AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules for political content in signatures and user profiles. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: Completely redundant routes  (Read 3184 times)

mrsman

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2428
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Silver Spring, MD
  • Last Login: Today at 09:35:21 AM
Re: Completely redundant routes
« Reply #75 on: June 28, 2019, 01:07:25 PM »

Pre-1964, all of US 70 in California was concurrent with either US 60, US 99, or I-10.

I kind of said this on the very first reply:
And a couple historical examples:
Either US 60 or US 70 West of Globe AZ

Although I believe US 60 and US 70 went their separate ways West of Beaumont CA, as evidenced by CA 60.
They did.  They merged back together in Pomona just east of the Kellogg Pass.

Part of what makes the 60/70 thing distinct is that 99 and 60 each had portions east of Los Angeles that were not concurrent with anything else (the aforementioned Pomona-Beaumont segment of 60, and 99 along 86/111), but I don't think 70 at any point ever did.  And even when 60 west of Pomona was being proposed for realignment away from I-10, US 70 was then co-signed with I-10 by itself between US 101 and I-5!

Was the portion of the San Bernardino Fwy between US 101 and the Golden State Fwy both I-10 and US 70 at one time?  I guess before the Santa Monica Fwy was constructed, this may have been the case.  And once the Santa Monica Fwy was constructed US 70 was decomissioned in California.  But I suppose if there were a time when US 70 existed at the same time as the Santa Monica Fwy, then US 70 was the unique and only highway that straddled the 1/2 mile section of freeway.

Right now, this section of freeway is legislatively within the definition of I-10.  It also is signed as being I-10 eastbound.  Westbound it is signed (erroneously) as US 101 north, but there are not so many signs so it's not so bad.  But since you must use I-5 to connect the two portions of I-10, from my point of view this is technically an unnumbered highway.  (But at one time it was US99-70-60). 

[Don't get me wrong.  The current signage is clear and perfectly reasonable.  We don't need to number this small section as its own highway and the vast majority of motorists pass the section so quickly that they are not even aware that there is any issue.  But in my mind this isn't really part of I-10.]


Here is GSV from the one westbound freeway entrance on this stretch from State Street.  It is signed as TO US 101.  Oddly, there is no "Freeway Entrance" sign here.

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0554978,-118.2116224,3a,75y,341.7h,81.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3hcLPFIH30J_toULi0bcvw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6022
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:46:58 PM
Re: Completely redundant routes
« Reply #76 on: June 28, 2019, 06:08:29 PM »

^^^^^^^^^^
That short segment that is, in Caltrans parlance, considered a I-10 "spur", was the original CA iteration of I-110.  When the I-5/Golden State Freeway section including the interchange with the San Bernardino (I-10) freeway was opened in early 1960, that section saw WB I-110 signage from I-10 -- but that signage was gone by 1963 and replaced with US 101 trailblazer indication, although the "110" designation persisted through the '64 state renumbering, as did 110's unsigned "doppelganger", I-105 over the Santa Ana Freeway from the ELA interchange to the San Bernardino Split.  When the Century Freeway was added to the Interstate system as part of the 1968 additions, it was planned to move the I-105 designation to that freeway; that process was helped by the fact that the portion previously designated I-105 was built 10-11 years prior to the original Interstate enactment, and was "grandfathered" into the system without any expenditure of chargeable funds.  But the formal designation of either route didn't change until about 1981, when I-110 was proposed to be applied to the Harbor Freeway (then CA 11) south of I-10 to its San Pedro southern terminus.  At that time, Caltrans successfully petitioned FHWA to delete both I-105 and I-110 from those downtown alignments and formally apply them to, respectively, the Century and Harbor freeways; timely, as ROW clearance for the Century Freeway was to commence then.  Caltrans then reverted the former I-105 alignment back to US 101, signage for which had always been retained; I-110, only a mile or so in length, was added to I-10.  The Caltrans mileage calculator for its "Route 10" internal designator for I-10 indicates a section commencing from the route's west terminus in Santa Monica to the point at which the ramps from I-10 cross the Santa Ana Freeway en route to its merge with I-5 up to the San Bernardino Freeway; the second section begins at US 101 at the old "San Bernardino Split" and continues to the AZ state line east of Blythe. 

FYI, the initial abortive Caltrans District 7 effort to post exit numbers dating from about 1970 featured numbered exits on the San Bernardino Freeway from I-5 out to the L.A./San Bernardino county line; those numbers did not reflect the former I-110 mileage, as that single mile wasn't absorbed into I-10 for another dozen years or so.  When the current exit numbering system was being deployed in the '90's, it did reflect that extra mile of former I-110 for all exits east of I-5 -- raising most exit numbers by one or two. 
Logged

TheStranger

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 3743
  • Last Login: Today at 01:48:43 PM
Re: Completely redundant routes
« Reply #77 on: June 28, 2019, 06:22:00 PM »

^^^^^^^^^^
That short segment that is, in Caltrans parlance, considered a I-10 "spur", was the original CA iteration of I-110.  When the I-5/Golden State Freeway section including the interchange with the San Bernardino (I-10) freeway was opened in early 1960, that section saw WB I-110 signage from I-10 -- but that signage was gone by 1963 and replaced with US 101 trailblazer indication, although the "110" designation persisted through the '64 state renumbering, as did 110's unsigned "doppelganger", I-105 over the Santa Ana Freeway from the ELA interchange to the San Bernardino Split.  When the Century Freeway was added to the Interstate system as part of the 1968 additions, it was planned to move the I-105 designation to that freeway; that process was helped by the fact that the portion previously designated I-105 was built 10-11 years prior to the original Interstate enactment, and was "grandfathered" into the system without any expenditure of chargeable funds.  But the formal designation of either route didn't change until about 1981, when I-110 was proposed to be applied to the Harbor Freeway (then CA 11) south of I-10 to its San Pedro southern terminus.  At that time, Caltrans successfully petitioned FHWA to delete both I-105 and I-110 from those downtown alignments and formally apply them to, respectively, the Century and Harbor freeways; timely, as ROW clearance for the Century Freeway was to commence then.  Caltrans then reverted the former I-105 alignment back to US 101, signage for which had always been retained; I-110, only a mile or so in length, was added to I-10. 

Cahighways actually notes that the 1960s I-105/I-110 were deleted in 1965:
https://cahighways.org/itypes.html

So essentially from 1965-1981 there was no Route 110 of any sort in California.  IIRC I-105 was first designated in 1968 for what had originally been proposed as a freeway alignment for Route 42, but specifically only the portion west of I-605 (the portion of what had been 1964-1968 Route 42 east of I-5 ended up becoming part of today's eastern segment of Route 90 towards Yorba Linda). The chargeable Interstate mileage from what had been I-105/I-110 in downtown Los Angeles was applied to the Century Freeway project, as was mileage from what had been I-480 in San Francisco and what has been and still is signed as I-80 since the early 1960s but built as US 40/50 along the San Francisco Skyway.  (Other sources for the chargeable mileage for today's I-105, also per Cahighways.org, include the canceled Junipero Serra Freeway extension into the Sunset District of San Francisco for Route 1/I-280 and the cancelled segment of I-80 that covers the unbuilt Western Freeway and the 1989-2005 extent of the Central Freeway from Fell Street east to the existing section from Market towards the Bayshore Freeway).

I've always been fascinated by the old 105/110 pair in downtown LA as both roads predate the Interstate system and I don't know if any plans to upgrade either route ever commenced (the only change along the former 110/former 60-70-99 portion of the San Bernardino Freeway seems to be the El Monte Busway).
« Last Edit: June 28, 2019, 06:24:46 PM by TheStranger »
Logged
Chris Sampang

roadman65

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9584
  • Location: Orlando, fl
  • Last Login: October 16, 2019, 11:14:18 PM
Re: Completely redundant routes
« Reply #78 on: July 24, 2019, 05:14:05 PM »

IL 336 is now redundant of IL 110 with the implementation of the Chicago- Kansas City Expressway.
Logged
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

kphoger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10691
  • Location: Wichita, KS
  • Last Login: October 16, 2019, 02:26:50 PM
Re: Completely redundant routes
« Reply #79 on: July 24, 2019, 06:45:05 PM »

IL 336 is now redundant of IL 110 with the implementation of the Chicago- Kansas City Expressway.

I wonder why Google Maps has CKC running through downtown Macomb instead of following Route 336.
Logged
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.

ilpt4u

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1249
  • Location: Southern IL
  • Last Login: Today at 01:34:03 AM
Re: Completely redundant routes
« Reply #80 on: July 24, 2019, 09:21:30 PM »

IL 336 is now redundant of IL 110 with the implementation of the Chicago- Kansas City Expressway.

I wonder why Google Maps has CKC running through downtown Macomb instead of following Route 336.
Cause Google? 110 & 336 are both signed on the new Macomb Bypass

The small portion of Unsigned IL 336 is only signed as an exit/long ramp off I-474 for IL 116, but at this point, who knows if/when the Macomb-Peoria new terrain route for IL 336 will ever be constructed, which leaves this Peoria-area segment an Unsigned Orphan

If it is not built, IL 336 should be Decommissioned
« Last Edit: July 24, 2019, 09:24:18 PM by ilpt4u »
Logged

mb2001

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15
  • Age: 18
  • Location: Boston
  • Last Login: August 24, 2019, 07:23:23 PM
Re: Completely redundant routes
« Reply #81 on: July 31, 2019, 10:08:06 PM »

I think a good litmus test is whether anyone would ever say Im going to take Route X if no one ever says that; then its generally not a worthwhile concurrency; there are exceptions but that is often the case.

With that logic, here in Massachusetts; I feel like people use I-95 and Rte. 128 often enough so that that concurrency makes sense; but on US 1s long concurrency with I-93; US 1 is almost completely forgotten; therefore Id say we should return US 1 to its precious route along the VFW Parkway and Storrow Drive.
Logged

roadman65

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9584
  • Location: Orlando, fl
  • Last Login: October 16, 2019, 11:14:18 PM
Re: Completely redundant routes
« Reply #82 on: July 31, 2019, 10:22:48 PM »

What I love is the fact in Fort Smith, they rerouted US 71 on both I-549 and part of I-40 and designated the original route through town as US 71 Business, but don't even sign the freeway overlap.  Why not just revert US 71B back to its mainline status?

US 62 in NW Arkansas as well, be kept through the cities as its not at all signed on I-49.

US 319 south along with US 98 in the FL Panhandle is useless, it should be truncated and the part where both 98 and 319 separate use the secret state number there for it. 
Logged
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

PHLBOS

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 6764
  • Age: 53
  • Location: Greater Philly, PA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:58:33 PM
Re: Completely redundant routes
« Reply #83 on: August 01, 2019, 12:17:50 PM »

I think a good litmus test is whether anyone would ever say Im going to take Route X if no one ever says that; then its generally not a worthwhile concurrency; there are exceptions but that is often the case.

With that logic, here in Massachusetts; I feel like people use I-95 and Rte. 128 often enough so that that concurrency makes sense; but on US 1s long concurrency with I-93; US 1 is almost completely forgotten; therefore Id say we should return US 1 to its precious route along the VFW Parkway and Storrow Drive.
The reasoning behind why US 1 was rerouted onto I-93/95 from Boston to Dedham circa 1989 (long before the use of GPS for navigation) was due to the low overpass clearances along Storrow Drive.  Many taller trucks (following US 1) would get stuck on one of the overpasses.  Such action was commonly referred to as Storrowed.

It's worth noting that Storrow Drive wasn't originally US 1.  It became US 1 circa 1971 when Boston eliminated all its C-routes.  Storrow Drive was originally designated as MA C1 although a parallel (some would say redundant routing) was also along Commonweath Ave. (current MA 2).  The latter predated the existence of the former but was likely retained as a truck route for MA C1 when Storrow Drive opened to traffic circa 1951.

Personally, I would've either marked the current US 1 routing as TRUCK US 1 and kept the pre-1989 US 1 routing as is or I would've had US 1 exit off I-93 at Granite Ave. (Exit 11 B) where it would meet & take over/replace MA 203 and meet the VFW Parkway where it would resume its prior routing.  Such would've also resolved the current dangling ends of MA 203 as well as MA 109.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2019, 08:47:10 AM by PHLBOS »
Logged
GPS does NOT equal GOD

FightingIrish

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 298
  • Location: Wisconsin
  • Last Login: October 16, 2019, 01:43:55 PM
Re: Completely redundant routes
« Reply #84 on: August 01, 2019, 04:19:57 PM »

The OP, for example, cites I-894.  There's not a single mile of I-894 that isn't also I-41.  So why still sign 894?

Because WisDOT wanted to maintain a clear marked bypass for I-94. Its really not as egregious as the constant complaints here make it.
I live near the Bypass, and the locals here still call it I-894. The number still serves a purpose. Otherwise, people might wind up heading southwest toward Beloit on I-43.
Logged

texaskdog

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2497
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Austin, TX
  • Last Login: October 16, 2019, 11:50:42 PM
Re: Completely redundant routes
« Reply #85 on: August 01, 2019, 04:27:43 PM »

110 from MO to IL, 27 IA/MO
Logged

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.