number 410 in the vicinity of the junction of the Greenwater and White rivers, thence easterly to a junction with state route number 410 in the vicinity north of Cliffdell.

NF-70 lays exactly between those two points, so I suppose that would have to suffice.

I was being sarcastic with my "on paper" comment, by the way. Hence the big grin.

The issue is that WA-168 physically exists on paper. You can't skip it as a route just because it wasn't built. Just traverse where the route should have been on foot, and you're golden.

If it only exists on paper, then writing Washington State Route 168 on a blank sheet of paper constitutes a route clinch.

Does the ROW exist for it? If WSDOT does own the land for the route, then I would think a clinch would require walking the length of the land.

I think the land is owned by the forest service.

[Flint1979]

Since WA-168 doesn't exist how would you clinch it?

[MNHighwayMan]

The issue is that WA-168 physically exists on paper. You can't skip it as a route just because it wasn't built. Just traverse where the route should have been on foot, and you're golden.

If it only exists on paper, then writing Washington State Route 168 on a blank sheet of paper constitutes a route clinch.

As long as that paper forms a trail roughly following this route:

Beginning at a junction with state route number 410 in the vicinity of the junction of the Greenwater and White rivers, thence easterly to a junction with state route number 410 in the vicinity north of Cliffdell.

NF-70 lays exactly between those two points, so I suppose that would have to suffice.

I was being sarcastic with my "on paper" comment, by the way. Hence the big grin.

Does the ROW exist for it? If WSDOT does own the land for the route, then I would think a clinch would require walking the length of the land.

I think the land is owned by the forest service.

So, let me get this straight: while there isn't currently a road signed with WA-168 markers, there does exist a road that exists roughly where a hypothetical WA-168 would be? If so, wouldn't driving that road then count, in a sense?

[jakeroot]

Since WA-168 doesn't exist how would you clinch it?

Okay, I am purposely being ridiculous about this. There's no expectation that anyone would ever clinch WA-168 because no one knows the exact route. I'm having a bit of fun here.

So, let me get this straight: while there isn't currently a road, signed with WA-168 markers, there does exist a road that exists roughly where a hypothetical WA-168 would be? If so, wouldn't driving that road then count, in a sense?

It's not really a road for the entire route. Partly paved, partly gravel. I can't seem to find a video on Youtube, but I think it might even be a Jeep trail.

[Flint1979]

Since WA-168 doesn't exist how would you clinch it?

Okay, I am purposely being ridiculous about this. There's no expectation that anyone would ever clinch WA-168 because no one knows the exact route. I'm having a bit of fun here.

So, let me get this straight: while there isn't currently a road, signed with WA-168 markers, there does exist a road that exists roughly where a hypothetical WA-168 would be? If so, wouldn't driving that road then count, in a sense?

It's not really a road for the entire route. Partly paved, partly gravel. I can't seem to find a video on Youtube, but I think it might even be a Jeep trail.

I was thinking that it would follow NF-70 but NF-70 dead ends it looks like I can't get any grasp on how that area looks.

[MNHighwayMan]

So, let me get this straight: while there isn't currently a road, signed with WA-168 markers, there does exist a road that exists roughly where a hypothetical WA-168 would be? If so, wouldn't driving that road then count, in a sense?

It's not really a road for the entire route. Partly paved, partly gravel. I can't seem to find a video on Youtube, but I think it might even be a Jeep trail.

Depends on how you define "road," I guess. I personally am of the opinion that a road is any man-made modification of the terrain to allow easier passage of vehicles; thus, even a dirt track is technically a road, even though most vehicles would not be adequate for passage over it. Other people might be more stringent with the basic requirements of what labeling something as a "road" requires.

[jakeroot]

I was thinking that it would follow NF-70 but NF-70 dead ends it looks like I can't get any grasp on how that area looks.

You have to use NF-7080 between the two dead ends. Forgot to mention this earlier.

So, let me get this straight: while there isn't currently a road, signed with WA-168 markers, there does exist a road that exists roughly where a hypothetical WA-168 would be? If so, wouldn't driving that road then count, in a sense?

It's not really a road for the entire route. Partly paved, partly gravel. I can't seem to find a video on Youtube, but I think it might even be a Jeep trail.

Depends on how you define "road," I guess. I personally am of the opinion that a road is any man-made modification of the terrain to allow easier passage of vehicles; thus, even a dirt track is technically a road, even though most vehicles would not be adequate for passage over it. Other people might be more stringent with the basic requirements of what labeling something as a "road" requires.

When I say that it's "not really a road", what I mean is that it's a "highway" (official use of the word), but difficult to traverse in anything but a 4x4. So it's not really a road that one might use as an alternative to WA-410. It's not a "road" as far as my Golf is concerned.

Probably getting a bit off-topic here. Let's just go ahead and conclude this. If you want to clinch WA-168, drive NF-70 to NF-7080, and then back to NF-70. That is roughly the route the highway was to take. Any roadgeek to actually do this would certainly be in a class of their own: the first to clinch an unbuilt highway!

[Flint1979]

I was thinking that it would follow NF-70 but NF-70 dead ends it looks like I can't get any grasp on how that area looks.

You have to use NF-7080 between the two dead ends. Forgot to mention this earlier.

So, let me get this straight: while there isn't currently a road, signed with WA-168 markers, there does exist a road that exists roughly where a hypothetical WA-168 would be? If so, wouldn't driving that road then count, in a sense?

It's not really a road for the entire route. Partly paved, partly gravel. I can't seem to find a video on Youtube, but I think it might even be a Jeep trail.

Depends on how you define "road," I guess. I personally am of the opinion that a road is any man-made modification of the terrain to allow easier passage of vehicles; thus, even a dirt track is technically a road, even though most vehicles would not be adequate for passage over it. Other people might be more stringent with the basic requirements of what labeling something as a "road" requires.

When I say that it's "not really a road", what I mean is that it's a "highway" (official use of the word), but difficult to traverse in anything but a 4x4. So it's not really a road that one might use as an alternative to WA-410. It's not a "road" as far as my Golf is concerned.

Probably getting a bit off-topic here. Let's just go ahead and conclude this. If you want to clinch WA-168, drive NF-70 to NF-7080, and then back to NF-70. That is roughly the route the highway was to take. Any roadgeek to actually do this would certainly be in a class of their own: the first to clinch an unbuilt highway!

Which one is NF-7080?

[jakeroot]

I was thinking that it would follow NF-70 but NF-70 dead ends it looks like I can't get any grasp on how that area looks.

You have to use NF-7080 between the two dead ends. Forgot to mention this earlier.

Which one is NF-7080?

It starts here (from the west): https://goo.gl/46QKdC. NF-70 actually ends a bit farther west of here. Another thing I forgot to mention

[Sanctimoniously]

RE: The above discussion on state numbered routes that have segments through military bases: Most of NC 172 runs through Camp Lejeune and is also closed off to all but military traffic.

[oscar]

RE: The above discussion on state numbered routes that have segments through military bases: Most of NC 172 runs through Camp Lejeune and is also closed off to all but military traffic.

Which would make me wonder why the part within the base hasn't been decommissioned. At the very least, it could be a maintenance headache if the Marines gave NCDOT a hard time about sending its work crews into the base.

Some other states seem to decommission roads within Federal facilities, unless there is a public ROW allowing non-military traffic (such as with I-5 through Camp Pendleton).

[Eth]

RE: The above discussion on state numbered routes that have segments through military bases: Most of NC 172 runs through Camp Lejeune and is also closed off to all but military traffic.

Which would make me wonder why the part within the base hasn't been decommissioned. At the very least, it could be a maintenance headache if the Marines gave NCDOT a hard time about sending its work crews into the base.

Some other states seem to decommission roads within Federal facilities, unless there is a public ROW allowing non-military traffic (such as with I-5 through Camp Pendleton).

I haven't been down that way to check, but I believe both GA 119 and GA 144 are closed to through traffic within Fort Stewart. Meanwhile, Fort Benning has no numbered routes within its borders other than US 27/280, which is open (though exits from it are restricted).

[Sanctimoniously]

Which would make me wonder why the part within the base hasn't been decommissioned. At the very least, it could be a maintenance headache if the Marines gave NCDOT a hard time about sending its work crews into the base.

The portion of NC 172 through Camp Lejeune connects several areas of the base and access to the training areas, it's pretty well-maintained, although by NCDOT or the DoD I couldn't answer to that. And of course, if you had DoD credentials, you could use it as a through route.

[bugo]

One road that is impossible to do, Normandy Road in New Jersey, driving on it will get a military police officer to escort you off, and you have to visit a federal magistrate to pay the fine in person. It is used for movement between sections of naval weapons station earle.

Why not just block the road off or put a gate with a security shack on it to prevent motorists from driving on it?

[jakeroot]

One road that is impossible to do, Normandy Road in New Jersey, driving on it will get a military police officer to escort you off, and you have to visit a federal magistrate to pay the fine in person. It is used for movement between sections of naval weapons station earle.

Why not just block the road off or put a gate with a security shack on it to prevent motorists from driving on it?

There appears to be a substantial number of at-grade crossings, which would make security shacks a waste of time. A better idea would be to place some in-road bollards that could be opened remotely.