E/W Highways That Maybe Should Be N/S (and vice versa)

[bing101]

How About I-210 Between I-5 to the CA-134 @ CA-710 interchange its more North/ South rather than East West. Once I-210 goes into the San Gabriel Valley and run parallel to US-66 Huntington Drive in Arcadia Its East/ West.

Then There is US-101 Ventura Freeway in San Fernando Valley its East/West until you reach the CA-134 and CA-170 Interchange.

CA-160 in Sacramento the short Freeway from CA-51 to 12th Street is East/ West but CA-160 overall is North South.

[The High Plains Traveler]

How About I-210 Between I-5 to the CA-134 @ CA-710 interchange its more North/ South rather than East West. Once I-210 goes into the San Gabriel Valley and run parallel to US-66 Huntington Drive in Arcadia Its East/ West.

Then There is US-101 Ventura Freeway in San Fernando Valley its East/West until you reach the CA-134 and CA-170 Interchange.

CA-160 in Sacramento the short Freeway from CA-51 to 12th Street is East/ West but CA-160 overall is North South.

3-digit Interstates don't need to meet odd-even parity of their parent routes. U.S. 101 is a valid north-south route considering its entire length in California (not just the E-W segment from the Valley to west of Santa Barbara. California routes haven't had to conform to even-E/W and odd-N/S since the renumbering of 1064 (see CA-14).

[triplemultiplex]

Angled highways should have the 11/22/33/44/55/66/77/88/99 numbers that would be cool.  Like US 62.

There is a tendency to use x4 numbers on angled interstates.  4, 24, 44, 74, 84 (western) and a good portion of 94.

[froggie]

The new I-495 in NC would fit this bill.

[Arkansastravelguy]

I-74 between Asheboro and Rockingham. Can't get much more N-S than that. And although it can't change 95 is primarily an E-W interstate through Connecticut


iPhone

[OCGuy81]

Out of curiosity, what "criteria" are you guys using for determining if it should be N-S or E-W?

I'm kind of going with the philosophy where it should be E-W if the traveling said route takes you more West than (North, South). 

[The High Plains Traveler]

I've used Google Earth to find a location that is north/south and east/west of the route's endpoints, then measured the length of the lines. Now, some map genius will tell me that, due to the curvature of the earth, this isn't a totally accurate way to do it.

[hotdogPi]

I've used Google Earth to find a location that is north/south and east/west of the route's endpoints, then measured the length of the lines. Now, some map genius will tell me that, due to the curvature of the earth, this isn't a totally accurate way to do it.

If you want to do it accurately, use coordinates.

[The High Plains Traveler]

I've used Google Earth to find a location that is north/south and east/west of the route's endpoints, then measured the length of the lines. Now, some map genius will tell me that, due to the curvature of the earth, this isn't a totally accurate way to do it.

If you want to do it accurately, use coordinates.

If by "coordinates" you mean taking the latitude of one endpoint and the longitude of another and finding that point, that's what I do. Then use Google Earth's line tool to find the length of each line.

[roadman65]

US 98 in Martin and Okeechobee Counties should be signed N-S instead of E-W to be consistent with its N-S signing from Okeechobee to Perry.  There should be only one change along US 98 and that being at Perry for obvious reasons, however from Okeechobee to Palm Beach the road only runs a short distance East to West compared to the several hundred miles North and South from Okeechobee to Perry.  To me it makes it more confusing to sign such a little stretch as E-W, especially while concurrent with N-S US 441 at the same time most of the way.

However we are talking about FDOT D-4 the same people who cannot figure out if US 98 terminates at US 1 or SR A1A.

[PColumbus73]

In South Carolina, SC Route 9 is signed North/South when it very clearly runs in an East/West direction.

[adventurernumber1]

In South Carolina, SC Route 9 is signed North/South when it very clearly runs in an East/West direction.

SC SR 9 should definitely be an East/West SR, should at least be signed as E/W I can say that

[TEG24601]

WA-16 is signed east-west, but would be better off being north-south. WA-19, anyone?

(The existing WA-19 should be a child route of WA-20, anyway)

Actually, following the grid in WA, SR-16 really should just be an extension of SR-7, or SR-16 and SR-3 should be swapped.  SR-19 doesn't fit either, but should be 211 (since the 20x numbers come from US 2).

[ctsignguy]

U.S. 33 (should be U.S. 32)

When i asked about that issue regarding US routes 33, 35, 42 and 62 since Ohio discarded the N-WEST, N-EAST, S-WEST, S-EAST tabs years before, the ODOT engineering-type i spoke with told me that ODOT assigned the directions to those four highways based upon how much further they travelled...so US 35 traveled further E-W than N-S, so it was given EAST-WEST tabbing.,...same with US 33....

[WNYroadgeek]

My picks:

NY 400 is signed N/S, but the majority of its' routing is more E/W.
NY 391 is signed N/S, but its' routing is more E/W.
NY 225 is signed N/S, but the majority of its' routing is more E/W.
NY 383 is signed N/S, but its' routing is more E/W.

[cl94]

My picks:

NY 400 is signed N/S, but the majority of its' routing is more E/W.

Original plans had it extending to NY 17/ I-86, hence the former stub ending. This would have been almost entirely north-south. They decided to upgrade US 219 instead.

Additionally, since is a bypass of NY 16 (signed north-south), it makes sense to keep the directions the same, as bypass routes, especially those where both termini are at/near their "parent", typically keep the cardinal directions of said parent unless it's a loop.

[Kacie Jane]

WA-16 is signed east-west, but would be better off being north-south. WA-19, anyone?

(The existing WA-19 should be a child route of WA-20, anyway)

Actually, following the grid in WA, SR-16 really should just be an extension of SR-7, or SR-16 and SR-3 should be swapped.  SR-19 doesn't fit either, but should be 211 (since the 20x numbers come from US 2).

At first I was confused, since SR 3 is just as north-south as SR 16, but now I see what you're saying.  SR 3 is slightly L-shaped, and the section south of the current split is kind of east-west-ish, so I suppose that could work.  SR 7 could work as well, but I'd rather see it extended along I-705, and up the waterfront to Point Defiance.  Regardless, I think the number 16 is too ingrained in the local populace, and doesn't cause any confusion, whereas renumbering it would cause loads of confusion.  The only way its number would ever be changed would be if it were to become an interstate.

To get off the fictional tangent, I do remember reading an article once regarding why it's numbered the way it is.  (It was kind of a fluff piece, one of those things where people send in questions to the local rag; I think it was someone actually from WSDOT answering it though.)  Basically, since it connects two north-south highways (SR 3 and I-5), it makes sense for it to be east-west.  Also, SR 3 and I-5 both run somewhat SW-NE through the area, and SR 16 is slightly NW-SE, so it makes sense for it to be signed in the perpendicular direction.  Also also, there's a prominent body of water separating Tacoma and Bremerton, and in local parlance, Tacoma is east of Puget Sound (even though it's mostly south) and Bremerton is west of the Sound, therefore SR 16 goes from east to west and is signed as such.

[TEG24601]

WA-16 is signed east-west, but would be better off being north-south. WA-19, anyone?

(The existing WA-19 should be a child route of WA-20, anyway)

Actually, following the grid in WA, SR-16 really should just be an extension of SR-7, or SR-16 and SR-3 should be swapped.  SR-19 doesn't fit either, but should be 211 (since the 20x numbers come from US 2).

At first I was confused, since SR 3 is just as north-south as SR 16, but now I see what you're saying.  SR 3 is slightly L-shaped, and the section south of the current split is kind of east-west-ish, so I suppose that could work.  SR 7 could work as well, but I'd rather see it extended along I-705, and up the waterfront to Point Defiance.  Regardless, I think the number 16 is too ingrained in the local populace, and doesn't cause any confusion, whereas renumbering it would cause loads of confusion.  The only way its number would ever be changed would be if it were to become an interstate.

To get off the fictional tangent, I do remember reading an article once regarding why it's numbered the way it is.  (It was kind of a fluff piece, one of those things where people send in questions to the local rag; I think it was someone actually from WSDOT answering it though.)  Basically, since it connects two north-south highways (SR 3 and I-5), it makes sense for it to be east-west.  Also, SR 3 and I-5 both run somewhat SW-NE through the area, and SR 16 is slightly NW-SE, so it makes sense for it to be signed in the perpendicular direction.  Also also, there's a prominent body of water separating Tacoma and Bremerton, and in local parlance, Tacoma is east of Puget Sound (even though it's mostly south) and Bremerton is west of the Sound, therefore SR 16 goes from east to west and is signed as such.

That makes some sense.  If I had my druthers, I would actually extend SR 16 along either 509 or I-5 to build the future freeway portion of 167, and if you really wanted to, they could replace 410 as well, but not required.

[roadman65]

I still say that both NJ 42 should be signed as E-W instead of N-S.  Yes, i know I have been told on this forum before that the endpoints are more away from each other more N-S than E-W, but considering it connects to US 322 and E-W signed US route at its east end and connects to E-W I-76 at its west end, it would be more less confusing if it were done this way.  Plus the ACE runs mainly E-W too so it would be more consistent to say take I-76 E to NJ 42 E to the ACE E than follow I-76 E into NJ 42 S until the freeway becomes the ACE EB.

[odditude]

I still say that both NJ 42 should be signed as E-W instead of N-S.  Yes, i know I have been told on this forum before that the endpoints are more away from each other more N-S than E-W, but considering it connects to US 322 and E-W signed US route at its east end and connects to E-W I-76 at its west end, it would be more less confusing if it were done this way.  Plus the ACE runs mainly E-W too so it would be more consistent to say take I-76 E to NJ 42 E to the ACE E than follow I-76 E into NJ 42 S until the freeway becomes the ACE EB.

"Take the North-South Freeway east..."
Besides that, 42 goes south past the ACE down to 322. My preference would be to extend 76 (which permits signing that segment as E/W, among other things) and either shift the 42 designation back to its old alignment (168) or just truncate 42 back to the expressway (so the Black Horse Pike would be 168 from 130 to 76 and 42 from 76 to 322) - while the former is more elegant, the latter would cut down on the confusion factor.

[roadman65]

Yeah and NJ 42 connects to US 322 by default at Williamstown after leaving the N-S Freeway.

You are right about extending 76 though.  However, NJ would never go for it as they have not ever extended their interstate mileage since the original proposal. Even NJ 55 would make an excellent I-x76 as it is up to standards.

[monty]

I don't understand why US 35 is marked E-W in Ohio while it exists as an odd numbered US route and it primarily traverses N-S.  The highway is marked N-S in Indiana and West Virginia.

[ctsignguy]

I don't understand why US 35 is marked E-W in Ohio while it exists as an odd numbered US route and it primarily traverses N-S.  The highway is marked N-S in Indiana and West Virginia.

(repeat of earlier post) When i asked about that issue regarding US routes 33, 35, 42 and 62 since Ohio discarded the N-WEST, N-EAST, S-WEST, S-EAST tabs years before, the ODOT engineering-type i spoke with told me that ODOT assigned the directions to those four highways based upon how much further they travelled...so US 35 traveled further E-W than N-S, so it was given EAST-WEST tabbing.,....

[Zzonkmiles]

In the case of some of these interstates, I think people in general can more easily visually process "east/west" than "north/south" or "north/south" than "east/west."

For example, if you're in Tampa and take I-4 to Daytona Beach, you're not going to think that Daytona is "north" of Tampa. You're going to think it's "east" of Tampa because it's on the eastern side of the Peninsula.

Similarly, if you are in Charlotte and take I-85 to Petersburg, you're not going to think Petersburg is "east" of Charlotte. You're going to think it's "north" of Charlotte because Petersburg is in Virginia and Virginia is "north" of North Carolina.

(EDIT: PENINSULA, not Panhandle!)

[mgk920]

US 151 - Signed north-south, should be east-west, especially if my recommended reroute (replace WI 23 between Fond du Lac and Sheboygan, WI) is ever implemented.

Mike