Going through my collection of post cards, I found a post card of Lincoln Monument in Wyoming:
Lincoln Monument at top of Sherman Hill between Cheyenne and Laramie on Interstate 80 (Lincoln Highway), Wyoming. This monument, completed in 1960, marks the highest point on the highway from coast to coast, elevation 8,878 feet..
Does anyone know of other highpoints of highways? I know there are signs on the Mass Turnpike mentioning its highest point and it being the highest point east of South Dakota
Another post card, postmarked 1956, says "Highest point on Roosevelt Highway in Pennsylvania" Between Coudersport and Galeton, Pa.
Pictured are two state markers. One says:
Denton Hill
Allegheny Range
Elevation 2424 ft.
The other marker states:
At this point the Roosevelt Highway crosses the summit of the Allegheny Mountains, marking the dividing line between the Atlantic and Mississippi drainage systems.
Water flowing from the surface of a small farm located at the summit of the mountain four miles north of this point, reaches the Genesee, the Allegheny and the Susquehanna Rivers, thus giving Potter County the unique distinction of contributing its waters to three of the four great drainage systems of our country.
The marker reportedly mentions that Potter County contributes waters to three of the four great drainage systems of our country, implying the Mississippi, Susquehanna, and Saint Lawrence are three of the four great drainage systems of our country.
Does anyone know which other drainage system would be considered the fourth? The Columbia? The Colorado? The Yukon? The Delaware? The Connecticut? California's Central Valley? The Kuskokwim? The Stikine? The Susitna? The Colville? The Copper? The Kobuk? The Red River of the North? The Colorado (in Texas)? Surely some of these should be considered great drainage systems when compared to the Susquehanna.
It seems to me that the marker is making either an exaggerated or an unsubstantiated claim.
Does anyone have any insight into how great drainage systems are ranked (length of river system, drainage area, volume of flow, etc.)?
The list I found is based on length of the river(s). For the U.S. they are:
1 - Mississippi/Missouri
2 - Yukon (starts in Canada)
3 - St. Lawrence (ends in Canada)
4 - Rio Grande
5 - Colorado
6 - Ohio-Allegeny (drains to the Mississippi)
7 - Columbia (begins in Canada)
If you view the Susquehanna as part of the Chesapeake Bay drainage, it clearly is a big one, probably the biggest in the country in terms of volume. The Susquehanna, Potomac, and James are all huge rivers. If you've stood on their banks near their mouths, you'd realize there is nothing like them in the West in terms of volume of water except the Columbia. And you've got lots of midsize rivers like the Elk, Rappahannock, Choptank, York, etc. I'd suspect the Chesapeake Bay drainage as number 1.
The Susquehanna drains 78,672 square miles of area, while the Mississippi drains 3,202,185 square miles. One can't see the volume of a river from it's banks. The Mississippi, for example, is 200 feet deep in New Orleans, while only a mile across. At low flow the Mississippi discharges 120,000 cubic feet per second! Here's the drainage areas of the rivers:
Mississippi - 3,202,185 sq. mi.
St. Lawrence - 1,049,636
Yukon - 847,620
Colorado - 703,148
Columbia - 657,501
Rio Grande - 607,965
Susquehanna - 78,672
Hudson - 41,906
you're all missing my point. 10,000 years ago the susquehanna flowed all the way to Norfolk. Now the river officially ends near Havre de Grace, but remainder of it, which has become the Chesapeake Bay, remains part of a huge drainage system. As I understood the road sign discussed in the original post, it referenced four "drainages." The Chesapeake system is not number 1 or number 2, but it seems entirely plausible to rate the Chesapeake drainage (and there are highway signs all over PA, DE and MD stating, now entering Chesapeake watershed) as one of the 4 largest. It covers essentially all of VA and MD, portions of DE, much of WV, a vast chunk of PA, and a big piece of NY.
So, which of the following is smaller than the Susquehanna/Chesapeake?
Missisippi (1,245,100-square mile drainage basin)
Saint Lawrence (396,000-square mile drainage basin)
Rio Grande (336,000-square mile drainage basin)
Yukon (328,000-square mile drainage basin)
Columbia (258,000-square mile drainage basin)
Colorado (246,000-square mile drainage basin)
Kuskokwim (48,000-square mile drainage basin)
Brazos (45,600-square mile drainage basin)
Mobile (44,600-square mile drainage basin)
Colorado (in Texas; 42,300-square mile drainage basin)
Susquehanna (27,200-square mile drainage basin)
By the way, the entire Chesapeake Bay drainage system, including the Susquehanna, the James, and the Potomac, is about 64,000 square miles in extent, or a little less than one-fifth the size of the fourth largest drainage basin of a single river in the U.S. (the Yukon).
Any way you slice it, the sign is inaccurate, even without finagling the terms of other drainage basins to include estuaries or sheltered bodies of water such as the Gulf of California, Long Island Sound, Delaware Bay, Cook Inlet, Puget Sound, Norton Sound, or San Francisco Bay.
That sign on the Massachusetts Turnpike portion of I-90 has always perplexed me. Forgive me if I have the details a little off, but the Turnpike passes a point in Beckett, MA, and there is a sign along the side of the road that states that the elevation (1,724 feet) is the highest point on the Mass Turnpike, and that this point is two feet below the highest point that I-90 reaches, which is in Oacoma, South Dakota (1,726 feet).
The highest point on I-90 cannot possibly be in Oacoma, South Dakota. I-90 passes into Wyoming and Montana on its way to the West Coast; the lowest point in each of these states is higher than 1,726 feet!
Q. Why do signs on the Turnpike in Becket say the next highest point is somewhere in South Dakota?
A. Those signs at mile marker 20 inform motorists that at that point they are traveling at an elevation of 1724 feet above sea level. There is no higher point on Interstate 90 until Oacoma, South Dakota, at 1729 feet above sea level.
Thank you very much...that's one mystery that's been put to bed!
Could the words "Last Highest Elevation" be any more confusing? Any why has the state put the sign up to begin with? Seriously, it'd be noteworthy if it was the highest point on I-90, etc. Those signs are expensive!
I know that Vermont has a sign for the highest point on US-7 near Manchester, and that Rhode Island has one for the highest point on state route 101...that one's real close to the state highpoint!
...on I-70 west of Denver, Colorado. The highest elevation on an Interstate is in a tunnel—the Eisenhower Memorial Tunnel that joins Summit and Clear Creek Counties. At its highest point, the road reaches 11,013 feet.
The Eisenhower Tunnel also claims the highest elevation of any vehicle tunnel in the world.
It is the longest bored tunnel on the Interstate System at 7,789 feet in length (1.5 miles).
I was going to guess that the top of Vail Pass on I-70 was the highest point, but I just found that the elevation there is just 10,666 -- lower than the Eisenhower Tunnel. I learn something new every day!
RSS Feed For This Forum
