Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Max Rockatansky]

Having I-495 multiplexed with I-95 on the Beltway always seemed stupid to me:

[bzakharin]

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.

Or

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.

Another example of the above is US 206 which may or may not reach US 6 via US 209

[roadman65]

FL State Road 15 in Belle Glade, FL.  Its useless as it is the secret route number for most of US 441 from north of there to Ashton, FL and was only routed down to its current terminus at Palm Beach County Road 880 when US 441 used to go there.  Now it got shifted to a new alignment taking it out of Belle Glade but they never truncated it, and being a mostly not signed route north of there, it makes no sense to have it any longer overlap with FL 80 for that few short miles.

In fact through Pahokee and Canal Point its useless to sign it with US 441 anyway, being its not signed at all unitl  the route becomes independent in Orlando between FL 528 and US 17 & 92 where it again goes into hiding.

[Max Rockatansky]

FL State Road 15 in Belle Glade, FL.  Its useless as it is the secret route number for most of US 441 from north of there to Ashton, FL and was only routed down to its current terminus at Palm Beach County Road 880 when US 441 used to go there.  Now it got shifted to a new alignment taking it out of Belle Glade but they never truncated it, and being a mostly not signed route north of there, it makes no sense to have it any longer overlap with FL 80 for that few short miles.

In fact through Pahokee and Canal Point its useless to sign it with US 441 anyway, being its not signed at all unitl  the route becomes independent in Orlando between FL 528 and US 17 & 92 where it again goes into hiding.

I could have sworn it was signed on OBT at least at Sand Lake.  Personally I'd rather see 441 shifted east via Colonial, Semoran, Whatever east-west road between the former and Goldenrod, and Narcoosee all the way to St Cloud.  Just throw then secret 15 on the on the realigned 441 and give Conway Road a 5xx number.

Also US 441 is signed pretty throughly north of Okeechobee, not a bad scenic alternate to the Turnpike IMO.

[vdeane]

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)?

I believe the former was an actual proposal from NY at one point.  The latter would have worked too, since I-695 technically didn't exist in NY until 2008, according to FHWA (it was signed from 1986, but was technically a spur of I-295).

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.

Yeah, I'm thinking from the map.  In any case, I've never had trouble with ideas like "take I-69 to I-94, then take I-94 east to Canada".  Who are all these people who can't navigate from point A to point B unless the entire route has the same number, and when did they get so much power that they could influence the designations of I-69, I-11, and lobby for stuff like Continental One?

There are a few NY state routes that have odd routings or seem to be a collection of smaller routes strung together through overlaps (NY 812 comes to mind); I've always been asking "who thought this was a logical routing?".  Having multiple numbers to refer to a section of road strikes me as redundant, and I'm of the opinion that overlaps should be minimized (though sometimes they're necessary).

[cbeach40]

Yeah, I'm thinking from the map.  In any case, I've never had trouble with ideas like "take I-69 to I-94, then take I-94 east to Canada".  Who are all these people who can't navigate from point A to point B unless the entire route has the same number, and when did they get so much power that they could influence the designations of I-69, I-11, and lobby for stuff like Continental One?

There are a few NY state routes that have odd routings or seem to be a collection of smaller routes strung together through overlaps (NY 812 comes to mind); I've always been asking "who thought this was a logical routing?".  Having multiple numbers to refer to a section of road strikes me as redundant, and I'm of the opinion that overlaps should be minimized (though sometimes they're necessary).

Yes, concurrencies are not desirable. But not at the cost of positive guidance.

N/E bound I-69/94 really doesn't need concurrency, the Canada destination would suffice provided its signed properly. But S/E bound, you have two significant movements there, via I-94 and via I-69. So you'd need to sign both anyway. And if you trailblaze it rather than assurance sign it, you're going to end up with even greater sign clutter.

Yes, it is possible to cut one route off sooner. But not prudent.

[vdeane]

Isn't that what the "To" banner is for?  Yeah, I know Canada doesn't use it (Ontario using a different shield variant and Quebec not using it at all; not sure about other provinces), but that's why it was invented.

(though I wouldn't be surprised if another reason for that overlap is so MDOT could put in the second business loop)

[LM117]

Having I-495 multiplexed with I-95 on the Beltway always seemed stupid to me:

Agreed. Reminds me of the days when I-40 and I-440 were concurrent in Raleigh, NC. I'm glad that concurrency no longer exists.

[cbeach40]

Isn't that what the "To" banner is for?  Yeah, I know Canada doesn't use it (Ontario using a different shield variant and Quebec not using it at all; not sure about other provinces), but that's why it was invented.

Yes, but in the end you have the same number of signs. And your overhead signs have an extra piece of information on them. So there's no net benefit to not overlapping the routes.

Basically, if you have a short section of highway between a route terminus and a major destination, and you'd want to sign that gap with "To" banners, then odds are it would make more sense to simply overlap them.

[AsphaltPlanet]

Isn't that what the "To" banner is for?  Yeah, I know Canada doesn't use it (Ontario using a different shield variant and Quebec not using it at all; not sure about other provinces), but that's why it was invented.

(though I wouldn't be surprised if another reason for that overlap is so MDOT could put in the second business loop)

This is kind of a personal gripe, but I hate reading the descriptor "Canada doesn't use it".  There is a lot of variation on how various provinces in Canada sign things.  As such, it's almost never accurate to say "Canada does, or doesn't do such and such."

It'd be the same as if someone wrote "America has a 120" sign height restriction on overhead signage".  California does, America doesn't.

[hbelkins]

Another example of the above is US 206 which may or may not reach US 6 via US 209

It doesn't, at least not anymore.

I know at one time, great pains were taken to make sure three-digit US routes met their parent (such as running 641 along with 60 to the Henderson/Evansville area, so it could meet 41) but that just seems to be a waste of good signage and ink on a map.

[1995hoo]

Having I-495 multiplexed with I-95 on the Beltway always seemed stupid to me:

....

Agreed. Reminds me of the days when I-40 and I-440 were concurrent in Raleigh, NC. I'm glad that concurrency no longer exists.

For a long time it wasn't like that. I-495 was only on the west side and I-95 was alone in the east side. Lots of people apparently found it confusing, and VDOT's signing of the thru movement on the Beltway in Springfield as an "exit" came in for special derision (Maryland did not do the same thing). So I-495 was added back to the eastern side due to popular demand.

[Rothman]

Having I-495 multiplexed with I-95 on the Beltway always seemed stupid to me:

....

Agreed. Reminds me of the days when I-40 and I-440 were concurrent in Raleigh, NC. I'm glad that concurrency no longer exists.

For a long time it wasn't like that. I-495 was only on the west side and I-95 was alone in the east side. Lots of people apparently found it confusing, and VDOT's signing of the thru movement on the Beltway in Springfield as an "exit" came in for special derision (Maryland did not do the same thing). So I-495 was added back to the eastern side due to popular demand.

You just can't please everyone.

[PHLBOS]

I'm surprised that no one has yet mentioned the elephant in the Bay State known as Route 128 south/west of Peabody (I-95).

[vdeane]

My understanding is that MA 128 is officially truncated to Peabody but remains on signs to appease locals who would be out with the torches and pitchforks if it were removed.

[countysigns]

How about the I-96/I-275 concurrency from I-96/M-14 in Plymouth to I-696/M-5?  Does I-275 need to be there?  I know, in the grand scheme of things, I-275 was supposed to connect to I-75 up around Clarkston, but since the NIMBY's got their way, shouldn't I-275 just end at I-96/M-14?

[LM117]

How about the I-96/I-275 concurrency from I-96/M-14 in Plymouth to I-696/M-5?  Does I-275 need to be there?  I know, in the grand scheme of things, I-275 was supposed to connect to I-75 up around Clarkston, but since the NIMBY's got their way, shouldn't I-275 just end at I-96/M-14?

According to the FHWA, I-275 officially does end at the I-96/M-14 junction, but MDOT gave FHWA the middle finger and signed I-275 on I-96 anyway.

[The Nature Boy]

I've always found the US 64/264 concurrency in eastern Wake County, NC to be unnecessary. US 264 ends at the I-440 junction and is never separated from US 64 again. It makes more sense for US 264 to simply end at the junction with 64 than to limp along as a secondary route until I-440.

This is made even worse by the fact that I-87 will also share that strip of pavement and I'm not entirely sure what's going to happen to I-495 but that's there too.

[LM117]

I've always found the US 64/264 concurrency in eastern Wake County, NC to be unnecessary. US 264 ends at the I-440 junction and is never separated from US 64 again. It makes more sense for US 264 to simply end at the junction with 64 than to limp along as a secondary route until I-440.

This is made even worse by the fact that I-87 will also share that strip of pavement and I'm not entirely sure what's going to happen to I-495 but that's there too.

I agree. I've said before that US-264 should be truncated back to Zebulon.

As for I-495, NCDOT plans to get rid of it. They haven't said when, but it'll likely be done during AASHTO's next meeting in November. There's also the strong possibility of a small section of I-440 being decommissioned between the Knightdale Bypass exit and I-40 in southeast Raleigh, since I-87 is planned to end at I-40, rather than I-440 as I-495 currently does.

[Max Rockatansky]

How about the I-96/I-275 concurrency from I-96/M-14 in Plymouth to I-696/M-5?  Does I-275 need to be there?  I know, in the grand scheme of things, I-275 was supposed to connect to I-75 up around Clarkston, but since the NIMBY's got their way, shouldn't I-275 just end at I-96/M-14?

According to the FHWA, I-275 officially does end at the I-96/M-14 junction, but MDOT gave FHWA the middle finger and signed I-275 on I-96 anyway.

Best part is that everyone calls the I-96 multiplex "275" locally anyways, so much for 2d being more significant.

[TheStranger]

Best part is that everyone calls the I-96 multiplex "275" locally anyways, so much for 2d being more significant.

Just from reading this thread (and thinking of this topic in the past) it does seem like concurrencies of this kind - at least on the Interstate level - are primarily the result of the public refusing to use a newer number for an existing road, as is the case with the Beltway/I-495 around DC (where at one point 495 didn't exist on the eastern half), Route 128 around Boston (where 128 signage has been reduced somewhat over the years, yet hasn't resulted in locals calling it "95"), and US 40 in St. Louis (I don't know if the segment of US 40/I-64 west of I-270 is called "US 40" as well).

Conversely, in the example of one of these types of multiplexes that is presently being removed (US 50/Business 80 in Sacramento), even though some form of 80 numbering had existed on that stretch since the 1960s, the through-route configuration in Oak Park for US 50 likely led to the dominance of 50 as the regular term for that route over the last 10-15 years - even though 50 is the newer (1982 to present) designation between West Sacramento and 99!

[roadman]

My understanding is that MA 128 is officially truncated to Peabody but remains on signs to appease locals who would be out with the torches and pitchforks if it were removed.

Not exactly.  Per the current MassDOT Road Inventory Maps, mile 0.0 for MA 128 begins at the I-95/I-93 junction in Canton, although the 128 mileage does not appear on mileposts until just north of the Peabody split (MM 37.4) - mileposts between Canton and Peabody reference the I-95 mileage.  As for signs, the restriction on MA 128 between Canton and Peabody is that, per FHWA directive, the designation cannot appear on LGS or BGS signs along the I-95/MA 128 overlap**.  Placing route markers for MA 128 is perfectly fine.

** For the record, there are LGS panels at the Walnut Street and Salem Street interchanges that include both I-95 and MA 128 shields.  These panels were recently installed as part of private development projects at these interchanges. Whomever reviewed the designs for MassDOT apparently didn't understand the current restrictions regarding signing for MA 128 within the I-95 overlap section.

[vdeane]

Is there a reason why this restriction only applies to MA 128 and not to any other state route overlapping an interstate (I-86 and NY 17 co-exist on many guide signs, for example)?

[roadman]

Is there a reason why this restriction only applies to MA 128 and not to any other state route overlapping an interstate (I-86 and NY 17 co-exist on many guide signs, for example)?

The directive regarding not posting MA 128 shields on BGS and LGS signs within the I-95/MA 128 overlap area, which was issued in the early 1990s, came from the FHWA Massachusetts regional office.  The signing folks at the New York FHWA regional office may have a different opinion on the matter of Interstate/state route overlaps where the state route does not continue past the overlap section at one or both ends.

[Mapmikey]

Keep in mind that for the DC beltway, 495 was on the whole thing first, from 1961-1975, while 95 went into DC