Unnecessary Concurrencies, Name them..

[The High Plains Traveler]

About the western 300 miles of U.S. 412. U.S. 400 west of Dodge City to a very unassuming junction with U.S. 50 and 385 in Colorado; but, it's to be able to consider 400 a multi-state route.

[peterj920]

WI-13/WI-34 just end WI-34 at US-10. WI-13 was rerouted WI-34 should have just changed to WI-13 not became a duplex with it.

That's far from the only unnecessary concurrency in Wisconsin - WI-47 would logically be two or three different routes, and it even ends while concurrent with WI-182, which also ends at WI-47's terminus.  Either end 182 at 47 or 47 at 182; don't make a pointless concurrency.

And I'm certain there are others, too.  I agree with CNGL's point that any route that ends while concurrent with another should be truncated.

Edit: And what is the exact reason for the existence of I-894 when it is in its entirety concurrent with at least two other highways?  Just call it 41, people.

I know why Wis 34 was kept.  It was to give a consistent number for a connection between I-39 and Wisconsin Rapids.  As for Wis 182 and Wis 47, that is so they can both connect to US 51.  Wis 91 is concurrent with Wis 44 so it connects Berlin with I-41.  Wis 32 would qualify as an unnecessary concurrency with US 45 from Three Lakes to the Michigan Border.  The only reason why it exists is because it is the 32nd Division Memorial Highway, and it was routed from one state line to another to honor the Red Arrow Division. 

Could argue that the Wis 93 concurrency with US 53 is unnecessary since Wis 93 randomly ends at Wis 35. 

[lordsutch]

There's no real point in most of Georgia's signed US highway concurrencies with state route designations (to the point they're only haphazardly signed on interstate BGSes).

On a slightly more serious note, there's no reason for most of the length of the MS 304 designation, since except for the western three miles or so it's all concurrent with I-69 or I-269.

[20160805]

WI-13/WI-34 just end WI-34 at US-10. WI-13 was rerouted WI-34 should have just changed to WI-13 not became a duplex with it.

That's far from the only unnecessary concurrency in Wisconsin - WI-47 would logically be two or three different routes, and it even ends while concurrent with WI-182, which also ends at WI-47's terminus.  Either end 182 at 47 or 47 at 182; don't make a pointless concurrency.

And I'm certain there are others, too.  I agree with CNGL's point that any route that ends while concurrent with another should be truncated.

Edit: And what is the exact reason for the existence of I-894 when it is in its entirety concurrent with at least two other highways?  Just call it 41, people.

I know why Wis 34 was kept.  It was to give a consistent number for a connection between I-39 and Wisconsin Rapids.  As for Wis 182 and Wis 47, that is so they can both connect to US 51.  Wis 91 is concurrent with Wis 44 so it connects Berlin with I-41.  Wis 32 would qualify as an unnecessary concurrency with US 45 from Three Lakes to the Michigan Border.  The only reason why it exists is because it is the 32nd Division Memorial Highway, and it was routed from one state line to another to honor the Red Arrow Division. 

Could argue that the Wis 93 concurrency with US 53 is unnecessary since Wis 93 randomly ends at Wis 35.

I understand about those now - thanks.

Although I've also noticed that WI-32 and WI-57 seem to be very buddy-buddy with each other in that they are concurrent with each other and I-43 for a stretch, and then there's the long non-highway concurrency north of there and going through Calumet County and others.

And why exactly does the I-894 designation exist when all of it is concurrent with I-41?

[Max Rockatansky]

US 60 and AZ 77 from Globe to Show Low, AZ.  Granted AZ 77 is a long state route at 254 miles the problem is that almost one third of the entire length is on a multiplex in the middle of the Salt River Wilderness.  The easy thing to do would be just create a new route number north of Show Low.  The more creative thing to do would be to have US 60 routed west to Payson via AZ 260, south on AZ 87, and west on AZ 202.  AZ 77 would remain in place while US 70 would travel west to I-10.  This would break up most of the silent concurrency US 60 has with I-10 and I-17 in addition to getting a couple high quality expressways north east of Phoenix on a US Route.

[Tom958]

NC 24 and NC 27?

[1995hoo]

US-29/211 from Warrenton to DC. Evidently other people agreed that it was an unnecessary concurrency because it was removed in 1980 when 211 was truncated to end in Warrenton.

[LM117]

US-64/US-264 in NC between Zebulon and I-440 in Raleigh. The western end of US-264 originally ended in Zebulon until 1997.

Also, I-77/I-74 in NC from the NC/VA state line to the I-77/I-74 split near Mount Airy. Considering that I-74 east of Cincinnati will most likely never leave NC, there's no reason for that concurrency since I-74 disappears immediately after crossing into VA on I-77. I-74 should just end at I-77.

[dgolub]

NY 347/NY 454.  It can be signed as NY 454 TO NY 347 when heading east and as NY 454 TO Northern Parkway when heading west.

I-587 and I-790.  Sure, they're fun for roadgeeks, but they're multiplexed with NY 28 and NY 5, respectively for their entire lengths.  There's no good reason why they should be signed, as doing so probably just confuses motorists.  Instead, let them be designations on paper only so that those segments can still get their interstate funding.

US 46 multiplexed with I-95/US 1/US 9 to the New York-New Jersey state line.  Does anyone even know why this multiplex came into existence in the first place?

[capt.ron]

US 67 and 167 in Arkansas. It is concurrent from Bald Knob to the LR metro. Either renumber the northern or southern split but to have the two highways run concurrent like that makes little if any sense.
My solution: renumber the Bald Knob - north section as US 467 (I'm not using US 267 and 367 since there are AR state highways with those numbers nearby.) and truncate US 167 from Bald Knob to just south of Little Rock where I-530 splits off of I-30.
That way, the freeway section from North Little Rock to Bald Knob will be solely US 67 (and also US 64 from Beebe to Bald Knob).

[SSOWorld]

I-41 was the brainchild of politicians that wanted the red-white & blue shield passing by Appleton when the road was already there.  Federal funding be damned it is not necessary ad can easily be a 3D beginning at I-94.  Made even worse by extending the route designation to Illinois for the same reason that they could have easily changing I-94 directional banners to N/S.  That way they don't hold IDiOT hostage.  Now that we have that - Wisconsin has Two interstates (Along with I-894) that are pointless!!!  Argue whatever you wish about 894 being a bypass.  The goddam control city is enough to tell one where they're going!  If they get lost, it's their ****ing problem. </rant> I-43 and I-41 were born out of spite due to WI's desire for an interstate that got shafted by Illinois playing politics.

Does this remind you of anything? (I-99)

EDIT: The addition of new interstates nowadays has been due to political influence.  We do not need them  The grid that was laid out at first was satisfactory.  Money and politics drive the drawing of them now.  (Even states prevent their DOTs from assigning higher speed limits to any road that doesn't have the sacred shield. - I'm looking at you Minnesota and Iowa.)

[jp the roadgeek]

US 46 multiplexed with I-95/US 1/US 9 to the New York-New Jersey state line.  Does anyone even know why this multiplex came into existence in the first place?

Probably because I-80 was duplexed with I-95 to the GWB, so they figured US 46 should connect to either end of NJ's section of I-80.

The US 40/322 concurrency east of May's Landing is unnecessary.  Should just be US 40 since it's longer and 10 route.

[national highway 1]

The west end of US 18 in Eastern Wyoming.
From Mule Creek Junction, WY to Orin, US 18 is concurrent with US 85 and US 20 just so it can reach and terminate at I-25. I would personally like to reroute US 18 north up US 85 to Newcastle, then replace WY 450 and WY 387 to terminate at I-25 exit 227 between Buffalo and Casper.

[peterj920]

WI-13/WI-34 just end WI-34 at US-10. WI-13 was rerouted WI-34 should have just changed to WI-13 not became a duplex with it.

That's far from the only unnecessary concurrency in Wisconsin - WI-47 would logically be two or three different routes, and it even ends while concurrent with WI-182, which also ends at WI-47's terminus.  Either end 182 at 47 or 47 at 182; don't make a pointless concurrency.

And I'm certain there are others, too.  I agree with CNGL's point that any route that ends while concurrent with another should be truncated.

Edit: And what is the exact reason for the existence of I-894 when it is in its entirety concurrent with at least two other highways?  Just call it 41, people.

I know why Wis 34 was kept.  It was to give a consistent number for a connection between I-39 and Wisconsin Rapids.  As for Wis 182 and Wis 47, that is so they can both connect to US 51.  Wis 91 is concurrent with Wis 44 so it connects Berlin with I-41.  Wis 32 would qualify as an unnecessary concurrency with US 45 from Three Lakes to the Michigan Border.  The only reason why it exists is because it is the 32nd Division Memorial Highway, and it was routed from one state line to another to honor the Red Arrow Division. 

Could argue that the Wis 93 concurrency with US 53 is unnecessary since Wis 93 randomly ends at Wis 35.

I understand about those now - thanks.

Although I've also noticed that WI-32 and WI-57 seem to be very buddy-buddy with each other in that they are concurrent with each other and I-43 for a stretch, and then there's the long non-highway concurrency north of there and going through Calumet County and others.

And why exactly does the I-894 designation exist when all of it is concurrent with I-41?

By state statute, Wis 32 needs to go the length of the state to honor the 32nd Red Arrow Division.  Before the statute was enacted, Wis 32 ended at US 45 in Three Lakes, which would be the more logical end.  Wis 32 was extended along US 45 to meet that requirement.  In Howards Grove, Wis 42 and Wis 32 were swapped to the south.  Wis 32 once ended in Sheboygan and Wis 42 ended in Kenosha.  The switch was done so Wis 32 could run down to the Illinois state line 

Until the 1980s, Wis 32 traveled along current Wis 67, US 151, County W, and County PP between Kiel and De Pere.  Wis 57 was a far superior route than Wis 32 between Kiel and De Pere, so Wis 32 was turned back to Manitowoc and Brown County control north of US 151 and ran concurrent with Wis 57 between the 2 communities.  Between Kiel and US 151, WISDOT felt that the road was important enough to be a state highway so Wis 67 was extended along that stretch.

I-894 was once the lone number for the entire route and is considered the bypass for I-94.  I-43 was added in 1988, while I-41 was added in 2015.  On the new BGS on both ends, the route is labeled as "Bypass" along with the I-894 designation to make it clear to I-94 traffic that it should follow the route to bypass Downtown Milwaukee.  John Nordquist, the former mayor of Milwaukee wanted I-94 to replace I-894 years ago and extend I-794 to the Zoo Interchange so there was a proposal before I-41 was designated. 

[Kacie Jane]

US 46 multiplexed with I-95/US 1/US 9 to the New York-New Jersey state line.  Does anyone even know why this multiplex came into existence in the first place?

Probably because I-80 was duplexed with I-95 to the GWB, so they figured US 46 should connect to either end of NJ's section of I-80.

Two major errors with this post.
1. I-80 has never been duplexed to the bridge.  Rand McNally had a bad habit of showing a duplex, and signage heading west away from the bridge isn't always explicit that you're not on 80 yet, but I-80's end has always been in Teaneck.
2. US 46 was created in 1936, and has always gone to the bridge, so I-80 couldn't have had anything to do with it anyway.

One possible answer (though I may be wrong here myself): US 46 may have been there first.  Before the GWB was built, US 1 and 9 crossed into New York at the Holland Tunnel instead.  Some sources say that 1/9 were rerouted over the GWB once it opened, but some say it may not have been until a decade or so later.  If 46 was there first, it kind of makes sense that they were just too lazy to truncate it.  (Although that still wouldn't explain why it ended at the state line, instead of continuing to Broadway or something.)

[dvferyance]

As usual I knew there would be some comment here regarding 894. I have explain this before but I guess I will again. By having jsut 41/43 on the east west portion you have a wrong way north south duplex on and east and west highway. That's insane that would lead to lots of confusion. I-41 is duplexed with another interstate south of the zoo interchange and it will never be extended south into Illinois. End it there folks problem solved. It's I-41 that's the unnecessary route number there. You already have US 41.

[TheStranger]

California generally doesn't have much of these, since the two lengthiest concurrencies (US 70 with 10, 99, or 60 through its entire run  and US 6 along a significant portion of US 395) were truncated about 52 years ago.

The 108/120 concurrency is somewhat strange (in Modesto) but makes sense from the perspective of making sure people along the Route 99 freeway could find Route 108 easily.  (There's also a proposed, but unsigned extension of 108 southward towards I-5 that exists legislatively but has never been adopted as a state route) If anything, Route 99 in Red Bluff really should be extended IMO along the old US 99E concurrency with Route 36 so as to complete the loop back to I-5.

Route 70/99 concurrency that had been on maps for many, many years between Sacramento and Catlett may have only existed in the field in the late 1960s and not beyond that (until about 3-4 years ago, a 70/99 overhead sign existed along Capitol Mall/former US 40 & US 99W in Sacramento, with a removed space for a Route 16 shield as well).

CalTrans is actively removing the US 50/Business 80 concurrency in recent months in favor of just US 50 through West Sacramento and downtown Sacramento.


The Route 47/103 concurrency briefly from I-710 to Henry Ford Avenue makes sense from the perspective of ensuring 103 itself reaches Terminal Island.  Similar concept to 108 getting to 99 in Modesto via 120.

[20160805]

I-41 was the brainchild of politicians that wanted the red-white & blue shield passing by Appleton when the road was already there.  Federal funding be damned it is not necessary ad can easily be a 3D beginning at I-94.  Made even worse by extending the route designation to Illinois for the same reason that they could have easily changing I-94 directional banners to N/S.  That way they don't hold IDiOT hostage.  Now that we have that - Wisconsin has Two interstates (Along with I-894) that are pointless!!!  Argue whatever you wish about 894 being a bypass.  The ****** control city is enough to tell one where they're going!  If they get lost, it's their ****ing problem. </rant> I-43 and I-41 were born out of spite due to WI's desire for an interstate that got shafted by Illinois playing politics.

Does this remind you of anything? (I-99)

EDIT: The addition of new interstates nowadays has been due to political influence.  We do not need them  The grid that was laid out at first was satisfactory.  Money and politics drive the drawing of them now.  (Even states prevent their DOTs from assigning higher speed limits to any road that doesn't have the sacred shield. - I'm looking at you Minnesota and Iowa.)

Wow.  I agree that the original grid was sufficient.  I think it's pathetic that the system had to boil down to just people playing politics.

WI-13/WI-34 just end WI-34 at US-10. WI-13 was rerouted WI-34 should have just changed to WI-13 not became a duplex with it.

That's far from the only unnecessary concurrency in Wisconsin - WI-47 would logically be two or three different routes, and it even ends while concurrent with WI-182, which also ends at WI-47's terminus.  Either end 182 at 47 or 47 at 182; don't make a pointless concurrency.

And I'm certain there are others, too.  I agree with CNGL's point that any route that ends while concurrent with another should be truncated.

Edit: And what is the exact reason for the existence of I-894 when it is in its entirety concurrent with at least two other highways?  Just call it 41, people.

I know why Wis 34 was kept.  It was to give a consistent number for a connection between I-39 and Wisconsin Rapids.  As for Wis 182 and Wis 47, that is so they can both connect to US 51.  Wis 91 is concurrent with Wis 44 so it connects Berlin with I-41.  Wis 32 would qualify as an unnecessary concurrency with US 45 from Three Lakes to the Michigan Border.  The only reason why it exists is because it is the 32nd Division Memorial Highway, and it was routed from one state line to another to honor the Red Arrow Division. 

Could argue that the Wis 93 concurrency with US 53 is unnecessary since Wis 93 randomly ends at Wis 35.

I understand about those now - thanks.

Although I've also noticed that WI-32 and WI-57 seem to be very buddy-buddy with each other in that they are concurrent with each other and I-43 for a stretch, and then there's the long non-highway concurrency north of there and going through Calumet County and others.

And why exactly does the I-894 designation exist when all of it is concurrent with I-41?

By state statute, Wis 32 needs to go the length of the state to honor the 32nd Red Arrow Division.  Before the statute was enacted, Wis 32 ended at US 45 in Three Lakes, which would be the more logical end.  Wis 32 was extended along US 45 to meet that requirement.  In Howards Grove, Wis 42 and Wis 32 were swapped to the south.  Wis 32 once ended in Sheboygan and Wis 42 ended in Kenosha.  The switch was done so Wis 32 could run down to the Illinois state line 

Until the 1980s, Wis 32 traveled along current Wis 67, US 151, County W, and County PP between Kiel and De Pere.  Wis 57 was a far superior route than Wis 32 between Kiel and De Pere, so Wis 32 was turned back to Manitowoc and Brown County control north of US 151 and ran concurrent with Wis 57 between the 2 communities.  Between Kiel and US 151, WISDOT felt that the road was important enough to be a state highway so Wis 67 was extended along that stretch.

I-894 was once the lone number for the entire route and is considered the bypass for I-94.  I-43 was added in 1988, while I-41 was added in 2015.  On the new BGS on both ends, the route is labeled as "Bypass" along with the I-894 designation to make it clear to I-94 traffic that it should follow the route to bypass Downtown Milwaukee.  John Nordquist, the former mayor of Milwaukee wanted I-94 to replace I-894 years ago and extend I-794 to the Zoo Interchange so there was a proposal before I-41 was designated. 

I get it - so it's 43 and 41 that are unnecessary.

As usual I knew there would be some comment here regarding 894. I have explain this before but I guess I will again. By having jsut 41/43 on the east west portion you have a wrong way north south duplex on and east and west highway. That's insane that would lead to lots of confusion. I-41 is duplexed with another interstate south of the zoo interchange and it will never be extended south into Illinois. End it there folks problem solved. It's I-41 that's the unnecessary route number there. You already have US 41.

Thanks - I didn't realise that.

And besides, US 41 was fine as just US 41 anyway; no need to put a pretty red, white, and blue shield on it.

[cbeach40]

Any concurrencies where one route terminates at the end of it. Seriously, truncate that route back.

Owen Sound, ON is a great example of this.
The intersection of 10th St E and 9th Ave E has the following route numbers:
From the west - 6 and 21 (also a wrong-way concurrency)
From the north - 26
From the south - 6 and 10

Hwys 10 and 21 could easily be truncated outside of town to prevent this unnecessary confusion. Then there would only be 2 highway numbers meeting in town instead of 4.

Then you get the additional confusion of truncating a route just short of its destination, which would be worse. It's better to truncate at a logical destination or decision point. Chatsworth and Springmount are not that.

A great example is I-69 and I-94 going to/from the Blue Water Bridge. Whichever one you're following to/from the bridge, you don't need to worry about the other number for that short distance. It's a lot cleaner that way.

[vdeane]

I would say that having two routes end in an overlap is the very OPPOSITE of cleaner.  IMO I-69 should be truncated to end at I-94.  Having unnecessary concurrencies makes for a messy system.

[jp the roadgeek]

I-87 and I-287 in NY.  Why not just number the Westchester portion to I-487, or the NJ portion to I-695 (so what if it goes 0.11 mi into NY)?

[dgolub]

The US 40/322 concurrency east of May's Landing is unnecessary.  Should just be US 40 since it's longer and 10 route.

This one might have something to do with the fact that you continue straight ahead to stay on US 322, but US 40 is the more major route, so it wouldn't make sense to truncate it to US 322.

[bulldog1979]

M-22/M-72 in Traverse City. However, by keeping it, M-22 forms a continuous loop for the Lake Michigan Circle Tour from US 31 in the Manistee area up through the Leelanau Peninsula back to US 31 at TC.

[mariethefoxy]

I-87 and I-287 in NY.  Why not just number the Westchester portion to I-487, or the NJ portion to I-695 (so what if it goes 0.11 mi into NY)?

That one sorta makes sense, I-287 is the beltway around New York City and a good bypass route if you want to go around the George Washington Bridge traffic. Yes it does go a bit out of the way, but you'd probably spend that same amount of time sitting in bumper to bumper cross bronx traffic.

[cbeach40]

I would say that having two routes end in an overlap is the very OPPOSITE of cleaner.  IMO I-69 should be truncated to end at I-94.  Having unnecessary concurrencies makes for a messy system.

How is it messy? You follow one number from point A to B. Adding in an extra decision increases driver workload, which is precisely the opposite of what you'd want.

Guidance design is based on what makes sense while driving at speed, not what looks cleaner on a map.