I think US/State Highways should be signed through national parks.

[Molandfreak]

I stayed at a ranch outside both Yellowstone and Grand Tetons National Park, near Moran, when I traveled out west a few years ago. From Mammoth Hot Springs, with no stops and after dark, it took a little over 3 hours to drive the roughly 125 miles back to my sleeping accommodations. Had this been on one of the signed US Highways outside the park, it would've been a bit under 2 hours drive time.

Between the tourists, the wildlife, and the roadways built for gentle cruising through the park (max 45 mph), the park roadways are NOT for through traffic in any way, shape or form. It defeats the purpose of making it a national park if you punch a 70+ mph major highway through it. Commerce is more than sufficiently served by the Interstate and US highway network feeding into the park, as well as around the park itself.

But WAAAAAIIITTT!!! What about Theodore Roosevelt National Park, you ask? The Interstate predates the National Park. The park was opened in 1978. The last stretches of I-94 in North Dakota were completed and opened to traffic in 1969.

Cuyahoga Valley National Park? Opened 1974, or about 20 years after the Ohio Turnpike. Also note the utterly massive set of bridges carrying both I-271 and the Ohio Turnpike over much of the park.

Suffice it to say that Interstates through National Parks are major exceptions to SOP, especially in the modern era.

Is effective navigation unimportant on a road you can't travel on at 70 mph?

[Roadgeekteen]

I stayed at a ranch outside both Yellowstone and Grand Tetons National Park, near Moran, when I traveled out west a few years ago. From Mammoth Hot Springs, with no stops and after dark, it took a little over 3 hours to drive the roughly 125 miles back to my sleeping accommodations. Had this been on one of the signed US Highways outside the park, it would've been a bit under 2 hours drive time.

Between the tourists, the wildlife, and the roadways built for gentle cruising through the park (max 45 mph), the park roadways are NOT for through traffic in any way, shape or form. It defeats the purpose of making it a national park if you punch a 70+ mph major highway through it. Commerce is more than sufficiently served by the Interstate and US highway network feeding into the park, as well as around the park itself.

But WAAAAAIIITTT!!! What about Theodore Roosevelt National Park, you ask? The Interstate predates the National Park. The park was opened in 1978. The last stretches of I-94 in North Dakota were completed and opened to traffic in 1969.

Cuyahoga Valley National Park? Opened 1974, or about 20 years after the Ohio Turnpike. Also note the utterly massive set of bridges carrying both I-271 and the Ohio Turnpike over much of the park.

Suffice it to say that Interstates through National Parks are major exceptions to SOP, especially in the modern era.

You need to watch out for wildlife on many roads outside of National Parks, such as moose in northern Maine. Not a great argument for not signing roads at all. And most national park roads aren't used for thru traffic, but in massive parks like Yellowstone and Death Valley there aren't any other options- you can't just drive around them.

[pderocco]

I stayed at a ranch outside both Yellowstone and Grand Tetons National Park, near Moran, when I traveled out west a few years ago. From Mammoth Hot Springs, with no stops and after dark, it took a little over 3 hours to drive the roughly 125 miles back to my sleeping accommodations. Had this been on one of the signed US Highways outside the park, it would've been a bit under 2 hours drive time.

Between the tourists, the wildlife, and the roadways built for gentle cruising through the park (max 45 mph), the park roadways are NOT for through traffic in any way, shape or form. It defeats the purpose of making it a national park if you punch a 70+ mph major highway through it. Commerce is more than sufficiently served by the Interstate and US highway network feeding into the park, as well as around the park itself.

I don't think anyone is arguing that NPs should have higher speed roads. Every time I've been to Yellowstone, I've gone in on one road and come out on another, and that's almost always true whenever I visit Death Valley, Joshua Tree, Yosemite, Lassen, etc., so I think continuing numbered routes through the park would be useful. There are some parks which are dead ends, like, well, everything in Utah, but they're not interrupting numbering on routes outside the park.

[Quillz]

At one point, 89 was pretty well signed within Lassen. 

[Scott5114]

Not in more than sixty years.

Or if you live in the weird roadgeek time capsule I do. I see so many 1957-spec Interstate shields on a daily basis now that the ones on the road look wrong.

[hbelkins]

US Highways were federally designated

Fixed it for you. I think that's what you meant.

Also, who let Carl Rogers into the chat?

[Max Rockatansky]

At one point, 89 was pretty well signed within Lassen.

Indeed, see photos 11 and 12:

https://www.gribblenation.org/2020/05/lassen-park-highway.html?m=1

[hobsini2]

I stayed at a ranch outside both Yellowstone and Grand Tetons National Park, near Moran, when I traveled out west a few years ago. From Mammoth Hot Springs, with no stops and after dark, it took a little over 3 hours to drive the roughly 125 miles back to my sleeping accommodations. Had this been on one of the signed US Highways outside the park, it would've been a bit under 2 hours drive time.

Between the tourists, the wildlife, and the roadways built for gentle cruising through the park (max 45 mph), the park roadways are NOT for through traffic in any way, shape or form. It defeats the purpose of making it a national park if you punch a 70+ mph major highway through it. Commerce is more than sufficiently served by the Interstate and US highway network feeding into the park, as well as around the park itself.

But WAAAAAIIITTT!!! What about Theodore Roosevelt National Park, you ask? The Interstate predates the National Park. The park was opened in 1978. The last stretches of I-94 in North Dakota were completed and opened to traffic in 1969.

Cuyahoga Valley National Park? Opened 1974, or about 20 years after the Ohio Turnpike. Also note the utterly massive set of bridges carrying both I-271 and the Ohio Turnpike over much of the park.

Suffice it to say that Interstates through National Parks are major exceptions to SOP, especially in the modern era.

You need to watch out for wildlife on many roads outside of National Parks, such as moose in northern Maine. Not a great argument for not signing roads at all. And most national park roads aren't used for thru traffic, but in massive parks like Yellowstone and Death Valley there aren't any other options- you can't just drive around them.

And random porcupines. I hit one in the middle of the night on US 2 between Bangor and Gorham NH. Had about 100 quills in the tire when we got to the hotel.

[hbelkins]

And random porcupines. I hit one in the middle of the night on US 2 between Bangor and Gorham NH. Had about 100 quills in the tire when we got to the hotel.

What kind of damage was done to the tire? Any through-and-through punctures that required patching/plugging or replacement?

[hobsini2]

And random porcupines. I hit one in the middle of the night on US 2 between Bangor and Gorham NH. Had about 100 quills in the tire when we got to the hotel.

What kind of damage was done to the tire? Any through-and-through punctures that required patching/plugging or replacement?

Amazingly it did not puncture it hard enough. I went to a tire shop in the morning and all they did was remove the quills.

[Max Rockatansky]

And random porcupines. I hit one in the middle of the night on US 2 between Bangor and Gorham NH. Had about 100 quills in the tire when we got to the hotel.

What kind of damage was done to the tire? Any through-and-through punctures that required patching/plugging or replacement?

Amazingly it did not puncture it hard enough. I went to a tire shop in the morning and all they did was remove the quills.

I wouldn't think quills would be sharp enough to penetrate a steel belt.

[mrsman]

This is something that varies between, and sometimes within, states. For example, Colorado seems to take the position that US 34 exists within Rocky Mountain NP. California law insists that CA 120 disappears at the west boundary of Yosemite NP, then reappears on the other side. (But there are some obviously fake CA 120 markers within the park, to guide tourists to exits from the park.) Parts of CA 190 and CA 178 exist within Death Valley NP, though I think the highways were there before the park was created or expanded, and the Park Service probably doesn't mind keeping them in the state system. I-40 passes through Petrified Forest NP in Arizona, perhaps for similar reasons.

I suspect there's some legal reason that Interstate highways can't lose their numbers and signage if they happen to pass through a National Park. The Mojave Reserve avoids the problem by having its border run right along the I-15 ROW.

This is really just a specific case of the more general idea that route number signage should be purely for navigational purposes, and not for indicating maintenance responsibility. But with National Parks, Monuments, etc., the elegant solution would be to have nice brown signs styled like either US or state highway shields, so that you'd still know you're on the right road, but also know you're in the park.

I agree with this statement.  There is great navigational value in continuing the number through the park.  I like the brown shield concept.  Yes, even though traveling in a park may incur admission fees, there are definitely reasons to be able to drive through, especially if the detour is very far.

Also, the Baltimore-Washington Parkway is a NPS parkway - its purpose is a roadway.  It connects I-295 to MD-295, but it itself is not numbered.  Numbering as NPS-295 with a brown shield would be very helpful here.

[Molandfreak]

This is something that varies between, and sometimes within, states. For example, Colorado seems to take the position that US 34 exists within Rocky Mountain NP. California law insists that CA 120 disappears at the west boundary of Yosemite NP, then reappears on the other side. (But there are some obviously fake CA 120 markers within the park, to guide tourists to exits from the park.) Parts of CA 190 and CA 178 exist within Death Valley NP, though I think the highways were there before the park was created or expanded, and the Park Service probably doesn't mind keeping them in the state system. I-40 passes through Petrified Forest NP in Arizona, perhaps for similar reasons.

I suspect there's some legal reason that Interstate highways can't lose their numbers and signage if they happen to pass through a National Park. The Mojave Reserve avoids the problem by having its border run right along the I-15 ROW.

This is really just a specific case of the more general idea that route number signage should be purely for navigational purposes, and not for indicating maintenance responsibility. But with National Parks, Monuments, etc., the elegant solution would be to have nice brown signs styled like either US or state highway shields, so that you'd still know you're on the right road, but also know you're in the park.

I agree with this statement.  There is great navigational value in continuing the number through the park.  I like the brown shield concept.  Yes, even though traveling in a park may incur admission fees, there are definitely reasons to be able to drive through, especially if the detour is very far.

Also, the Baltimore-Washington Parkway is a NPS parkway - its purpose is a roadway.  It connects I-295 to MD-295, but it itself is not numbered.  Numbering as NPS-295 with a brown shield would be very helpful here.

Refreshing take after "if you can't drive it at highway speed, it shouldn't get a shield..."

[pderocco]

Also, the Baltimore-Washington Parkway is a NPS parkway - its purpose is a roadway.  It connects I-295 to MD-295, but it itself is not numbered.  Numbering as NPS-295 with a brown shield would be very helpful here.

That's an interesting route. From S to N, you have

• I-295 in DC up to I-695
• DC-295, the Anacostia Fwy up to Capitol St
• DC-295, the Kenilworth Ave Fwy up to the MD border
• MD-201, the Kenilworth Ave Fwy for 0.5 miles up to US-50
• MD-295 unsigned, the NPS portion of the B-W Pkwy up to MD-175
• MD-295, the state portion of the B-W Pkwy up to I-95 in Baltimore

With all those 295s floating around (except that short walk called 201), could the designers of these roads have had future consolidation into a single Interstate highway on their minds?

[mrsman]

Also, the Baltimore-Washington Parkway is a NPS parkway - its purpose is a roadway.  It connects I-295 to MD-295, but it itself is not numbered.  Numbering as NPS-295 with a brown shield would be very helpful here.

That's an interesting route. From S to N, you have

• I-295 in DC up to I-695
• DC-295, the Anacostia Fwy up to Capitol St
• DC-295, the Kenilworth Ave Fwy up to the MD border
• MD-201, the Kenilworth Ave Fwy for 0.5 miles up to US-50
• MD-295 unsigned, the NPS portion of the B-W Pkwy up to MD-175
• MD-295, the state portion of the B-W Pkwy up to I-95 in Baltimore

With all those 295s floating around (except that short walk called 201), could the designers of these roads have had future consolidation into a single Interstate highway on their minds?

I don't believe so.  The parkway is not at interstate standards.  However, it was the first "freeway" between Baltimore and Washington and for a good part of its history it was a TEMP-I-95 or a TO I-95 route and some of the signage on side roads still indicate this.  Nearly all of the NPS portion prohibits trucks. 

[Mapmikey]

Maryland also looked into moving US 1 onto the BW Pkwy.

[pderocco]

Maryland also looked into moving US 1 onto the BW Pkwy.

I like that idea, since so much of US-1 is just a parade of traffic lights and ugly commercial properties. But since the parkway doesn't allow trucks, AASHTO won't allow it to be US-1. As I understand it, that's why US-1 was removed from the VFW Parkway SW of Boston.

[mrsman]

Also, the Baltimore-Washington Parkway is a NPS parkway - its purpose is a roadway.  It connects I-295 to MD-295, but it itself is not numbered.  Numbering as NPS-295 with a brown shield would be very helpful here.

That's an interesting route. From S to N, you have

• I-295 in DC up to I-695
• DC-295, the Anacostia Fwy up to Capitol St
• DC-295, the Kenilworth Ave Fwy up to the MD border
• MD-201, the Kenilworth Ave Fwy for 0.5 miles up to US-50
• MD-295 unsigned, the NPS portion of the B-W Pkwy up to MD-175
• MD-295, the state portion of the B-W Pkwy up to I-95 in Baltimore

With all those 295s floating around (except that short walk called 201), could the designers of these roads have had future consolidation into a single Interstate highway on their minds?

I don't believe so.  The parkway is not at interstate standards.  However, it was the first "freeway" between Baltimore and Washington and for a good part of its history it was a TEMP-I-95 or a TO I-95 route and some of the signage on side roads still indicate this.  Nearly all of the NPS portion prohibits trucks.

I remember seeing interesting signage after attending an event at RFK stadium.

Signage for the ramp to DC-295 from the Whitney Young bridge, East Capitol Street, just east of the stadium.

"TO I-95".  Slightly misleading as the ramp to the south is from the right lane and the ramp to the north is from the middle lane, although perhaps originally, both ramps were accessed from the right lane only.  These are all old pics, they got changed a few years ago.

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.889715,-76.9651657,3a,75y,93.85h,90.06t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1syiXPu0cXFEf0LPU74PTFQw!2e0!5s20140701T000000!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D-0.06114790278705584%26panoid%3DyiXPu0cXFEf0LPU74PTFQw%26yaw%3D93.8475058576127!7i13312!8i6656?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MTIwOS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

Closer to the ramp we have this interesting overhead. The signage simply lists DC-295 as being I-95.

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8897165,-76.9631309,3a,24.9y,96.29h,88.78t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1s0HQMHLgfv1bKJH-um1Aw8Q!2e0!5s20170901T000000!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D1.220840056222741%26panoid%3D0HQMHLgfv1bKJH-um1Aw8Q%26yaw%3D96.29180951067347!7i13312!8i6656?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MTIwOS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

At the decision point we have I-95 and I-295 shields:

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.889521,-76.9615662,3a,18.5y,108.71h,86.12t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sWxR_VGJh-bcP4vRaIpoaHA!2e0!5s20190601T000000!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D3.877249232976638%26panoid%3DWxR_VGJh-bcP4vRaIpoaHA%26yaw%3D108.7091726788562!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MTIwOS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D


DDOT did an excellent job with the modern replacements of really highlighting the existence of DC-295.  I think they deserve a round of applause:

 

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8897491,-76.9673351,3a,75y,93.88h,90t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sxCoCkettN4L6taPKNnThog!2e0!5s20210501T000000!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D0%26panoid%3DxCoCkettN4L6taPKNnThog%26yaw%3D93.87523604326735!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MTIwOS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8895275,-76.9615501,3a,15y,112.64h,86.38t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1se9HbSxK9G3vserTgVRN5Fg!2e0!5s20220601T000000!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D3.62225602530593%26panoid%3De9HbSxK9G3vserTgVRN5Fg%26yaw%3D112.63932847552776!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MTIwOS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D


Further up DC-295, we see this:

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9162615,-76.9322766,3a,15y,1.44h,91.62t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1siRTyEDNLUzDFhA0aRsBziw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D-1.6246636242669013%26panoid%3DiRTyEDNLUzDFhA0aRsBziw%26yaw%3D1.4374151685076941!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MTIwOS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

DC-295 and the un-numbered B-W Parkway is the only stop-light free connection between DC and Baltimore (and the rest of the northeast).  If you are driving on it, at key decision points, it is listed as the way to I-95 north.  Trucks are not allowed on the NPS portion [between US 50 and MD-175], so trucks must either take US 50 east to reach I-95/495 or use Kenilworth Ave, which is a semi-expressway with traffic signals and largely parallels the BW parkway between US 50 and I-95/495.

The northern part of DC-295 and MD-201 are also known as Kenilworth Avenue. 

[Mapmikey]

Maryland also looked into moving US 1 onto the BW Pkwy.

I like that idea, since so much of US-1 is just a parade of traffic lights and ugly commercial properties. But since the parkway doesn't allow trucks, AASHTO won't allow it to be US-1. As I understand it, that's why US-1 was removed from the VFW Parkway SW of Boston.

Yet US 50 on Arlington Blvd in Fairfax/Arlington has prohibited trucks since the 1930s...

[mrsman]

Maryland also looked into moving US 1 onto the BW Pkwy.

I like that idea, since so much of US-1 is just a parade of traffic lights and ugly commercial properties. But since the parkway doesn't allow trucks, AASHTO won't allow it to be US-1. As I understand it, that's why US-1 was removed from the VFW Parkway SW of Boston.

I like the idea as well.

I'm appreciative of highlighting the hierarchy of the road network by placing US roads as the second best way of getting somewhere, where it is feasible.

This hierarchy does exist northeast of Baltimore:

I-95, of course the main way a full-fledged interstate.

US-40, secondary road.  This is a full-fledged arterial highway, generally two lanes or more in each direction with a median.  There are traffic signals, but generally timed to favor US 40 and generally a good distance apart, if you are not in a town.  It is a good alternate between Baltimore and Delaware if you can't take I-95 for whatever reason.  Just north of Baltimore, it is known as Pulaski Highway.  While it hits towns, it generally avoids the center.  There are also a couple grade separations along the route.

MD-7, local road. Philadelphia Road.  While this is not continuous, where it does show up, it provides a true business route to US 40.  For the most part it is one lane in each direction and probably most closely follows the historic road between Philadelphia and Baltimore.

[hobsini2]

In general, as a navigation helper, highways that enter national parks or are part of the NPS, should have signed numbers to reflect where they go.
I could see cases where if someone was on a family vacation going to Grand Teton, Yellowstone and Glacier NPs, it would be helpful to know the way through the parks that connect US 89.

Also, give roadways like the Natchez Trace and Blue Ridge Pkwy numbers as well. They don't need to be US highway numbers but something.