News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered at https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=33904.0
Corrected several already and appreciate your patience as we work through the rest.

Main Menu

Differences between state and US highways

Started by huskeroadgeek, June 24, 2010, 05:25:55 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

J N Winkler

Quote from: english si on June 24, 2010, 07:08:41 PMTruvelo, would saying that US routes are like primary routes be sort of about right? With state roads as non-primary (which doesn't mean that they aren't busy, just that they aren't strategic). Obviously primary routes have their own colour signage and there's the trunk/non-trunk thing as well.

Speaking as an American with experience of both the US and British systems--no.  The two systems are not directly comparable.  In aggregate, the primary state highway system in a given US state is essentially the same as the trunk road system in Britain.  However, the most direct US equivalent to the primary route network in the UK or the reseau vert in France is the system of primary routes in a given state.  This is typically not distinguished by signage, but is generally shown on state highway maps using red lines for non-freeways, and typically includes freeways (including Interstates), US highways and certain select state highways which serve a through-traffic function.

Note that a primary route is not the same as a primary state highway.  Primary state highway is defined in contradistinction to secondary state highways (lettered routes in Missouri, circle routes in West Virginia, 600-series routes in Virginia, four-digit routes in Pennsylvania and New Mexico, and on and on ad nauseam).  A primary state highway may be part either of a primary route or a non-primary route, and the distinction will typically not be evident in signage, only in mapping and in specialization for through traffic.  A non-primary route will generally be shown on the state highway map using a black line.

In general, rural principal roads in the UK correspond to non-primary-route primary state highways in the US.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini


J N Winkler

Quote from: Truvelo on June 24, 2010, 05:43:28 PMAs a foreigner I first thought US highways were maintained by central government and state highways by the individual state.

The federal government in the US (equivalent to "central government" in an European country) has no large-scale direct involvement in road construction and maintenance.  Its financial participation in that has always been through a grant system--initially through the so-called "Seven Percent System," where states were expected to designate up to 7% of their total road mileage as eligible for federal grant in relation to the through-traffic function, and later through the US highway system.  Initially the US highways were eligible for 50% grants from the federal government for maintenance and improvement, which was not true for state highways.  Nowadays, as Mightyace has already noted, these old funding classifications no longer apply and funding is now based on network and improvement type classifications (NH, IM, STP, BRF, HSIP, . . .) which cut across the distinction in signing and mapping between state and US routes.

Note that the term "state highway" itself is a tricky expression, because in most states it has a separate legal meaning as well.  In the legal sense, a state highway is any highway for which the state government has ultimate responsibility.  That can be a state route, a US route, or an Interstate.  The sense in which "state highway" has been used within this thread is generally one of signing:  any state highway which has the shield which is generally used for primary state routes.  PennDOT, for example, is careful to maintain the distinction between the legal and practical definitions by reserving "state route" for the legal sense and "traffic route" for the route as signed.

QuoteNow though I believe they are all maintained by the state they're in and it's just used to denote a level of hierarchy. Road standard doesn't seem to come into it. Both US and state highways can be anything from 2-lane back streets to fully blown freeways.

The hierarchy is still intended to have a loose correspondence to specialization for through-traffic function.  This is why the US highway system does not scrape the barrel as aggressively in terms of design standards as the primary state highways in some states (New Mexico comes to mind--NM 159 and NM 503 are similar in construction to English country lanes, but are primary state highways).

QuoteI think I'm right in saying that there can't be a state and US highway with the same number in any state unless both follow the same route.

The rule exists (and, IIRC, does not have the exception you note), but is often broken.

QuoteTherefore could US highways be effectively eliminated leaving just Interstates and state highways? I know the purists won't accept it as the US highway shield is a part of American culture but from my experiences of driving in the US there's hardly any difference in quality between US and state highways.

As others have noted, the US route network still performs an orientative function which would be lost if it were removed altogether.  Its function is not, and arguably never has been, purely to indicate standard of improvement.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

Duke87

A lot of things about the US will make more sense if you compare us not to any individual European nation, but rather to the EU as a whole, taking US states to be equivalent to EU member states (this is considerably more accurate both in terms of legal structure and in terms of scale).

So, US Highways are like E-Roads. They are maintained by individual member states, but are continuous across the continent.
Continuing on the same logic, state highways are akin to any Eurpopean nation's national road network (e.g. British A- and B-roads).

Europe doesn't have anything like Interstates, however, as their motorway networks are a different system in each member state.
If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.

english si

Quote from: mightyace on June 24, 2010, 07:20:29 PM
Quote from: english si on June 24, 2010, 07:08:41 PM
Truvelo, would saying that US routes are like primary routes be sort of about right? With state roads as non-primary (which doesn't mean that they aren't busy, just that they aren't strategic).
Yes on US routes, but not necessarily on state routes.  As has been mentioned before, some US routes have been decommissioned into state routes and some state routes could easily qualify for US or Interstate status.  One example is the Northeast Extension of the Pennsylvania Turnpike.  It originally had no numbered designation, then was PA 9 and it now I-476.  I don't think that it suddenly became strategic when the put up the I-476 signs.

Sometimes a route is an SR for other reasons.  Some toll roads that would otherwise be Interstate are not because the state in question didn't want to go through the hassle of getting the exemption to sign it as an interstate.  TN 840 near me is a state route because it is being built entirely with state funds and, hence, is not subject to federal environmental laws and regulations, only state ones which are looser.
Thanks for answering my questions, mightyace.
Quote from: mightyace on June 24, 2010, 07:20:29 PM
Quote from: english si on June 24, 2010, 07:08:41 PM
Obviously primary routes have their own colour signage and there's the trunk/non-trunk thing as well.
I have not seen anything on US or SR signs to differentiate, especially color, to denote whether it's a through highway or not.
I was talking about the UK, where motorways have blue signs, primary routes green signs and non primary white signs. Trunk roads are nationally maintained, everything else is local authorities - all trunk roads are primary/motorway, not all motorways/primary routes are trunk and people have little way of knowing which is which, though normally trunk (and former trunk) routes are of a higher standard.

Rover_0

Quote from: CL on June 24, 2010, 07:07:05 PM
Utah is woefully ignorant in this regard. Many people refer to all routes (with the exception of interstates) as "highway," or (much less often) if they try to sound a bit more technical, "SR." The latter's fine. . .except when you're actually talking about a U.S. highway. All the time I see SR-6, SR-89, SR-40 in the media. Heck, I'd rather hear "Highway 89" than "SR-89". Our contractors have been known to make this mistake and often (okay, not often, but it sure is noticeable when they do) post state route shields meant for U.S. highways.

As an added note, whenever I have to give directions, I pointedly emphasize the "SR" or "US" part.

Yea, I hear that one a lot, too; in the Southern Utah News (based in Kanab, my hometown), this last week they referred to US-89 as "SR-89."  That one bugs me a lot.  Another time, I believe that they (or someone they quoted) once referred to UT-20 as "US-20."  I'm fine with "highway XX," as it's pretty straightforward, as there's no 2 highways, State and up, with exactly the same number.  In my book, State Routes are legitimate highways, though (often) woefully shorter than their US counterparts, as well as being somewhat of a lower grade of quality.  The Utah legislature has one "level" of routes--be it State, US, or Interstate--so you're not going to have two Route 15s or two Route 80s these days.

Many people within UDOT have said concerning my ideas to extend US-160 or US-64 west to I-15 and US-189 south to US-89 at Gunnison, UT that they are generally put off by the idea to renumber the roads, pretty much making them state routes.  This despite the fact that US Routes are supposed to carry the most direct, long-distance traffic across states where Interstates are not present (at least here out west, for the most part).
Fixing erroneous shields, one at a time...

froggie

Mr. Winkler and Duke87 did pretty good at explaining the situation and differences.  Nothing really new to add to that.

golden eagle

Quote from: golden eagle on June 24, 2010, 10:35:22 PM
Quote from: Truvelo on June 24, 2010, 05:43:28 PM
As a foreigner I first thought US highways were maintained by central government and state highways by the individual state. Now though I believe they are all maintained by the state they're in and it's just used to denote a level of hierarchy. Road standard doesn't seem to come into it. Both US and state highways can be anything from 2-lane back streets to fully blown freeways.

Some maintenance may even be county-funded. I say this because of U.S. 49 in central Mississippi. Hinds County resurfaced the highway a few years ago and Yazoo County recently finished resurfacing too. The portion of 49 that runs through Madison County, in between Yazoo and Hinds, hasn't had any resurfacing. Same with nearby Rankin County. The road is quite bumpy around the Piney Woods area, but is much smoother from the Simpson County line southward. However, don't quote me on how much the county maintains the highways (if they really do).

And looky here...went through Madison County yesterday and they are resurfacing U.S. 49. Yay!

froggie

That may not necessarily be a county-funded project.  Often (and I believe this is the case with MDOT), state DOTs delineate "control sections" or maintenance areas along a given state highway/route by county.  Thus, it's common to have projects on a given route end at the county line.

golden eagle

Quote from: froggie on June 27, 2010, 07:29:35 PM
That may not necessarily be a county-funded project.  Often (and I believe this is the case with MDOT), state DOTs delineate "control sections" or maintenance areas along a given state highway/route by county.  Thus, it's common to have projects on a given route end at the county line.

Not necessarily suggesting it's county-funded. Just that it was ironic I was talking about how the Madison County portion of the highway had not been resurfaced before driving through there yesterday and seeing the road crew out resurfacing.



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.