Missing US highway signage

[golden eagle]

If you're on I-55 or I-20 through Jackson, you'll see an overhead sign guiding you to US 51 (State Street). However, once you're on 51, there is no signage. About a couple of decades ago, US 51 was decommissioned from State Street. One would think it would've simply been duplexed with I-55 (maps and atlases show that it does). However, when you're on I-55, there is no signage on the highway. In fact, US 51 doesn't show up again until the Hinds-Madison county line. What gives here? I know there's lots of missing state highway signs (I made a thread about that before), but not seeing signage for a US highway is weird.

[Quillz]

Isn't US-85 and US-87 barely signed at all in Colorado, as they are fully concurrent with I-25 through the entire state?

I believe there is a similar case with US-6 and I-70.

[national highway 1]

And also US 40/I-70 in CO, US 50/I-70 in UT, US 70/180/I-10 in NM & US 189/I-80 in UT/WY.

[NE2]

Texas is usually good (they sign US 85 all the way to New Mexico), but US 67 and US 77 are unsigned where they overlap I-30 and I-35E in the Dallas area.

[texaskdog]

Isn't US-85 and US-87 barely signed at all in Colorado, as they are fully concurrent with I-25 through the entire state?

I believe there is a similar case with US-6 and I-70.

Ridiculous duplex of US-85 just to cross a bridge in El Paso.  I believe MN gave up on US-52 after Saint Paul, just says "follow I-94"

[vdeane]

From Google Street View, it looks like US 11 used to be unsigned through Syracuse.  They must have improved since then, because every time I've been on the road, signage has been minimal rather than not existing.

[InterstateNG]

Memphis did a poor job of signing US-51 when I was traveling through in 2007.

[hbelkins]

So who's going to mention the Indianapolis beltway?

[NE2]

Memphis did a poor job of signing US-51 when I was traveling through in 2007.

There's a difference between not taking the effort to maintain signage and making a decision not to post signs. The former is laziness; the latter is a purposeful decision for whatever reason.

[TheStranger]

Isn't US-85 and US-87 barely signed at all in Colorado, as they are fully concurrent with I-25 through the entire state?

85 does have significant portions separate from I-25 (i.e. in Greeley) - it's New Mexico where it is not acknowledged at all, only to restart for a brief segment in Texas.

[apeman33]

There is no indication that U.S. 400 passes through Cimarron, Kan. It's never been signed inside the city limits. I got some shots of the signs at the intersection with K-23 on one of my trips back to Garden City earlier this summer.

Looking east on U.S. 50/400 at K-23 (also note the peeling "50"):


Looking at the signs on the signal facing K-23:


First reassurance sign east of the intersection:

[shadyjay]

In CT, US 6 tags along with I-84 through portions of western and central Connecticut, though you'll be lucky to find a reassurance shield tagged on every I-84 shield.  And US 6 will never appear on any overheads.  US 202 is in the same boat with I-84 and US 6 through Danbury, but there's almost no mention of it on I-84 as well, except when it exits the interstate. 

[J N Winkler]

Ridiculous duplex of US-85 just to cross a bridge in El Paso.  I believe MN gave up on US-52 after Saint Paul, just says "follow I-94"

The last time we had a thorough discussion of the practicalities of truncating US 85 to its southernmost independent segment outside Texas, NE2 made a convincing case that US 85 could be eliminated altogether in Texas without transferring mileage out of the state highway system through appropriate re-routings of US 180.  The only issue with NE2's suggested US 180 plan is that it would involve moving US 180 off I-10, where it is at present, and onto city streets which parallel I-10 and are at present used by US 62 and US 85.  The established norm is for US highway designations to be moved onto new and more direct routes when those are built (e.g. from city streets to I-10), while this re-routing would be an example of the opposite (from more direct route to city streets).  I am not saying this hasn't been done elsewhere, but I struggle to think of specific examples.

[NE2]

I am not saying this hasn't been done elsewhere, but I struggle to think of specific examples.

I seem to remember AASHTO throwing a fit (but eventually giving in) when NC wanted to move US 117 from what had become I-795 back onto the old route.

I think an extension of Loop 375 would be more likely, with a short one-block connector route on Paisano. US 85's portion of Paisano is a similar type of road to the rest of Loop 375.

[bassoon1986]

I honestly don't understand why Texas doesn't show US 77 on I-35E or US 67 on I-30 especially since those highways split off and are their own highways. US 287 is duplexed and signed on 35W in Fort Worth, although its a considerably shorter distance.

[Eth]

In Georgia, US 278 hitches a ride on I-20 between Lithonia and Covington.  US 278 is signed from the surface roads that have interchanges with I-20, but there is little or no mention of the US route on the freeway itself.

[txstateends]

Just like the US 67 and US 77 disappearances in the Dallas area, US 90 isn't signed with I-10 in Houston from the east loop I-610 (where US 90 WB merges with I-10) westward through town.  Haven't been along there to see where US 90 'reappears' (Katy? Sealy? further?). 

I've never understood the sporadic/disappearing sign routes.  Either sign a route *in full* or don't sign it at all.

[corco]

I don't know about 90 heading westbound, but 90 heading eastbound disappears at the split off I-10 near Katy. There is no signage for that split off the freeway (I know this because I meant to drive it a few months ago and made the really rookie roadgeek mistake of assuming the route would be signed and then missed the exit). When it pops back on near SH-99 it's unsigned.

[Michael in Philly]

Just like the US 67 and US 77 disappearances in the Dallas area, US 90 isn't signed with I-10 in Houston from the east loop I-610 (where US 90 WB merges with I-10) westward through town.  Haven't been along there to see where US 90 'reappears' (Katy? Sealy? further?). 

I've never understood the sporadic/disappearing sign routes.  Either sign a route *in full* or don't sign it at all.

I suppose the rationale is that, where you've got half a dozen route numbers following the same road, it might be distracting or confusing to drivers to sign all of them.  If you're trying to follow US 40 across Indiana, and you're paying attention, a "US 40 follow I-465 south" at the point where you reach 465, and a sign where you have to exit on the other side of town, ought to be enough for you.  And US 40 signage at junctions along that stretch.  I suppose we can live without it on the reassurance shields.

European countries post multiplexes very sparingly, if at all.  For what it's worth.  (Except for the European Route system that's superimposed on domestic numbers, and even then there are exceptions like Belgium deciding to post only European numbers on its freeways, thus reducing the domestic numbers to hidden ones....)

[Scott5114]

In practical terms, nobody would really try to follow US 40 across Indianapolis anyway. Most non-roadgeeks would tend to think of it as getting off US 40 and getting on I-465.

[Ned Weasel]

I've never understood the sporadic/disappearing sign routes.  Either sign a route *in full* or don't sign it at all.

This has been bugging me, but I didn't bring this part up until now.  Isn't a decision not to sign a portion of a U.S. Highway, or any other numbered highway, for that matter, a decision not to follow MUTCD standards?  Section 2D.10 states, "All numbered highway routes shall be identified by route signs and auxiliary signs."

I know there are many hidden numbered routes, but I'm considering those separately for now.  Besides, one could perhaps make the case that a hidden route is a numbered route on paper but not on the ground.  But once a numbered route has an identifying sign somewhere, it's definitely a numbered route, either way one looks at it.  Does the MUTCD say anywhere when it is permissible not to sign a numbered route?  If so, I haven't found that part.

[flowmotion]

In practical terms, nobody would really try to follow US 40 across Indianapolis anyway. Most non-roadgeeks would tend to think of it as getting off US 40 and getting on I-465.

In practical terms, US 40 was replaced by I-70 across most of the country, and nobody follows it anywhere (except when travelling very short distances). It should be eliminated or demoted to state routes, except for the few segments which are still relevant, such as Denver to Salt Lake.

[pianocello]

...[US 40] should be eliminated or demoted to state routes, except for the few segments which are still relevant, such as Denver to Salt Lake.

The reason that hasn't happened yet is because the few segments that are relevant are on opposite ends of the country (Denver-Salt Lake, Wilmington-Atlantic City).

[NE2]

And because most states don't have this urge to renumber an independent route, which US 40 is east of the Mississippi.

[J N Winkler]

I know there are many hidden numbered routes, but I'm considering those separately for now.  Besides, one could perhaps make the case that a hidden route is a numbered route on paper but not on the ground.  But once a numbered route has an identifying sign somewhere, it's definitely a numbered route, either way one looks at it.  Does the MUTCD say anywhere when it is permissible not to sign a numbered route?  If so, I haven't found that part.

It is somewhere in the front and the language goes like this (loose paraphrase)--"Nothing in this manual shall be construed as requiring the erection of a sign."

I think the real intent of § 2D.10 is not to require the signing of hidden routes, or the provision of continuity of signing, but rather to prevent agencies from using something other than a route marker as the sole means of identifying a numbered highway.  An example of this might be using an isolated sign reading "You are now on Route No. 2" as the only means of identifying Route 2.