Strange Route Termini

[pderocco]

I simply don't trust TM for official route designations.  The endpoints on there are for simplicity's sake, not accuracy's.  I've found a small bunch over the years that have been corrected, but I've stopped reporting differences I've found otherwise, since I've found the community behind TM is less picky than I am when it comes to clinching routes (e.g., Interstate truck routes aren't all included due to some argument about whether they're in the "alignment" of the main route...but sometimes I think it's more about those who are well on their way to clinching the system not wanting to clinch additional mileage in areas they've already been ).  Heck, sometimes DOTs even have contradictory information on where routes end (looking at you, MoDOT).

Anyway, if one is looking specifically for where routes end to the inch, they have to look much more deeply than TM and be prepared for official sources needing a whole lot of scrutiny.

TM gets the I-393 interchange right. But I think it should have a segment connecting the I-93/I-89 interchange with the I-89/NH-3A intersection, as part of I-89, because they are interstate ramps, and you can't really treat that intersection as part of that interchange. I doubt anyone would disagree merely so they wouldn't have to go back there to drive it. I'm speaking as someone who would have to go back there and drive it.

But you're right that if you want to know the precise classification of a piece of pavement, you have to go to the DOT's GIS, often found on arcgis.com. Trouble is, states put up so many datasets with obscure information interesting to 0.0001% of the population, that it's often hard to find the main map that shows all the roads with all the metadata for each piece.

[pderocco]

I should also say that I think the default base map of TM, OpenStreets Map, while not perfect, is much better at precisely identifying what routes are on what roads. It's far less prone to hallucination than Google.

[74/171FAN]

TM gets the I-393 interchange right. But I think it should have a segment connecting the I-93/I-89 interchange with the I-89/NH-3A intersection, as part of I-89, because they are interstate ramps, and you can't really treat that intersection as part of that interchange. I doubt anyone would disagree merely so they wouldn't have to go back there to drive it. I'm speaking as someone who would have to go back there and drive it.

Of course, the official source marks the connection to NH 3A as ramps indicating that I-89 certainly ends at I-93.  (I had to add the roads layer to the map before clarifying that.) 

[fillup420]

Not necessarily a strange terminus, but i have always found this sign to be very peculiar. Especially since there is an actual END sign which has been there (off and on) since at least 2007

[pderocco]

TM gets the I-393 interchange right. But I think it should have a segment connecting the I-93/I-89 interchange with the I-89/NH-3A intersection, as part of I-89, because they are interstate ramps, and you can't really treat that intersection as part of that interchange. I doubt anyone would disagree merely so they wouldn't have to go back there to drive it. I'm speaking as someone who would have to go back there and drive it.

Of course, the official source marks the connection to NH 3A as ramps indicating that I-89 certainly ends at I-93.  (I had to add the roads layer to the map before clarifying that.) 

I agree. I'm just saying that there are interchange situations where it might make sense to add a TM segment for a freeway ramp which connects to a road that isn't directly part of the interchange, but next to it. Since TM generally treats ramps as part of the highways they connect for the sake of travel records, it would make sense to call that part of I-89. Otherwise, some people would have a gap in a trip due to the ramp.

Boy, now I'm getting real nitpicky.

[Rothman]

TM gets the I-393 interchange right. But I think it should have a segment connecting the I-93/I-89 interchange with the I-89/NH-3A intersection, as part of I-89, because they are interstate ramps, and you can't really treat that intersection as part of that interchange. I doubt anyone would disagree merely so they wouldn't have to go back there to drive it. I'm speaking as someone who would have to go back there and drive it.

Of course, the official source marks the connection to NH 3A as ramps indicating that I-89 certainly ends at I-93.  (I had to add the roads layer to the map before clarifying that.) 

I agree. I'm just saying that there are interchange situations where it might make sense to add a TM segment for a freeway ramp which connects to a road that isn't directly part of the interchange, but next to it. Since TM generally treats ramps as part of the highways they connect for the sake of travel records, it would make sense to call that part of I-89. Otherwise, some people would have a gap in a trip due to the ramp.

Boy, now I'm getting real nitpicky.

I dunno, if I'm reading this correctly.  The endpoint should be the route endpoint, not the freeway endpoint.

Of course, I clinch routes, whereas a lot of people on here clinch pavement...

[Quillz]

I simply don't trust TM for official route designations.  The endpoints on there are for simplicity's sake, not accuracy's.  I've found a small bunch over the years that have been corrected, but I've stopped reporting differences I've found otherwise, since I've found the community behind TM is less picky than I am when it comes to clinching routes (e.g., Interstate truck routes aren't all included due to some argument about whether they're in the "alignment" of the main route...but sometimes I think it's more about those who are well on their way to clinching the system not wanting to clinch additional mileage in areas they've already been ).  Heck, sometimes DOTs even have contradictory information on where routes end (looking at you, MoDOT).

Anyway, if one is looking specifically for where routes end to the inch, they have to look much more deeply than TM and be prepared for official sources needing a whole lot of scrutiny.

But you're right that if you want to know the precise classification of a piece of pavement, you have to go to the DOT's GIS, often found on arcgis.com. Trouble is, states put up so many datasets with obscure information interesting to 0.0001% of the population, that it's often hard to find the main map that shows all the roads with all the metadata for each piece.

I've noticed that is almost always the case with border signs. They are usually well past the actual point of maintenance that I assume marks the actual border. I can always tell when I cross county lines because you'll notice a clear change in pavement quality from county to county, there's always a specific line and I know that's, if not the actual county line, at least where one DOT considers their jurisdiction to end. So state and county signs rarely mark the actual exact point.

[Rothman]

I simply don't trust TM for official route designations.  The endpoints on there are for simplicity's sake, not accuracy's.  I've found a small bunch over the years that have been corrected, but I've stopped reporting differences I've found otherwise, since I've found the community behind TM is less picky than I am when it comes to clinching routes (e.g., Interstate truck routes aren't all included due to some argument about whether they're in the "alignment" of the main route...but sometimes I think it's more about those who are well on their way to clinching the system not wanting to clinch additional mileage in areas they've already been ).  Heck, sometimes DOTs even have contradictory information on where routes end (looking at you, MoDOT).

Anyway, if one is looking specifically for where routes end to the inch, they have to look much more deeply than TM and be prepared for official sources needing a whole lot of scrutiny.

But you're right that if you want to know the precise classification of a piece of pavement, you have to go to the DOT's GIS, often found on arcgis.com. Trouble is, states put up so many datasets with obscure information interesting to 0.0001% of the population, that it's often hard to find the main map that shows all the roads with all the metadata for each piece.

I've noticed that is almost always the case with border signs. They are usually well past the actual point of maintenance that I assume marks the actual border. I can always tell when I cross county lines because you'll notice a clear change in pavement quality from county to county, there's always a specific line and I know that's, if not the actual county line, at least where one DOT considers their jurisdiction to end. So state and county signs rarely mark the actual exact point.

You have a lot of faith in contractors getting their limits exactly on point.

[kphoger]

Isn't a ramp, by definition, a thing that connects to a highway?  That is, not the highway itself?

[TBKS1]

AZ 238 ends at the small community of Mobile west of Maricopa.  There is a substantial dump site but not much else in Mobile.  The road continues west of Mobile now as Maricopa County Route 238 and was only modernized this century.  It used to be a haggard and poorly maintained dirt road west to Gila Bend.

Me and a friend of mine recently discovered that it ends at the boundary of an ADOT district which is why it's not state maintained all the way to AZ 85. https://azdot.gov/sites/default/files/2019/03/districts-with-names.pdf

Also with regards to strange route termini in Arkansas, there are a lot of routes that are split into multiple sections and routes ending randomly at county/district boundaries is very common here.

[bugo]

The southern terminus of MO-85 is at this seemingly random spot in Gentry County, where it becomes Supplemental Route A.
But it turns out it's not actually a random spot, but the bustling metropolis of Evona, the number of whose domiciles I can count on one hand.  Why Missouri decided Evona deserves a primary route, I have no idea.

AR 190 becomes AR 291 at Tull, Arkansas at a seemingly random intersection. It doesn't make sense until you realize that AR 291 used to follow Oak Street west of this intersection. That part of AR 291 was decommissioned, and AR 190 was never renamed.

[jb_va23]

OK-37 randomly ends at the intersection with Sunnylane Rd on the border of Moore and Oklahoma City instead of continuing another mile to end at OK-77H (Sooner Rd). At one time, OK-77H ran along Sunnylane and OK-37 was not extended when OK-77H was rerouted.

[kphoger]

OK-37 randomly ends at the intersection with Sunnylane Rd on the border of Moore and Oklahoma City instead of continuing another mile to end at OK-77H (Sooner Rd).

Doesn't sound random to me.

[Quillz]

Probably "random" in the sense that something like city limits are non-tangible and feel arbitrary, as opposed to a more natural end at a physical roadway. Ties into what I said earlier about CO-55, and how I wish counties would continue numbers for the sake of navigation.

[JayhawkCO]

Another one for Colorado:

CO85's northern terminus is apparently a train overpass and it's southern terminus is a random roundabout just a little bit past the point where it crosses I-25. CO85 is the new designation for the part of US85 that originally left I-25 at Fountain just south of Colorado Springs, but apparently they extended its southern terminus a little bit west for no good reason.

[thenetwork]

IMO, I think Colorado is #1 in strange termini placement. 

It's rare for CDOT to denote official ENDS of routes..even RARER to label ENDS of routes that don't really end:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/K7GU1jEd3gE3emrr9?g_st=ac

[kphoger]

IMO, I think Colorado is #1 in strange termini placement. 

It's rare for CDOT to denote official ENDS of routes..even RARER to label ENDS of routes that don't really end:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/K7GU1jEd3gE3emrr9?g_st=ac

Link to the old conversation about that, if anyone is interested:  https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=12389.0

[pderocco]

I've noticed that is almost always the case with border signs. They are usually well past the actual point of maintenance that I assume marks the actual border. I can always tell when I cross county lines because you'll notice a clear change in pavement quality from county to county, there's always a specific line and I know that's, if not the actual county line, at least where one DOT considers their jurisdiction to end. So state and county signs rarely mark the actual exact point.

I don't assume that the change in pavement lines up with the actual boundary, because if they do a paving job with 16 loads of asphalt, and they get to the actual boundary after 15.7 loads, they'll dump the remainder on the other side and pave a little bit into the other territory, and no one there would mind.

[bugo]

AR 74 and AR 170 both end at a junction with a park road in Devil's Den State Park in northwestern Arkansas. These two highways have always ended at this same intersection. AR 220, which was extended to Devil's Den around 2000, doesn't end at this point, it ends at AR 170 about a mile south.

AR 112 and AR 12 end at the same intersection in Bentonville. AR 12 used to head east from this intersection, but ArrrrrrrghDOT decommissioned that section, making an awkward double terminus. They also decommissioned US 71B at around the same time, which left several dangling state highways ending at the old highway. ArDOT is terrible. I thought AHTD was bad, but ArDOT is somehow worse.

[jay8g]

CA-246 occurred to me as a strange terminus just because it happens as the highway is exiting the city of Lompoc.  As you way, there are many occurrences of highways that end as they are entering a city that wanted to take over the roadway, but not many as a highway is entering unincorporated county lands.

Similar to this, SR 166 in WA ends right as it's leaving the city limits of Port Orchard, here. It would make much more sense for it to extend to SR 160 at the Southworth ferry terminal, and maybe it did at some point but the history of SR 160 and SR 166 is a bit confusing.

[kphoger]

SR 166 in WA ends right as it's leaving the city limits of Port Orchard

I didn't expect to see an example of a state route that ends as it leaves a town.  If anything, I'd expect a route to end as it enters a town.

[hotdogPi]

SR 166 in WA ends right as it's leaving the city limits of Port Orchard

I didn't expect to see an example of a state route that ends as it leaves a town.  If anything, I'd expect a route to end as it enters a town.

From what I can tell, it's a boundary between two towns: leaving Port Orchard and entering Parkwood. (Parkwood seems to be unincorporated but does have defined boundaries.)

[CNGL-Leudimin]

Strange ends happen even over here. Coming from Puig Moreno, A-2404 just pops up from nowhere shortly before the Motorland circuit. Apparently this is the point the planned A-68 will cross this road.

[Quillz]

If we consider signed county routes, D7 and D8 in California are a bit awkward. The former starts at a parking lot, but the road itself continues west for a bit longer. The latter effectively starts at a curve just before another parking lot that is defined as the start of the Klamath River.

[Konza]

AZ 238 ends at the small community of Mobile west of Maricopa.  There is a substantial dump site but not much else in Mobile.  The road continues west of Mobile now as Maricopa County Route 238 and was only modernized this century.  It used to be a haggard and poorly maintained dirt road west to Gila Bend.

Among other Arizona state routes that have you asking "why does it end here" are AZ 66 (east end), AZ 77 (north end), AZ 99 (both ends), AZ 266, and AZ 288.  The common terminus of AZ 84 and AZ 387 in Casa Grande is a bit suspect; shouldn't AZ 84 continue east to meet AZ 287 at I-10?  Why isn't AZ 87's south terminus at I-10?  Why does US 191 terminate at AZ 80 but a "Business US 191", disconnected from US 191, heads south from AZ 80 to the International border in Douglas?  And what about AZ 210 in Tucson?  It doesn't connect to another route at either end or anyplace along its length.

I also have an issue with the west end of AZ 80 in Benson.  If you have to post an exit sign on I-10 that says "Business I-10 to AZ 80", why not just sign AZ 80 the extra couple of miles it would take to reach I-10?