Should U.S. Routes and Interstates run concurrent?

Started by Scott5114, November 17, 2009, 05:31:27 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Scott5114

Serious Debate Thread™ time. Branching off a topic in the Rockies forum. Question of the day is:

When an Interstate is introduced to a U.S. route corridor, what should happen to the old U.S. route? Should it be moved onto the new Interstate, or left on the old alignment? What if the Interstate was built by directly upgrading the old road? And if they are co-routed, should they be signed?

Let's try and use examples and citations to justify our positions.



I am against the routing of U.S. routes with Interstates generally, but for practical reasons.

Take a look at US-77 and I-35's relationship in Oklahoma. This is a direct result of Governor Henry Bellmon's policy when the interstate was being built–the interstate was to be within one mile of US-77 at all times but not subsume it.[1] This was done to protect the US-77 towns in Southern Oklahoma. As a result, we now have a good-quality state highway running parallel to the interstate throughout the entire state. As a result, if you encounter any traffic problems, construction, or incident along I-35, it is incredibly trivial to bail on 35 and take 77 instead to bypass the incident.

This is a good use of the number, as opposed to simply tacking it onto the freeway as some sort of anachronistic dinosaur. Consider US-81...for most of Kansas, US-81 is subservient to I-135. Think anyone actually uses the 81 number for navigation? No...people direct others onto I-135 and follow I-135. There's really no use in corouting them. May as well leave 81 on the old alignment and keep it around as an alternate for the Interstate.

[1] McNichol, Dan. The Roads That Built America
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef


TheStranger

As strange as this sounds, I think the case of Route 66 actually fits your example just as well Scott - so the route is decomissioned by 1985, but just a few years later the "historic" signage starts popping up everywhere (most notable example I can think of is actual, modern US 66 shields on current State Route 66 in San Bernardino County).  With so much of it signed as "historic," why not have it as a mapped/official alternate to the freeway routes, especially when in some cases (Oklahoma) the replacement state route of the same number does do this task already?

Eastern states seem to have taken this route much more than western states, i.e. I-87 and US 9, I-80 and US 46, I-78 and US 22.
Chris Sampang

City

I don't think that interstates and US rotues should be cosigned. Interstates are a big influence. Let's say you were driving down an interstate that was cosigned with a US highway. You get lost. You take the nearest exit with services, and ask for directions. You will almost always hear someone who lives near such a interstate/US duplex refer to the interstate's number over the US route's number.

Another thing to point out is that how many state DOTs sign an interstate/US concurrence. They vaguely sign the US route, but obviously sign the interstate route (Let's except unsigned interstates, here). Wanna know if the US route already left? Has the duplex started? You won't know.

TheStranger

Quote from: City on November 17, 2009, 05:54:33 PM
I don't think that interstates and US rotues should be cosigned. Interstates are a big influence. Let's say you were driving down an interstate that was cosigned with a US highway. You get lost. You take the nearest exit with services, and ask for directions. You will almost always hear someone who lives near such a interstate/US duplex refer to the interstate's number over the US route's number.

The only counterexample I can think of is US 40/I-64 in St. Louis, given that I-64 was introduced to that freeway much later in its history...
Chris Sampang

Brandon

It seems to depend on the state.  Personally, I don't think they should be run on the same road since I think an alternate is always a good idea.  However, here is how they seem to be done in a few states,

Illinois routes them (for the most part) on their own road, separate from the interstate.  Examples of this would be US-40 along I-70, US-6 along I-80, and US-150 along I-74.  In a few places they have been combined with the interstate such as US-51 concurrent with I-39.  However, that was done because the freeway was originally meant to be US-51.  I-39 was tacked on later.  My thoughts?  Put US-51 back on IL-251 from Bloomington to South Beloit.

Indiana seems to be inconsistent.  Some, the US routes around Indianapolis, US-6 in the Calumet Region, are routed concurrent with the local interstates.  Others, US-31 along I-65, are on their own roads.  Still yet others, US-27, get decommissioned.

Michigan seems to go for the decommissioning route.  US-27 was decommissioned due to the concurrency with I-69.  US-16 was done for the same reason as it paralleled I-96.  Ditto for US-10 south of Bay City, US-25, and US-2 north of St Ignace.  US-12 was moved onto US-112 to avoid decommissioning.  The freeways were originally built as US-xx Relocated (I-94 is US-12 Relocated).

Wisconsin seems to have both concurrency and separation, and some decommissioning, a la Indiana.  US-141 was decommissioned south of Green Bay while US-41 and US-51 share substantial pavement with interstates.  US-12 and US-18 have their own roads.
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

"Symbolic of his struggle against reality." - Reg

Bryant5493

U.S. 19 merges with I-285 between Georgia 400 and S.R. 9/Roswell Road.

Also, U.S. 41 and I-75 are co-signed in South Georgia, around Valdosta, I think.


Be well,

Bryant
Check out my YouTube page (http://youtube.com/Bryant5493). I have numerous road videos of Metro Atlanta and other areas in the Southeast.

I just signed up on photobucket -- here's my page (http://s594.photobucket.com/albums/tt24/Bryant5493).

TheStranger

Brandon: In Indiana's case, they have that state-maintenance milage cap which explains the lack of through numbered highways on surface streets in Indianapolis (and the resultant unsigned concurrencies on I-465).

California aggressively went the route of decomissioning as a result of having several major duplicates (US 80, US 40) - interesting considering that Illinois has always had both US 24 and I-24 from the start, on opposite ends of the state.  (California did propose some alternative numbering from the federal plan - i.e. I-76 for I-80, I-30 for I-40, I-7 and I-11 for a segment of I-5W (now I-505) and all of I-5/I-5E - had I-30 been approved for I-40, I think the gap between I-44 and I-64 in the grid would have been resolved! - so I suspect they originally hoped to retain both, but then decided against it when 80 and 40 became the interstate #s in use.)

Chris Sampang

Bryant5493

Additionally, U.S. 278 is co-signed with I-20, between S.R. 124 and Covington.

---

To answer your question, it doesn't bother me. Sometimes, it's a quicker way to move the route along.


Be well,

Bryant
Check out my YouTube page (http://youtube.com/Bryant5493). I have numerous road videos of Metro Atlanta and other areas in the Southeast.

I just signed up on photobucket -- here's my page (http://s594.photobucket.com/albums/tt24/Bryant5493).

agentsteel53

yes, yes they should.  then the old route is forgotten, and lots of old signs are conveniently left unreplaced. 
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

rickmastfan67

Quote from: City on November 17, 2009, 05:54:33 PM
Another thing to point out is that how many state DOTs sign an interstate/US concurrence. They vaguely sign the US route, but obviously sign the interstate route (Let's except unsigned interstates, here). Wanna know if the US route already left? Has the duplex started? You won't know.

PennDOT does it all the time.  US-22/30 are well posted along I-376 (well except they aren't shown on the BGS's unless they are leaving the highway).

Rover_0

#10
I personally think in (generally) shorter cases where there is no other available facility, putting the US Route on the Interstate is the best bet.  After all, US Routes are supposed carry the heaviest traffic flow along a given route that usually isn't served by an Interstate.  Some good examples of this are I-15/US-6, I-15/US-50, and I-70/US-89 in Utah (all are well-signed except the I-15/US-50 portion).

My problem is when a state just decides to run a US Route along an Interstate for pretty much its entire portion in that given state when there are some available facilities.  These routes are often forgot about and unsigned.  The ultimate example is US-85 only existing in AASHTO logs in New Mexico.  Other cases include I-25/US-87 in Colorado and Wyoming and potentially I-70/US-50 in Utah (though the only other reasonable facility, UT-24, would take drivers over 40, maybe 50 miles south of I-70 at some points, but it would be the only option).


The solutions to the problems, in my opinion, would be to reroute the US Routes like US-85 in NM/CO and US-87 in CO along a route that roughly parallels the Interstate, in case of traffic problems, etc.

That's the reason why I mentioned in the Rocky Mountain thread that routing US-85 along CO-86 and CO-83 back to I-25 just before the Springs (provided that CoDOT would get control of the Interquest Parkway from CO-21/83 to I-25) could be a good alternative to I-25 while giving it some of its own pavement.  As far as I know, CO-83 never really ventures too far from I-25 once out of greater Denver, staying within about 20 miles the whole way to Colorado Springs.  In New Mexico, sending US-85 down NM-3 and US-54 to El Paso would still end it within the vicinity of its original southern terminus while giving it a route of its own.

Then again, if I had my way with US-87, then I might instead completely reroute it down US-191 and split the Harve/Great Falls/US-191, US-191/MT-200/Billings (MT), and Clayton, NM/Port Lavaca, TX portions among separate state and US Routes.  Going from Billings, MT to Raton, NM with only 2 independant portions of pavement is way too long for a US Route to be concurrently routed along an Interstate, unless it is given a significant portion of independant pavement (which it isn't).

To sum it all up: There are some cases where there isn't an easy answer (I-70/US-50, UT), or even an answer at all(I-70/US-6, CO), but I think that some state DOTs should examine and see what facilities are available to route the US Route in a somewhat parallel manner to the Interstate.
Fixing erroneous shields, one at a time...

corco

QuoteMy problem is when a state just decides to run a US Route along an Interstate for pretty much its entire portion in that given state when there are some available facilities.  These routes are often forgot about and unsigned.  The ultimate example is US-85 only existing in AASHTO logs in New Mexico.  Other cases include I-25/US-87 in Colorado and Wyoming and potentially I-70/US-50 in Utah (though the only other reasonable facility, UT-24, would take drivers over 40, maybe 50 miles south of I-70 at some points, but it would be the only option).

As a Wyoming resident, I take offense to that. :no:  US-87 A) deviates from I-25 from Casper to Glenrock and B) is incredibly well signed throughout the whole state 

mightyace

IMHO I prefer the US route to stay on the "old road" unless the interstate was built on top of it.  Like several others have said, it provides an easily distinguishable alternate route.

Tennessee generally leaves the US route off the interstate, though there are exceptions.

Some of them are (NOT a comprehensive list.)
US 19W and 23 following I-26 (former I-181). (well signed)
I-24 and US 64 (Not well signed)
I-24 and US 41A between exits 134 and 135.  (no reassurance signs, but proximity of exits make that unnecessary)
I-24 and US 27 in Chattanooga (not well signed)
I-65 and US 31 from Exit 1 in TN to Exit 354 in AL. (totally unsigned)



My Flickr Photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mightyace

I'm out of this F***KING PLACE!

akotchi

IMHO, in cases where the original alignment of a U.S. route was moved to a freeway alignment, then co-signed with a new Interstate route number, the U.S. route should be moved back to the original aligment, such as U.S. 220 in central Pennsylvania, and U.S. 50 in Maryland (reveal I-595).  Many of these original alignments are still state highways or business routes.
Opinions here attributed to me are mine alone and do not reflect those of my employer or the agencies for which I am contracted to do work.

corco

I like the Oregon model for dealing with US/interstate concurrencies. That is, especially in the mountain west where long stretches of old alignments are usually unavailable, use US Routes as business loops in lieu of green interstates, where they leave the interstate to run through towns.

In instances where an old alignment runs parallel but is no longer state maintained, run along the interstate. I get irritated, though, when I see an old alignment designated as a state highway with the US Route running along the interstate. If we're going to keep it up to standards, you may as well give it the US designation- if for no reason other to save on signage costs (why have three routes on two alignments when you can have two)

Mostly though, I just want to see them signed no matter where they run- especially in states like Colorado that just ignore them when they're on interstates

froggie

Long concurrencies should be dealt with by either truncating the US route or rerouting it to a parallel corridor farther away.

Though policymakers and some roadgeeks may think otherwise, the US route system really was subsumed by the Interstates.  In a nutshell, they've lost a focus.

That isn't to say that they couldn't again have a focus.  IMO, NHS corridors and major INTERregional corridors that aren't served by an Interstate would be a good purpose for the modern US route.

Alas, those waters have been muddied by states that don't prune routes already paralleling Interstate corridors (a large number of them), routes of dubious value (US 159 comes to mind), or routes created by overzealous transportation departments (Arkansas, anyone?).

Scott brought up a point in the original post about routes paralleling Interstates that could serve as an alternative in the event of an incident along the Interstate.  All well and good, but I'm of the opinion that it doesn't have to be a US route.  Any numbered route will fit that bill.  Minnesota, for example, does quite well with county routes that parallel the Interstate in the case of incidents.

shadyjay

US 6 through western and central Connecticut is paired with I-84 WAY TOO MUCH.  If you have to jump on the interstate to cross the river, that's one thing, but when a perfectly good surface road exists adjacent, but the US route is "signed" on the interstate... then that just gets me. 

And I use the word "signed" loosely.  If you've tried to follow US 6 from Farmington to Manchester CT, you'll know what I mean!

Scott5114

Quote from: froggie on November 17, 2009, 10:55:24 PM
Scott brought up a point in the original post about routes paralleling Interstates that could serve as an alternative in the event of an incident along the Interstate.  All well and good, but I'm of the opinion that it doesn't have to be a US route.  Any numbered route will fit that bill.  Minnesota, for example, does quite well with county routes that parallel the Interstate in the case of incidents.


True, it doesn't have to be a U.S. Route, but having it be a U.S. Route helps provide assurance that "yes, this road isn't going to randomly terminate in the middle of some town you've never heard of". It also helps continue the history of the old route.

If there's going to be a long concurrency between US and I routes due to on-the-spot upgrading, I'd just as soon have the U.S. route truncated.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

exit322

And then you have messed up ol' Akron again with the I-76/277 US 224 concurrency where most people still call it "Route 224."

Even on ads, like the rather common radio ads for the Fred Martin Superstore off "Route 224 exit 16."

I've tried giving people directions using I-76, and that throws people off.  "What?  What?"  "How about 224?"  "Oh, yeah!"

Leave it to Akron.

froggie

QuoteTrue, it doesn't have to be a U.S. Route, but having it be a U.S. Route helps provide assurance that "yes, this road isn't going to randomly terminate in the middle of some town you've never heard of". It also helps continue the history of the old route.

Since the "reroute-in-case-of-incident option" would likely be for just for a few exits, I don't see the "random termination" bit being a problem, especially if there's adequate trailblazer signage along the side route.  Or you simply do what states such as Pennsylvania (with their colored alternate routes) or Wisconsin (with "Alternate I-94" signed along parts of US 12) have done.

Again, it doesn't have to be a U.S. route, especially since if we're strictly following AASHTO's definition of the purpose of the U.S. highway system, i.e. "to facilitate travel on the main interstate lines, over the shortest routes and the best roads", then the U.S. routes would be co-located along the Interstates anyway, since those are the "best roads" and often the "shortest routes".


Cases where I could see keeping the parallel U.S. route:

- as a toll-free route in cases where the Interstate is tolled.  Examples include much of US 20, US 9W south of Albany, and US 1 between NH and Portland, ME.  This argument could also be made for reinstating US 66 between OKC and Joplin, MO.

- where the U.S. route is a 4-lane corridor in its own right.  US 1 between Richmond, VA and Baltimore, MD is an example of this, as is US 40 between Baltimore and Wilmington.

- Where the U.S. route is on the National Highway System.  An example of this is the stretch of US 202/206 in Jersey that closely parallels I-287.

- where the U.S. route is far enough away from the Interstate where it has independent utility.  US 1 between Baltimore and Philly is an example of this.

Mr_Northside

#20
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on November 17, 2009, 07:46:48 PM
PennDOT does it all the time.  US-22/30 are well posted along I-376 (well except they aren't shown on the BGS's unless they are leaving the highway).

The only respect PennDOT gives US 22/30 in the I-376 (and former I-279) duplex (& triplex) is pretty much just the roadside shields.  I-79 & PA-51 use signs before the junction saying "22/30 Follow 376".  Most approaching entrance ramps completely ignore them and refer only to 376. (EX: The BGS's for the ramps to the Parkway from the Blvd. of the Allies refer only to I-376, as do most junctions)
(EDIT- It seems I've just said in a lot more words what the quoted post said.)


Quote from: akotchi on November 17, 2009, 08:31:45 PM
IMHO, in cases where the original alignment of a U.S. route was moved to a freeway alignment, then co-signed with a new Interstate route number, the U.S. route should be moved back to the original aligment, such as U.S. 220 in central Pennsylvania

I agree with this... And this example in particular.  You can maybe keep "Business 220" in Altoona, where it seems more appropriate because of all the businesses, but otherwise I'd put it back where it was.

Quoteand U.S. 50 in Maryland (reveal I-595).  Many of these original alignments are still state highways or business routes.

I will have to completely disagree with this specific example.  I support with the decision not to sign this particular interstate (and leave it as 50). 
I don't have opinions anymore. All I know is that no one is better than anyone else, and everyone is the best at everything

Alex

I agree with the posts referencing the parallel alignments as U.S. highways for alternate routes in case of incidents. I have done this a number of times where I leave the Interstate and follow the U.S. highway to avoid traffic congestion, accidents, etc. One such case was along U.S. 29 through Gaffney, SC.

Another case, and this is only because I researched it ahead of time, was along Interstate 95 in southern South Carolina. There is a stretch where U.S. 17 merges onto the freeway, leaving no signed alternate. This particular stretch is just four lanes and subject to increasing traffic congestion. Throw and incident or a holiday in there and potential gridlock ensues.

One trip back I noted the congestion and followed the old alignment of U.S. 17, which you have to know about ahead of time to take. While drivers along I-95 trudged at 15 mph, I continued south at 65 mph on the two-lane frontage road. Once U.S. 17 officially split from Interstate 95, 10 tractor trailers immediately departed the freeway for the parallel two-lane road. I was still able to go faster than the freeway, but it was obvious that drivers were following signed U.S. 17 to avoid the congestion.

Having county or state roads with differing numbers works for those well informed, but the general public is not loaded with roadgeeks, and having one number, i.e. a U.S. highway to follow, will work at mitigating congestion around incidents with an alternate route.

hbelkins

I guess I am sort of an odd duck here in that I think the US highways numbering scheme should be reserved for routes that are not parallel to an Interstate since the US numbered highway system was the "interstate" system before the "Interstate" system was built.

I think that any US route that closely parallels an Interstate for a significant distance should be decommissioned or truncated. Case in point is US 11. From its southern terminus in Louisiana it is never more than a few miles away from I-59, I-24, I-75, I-40 or I-81. In a few places it is actually signed on the Interstate. Nowhere does it carry interstate traffic with the possible exception of the E-W split in Tennessee. I would decommission it from its southern terminus at least to the Harrisburg, Pa. area.

If there are chunks of US highway that parallel Interstates for a few miles but carry regional or interstate traffic, I'd sign them on the Interstates. US 60 is a good example. It crosses the southern portion of Missouri as a major through route and enters Kentucky after briefly going through Illinois and once it gets to Louisville, it parallels I-64 all the way to past Charleston, WV. I'd put US 60 on I-264 (the Watterson Expressway was originally built as a US 60 bypass) and I-64, have it keep its Midland Trail alignment, stick it back on I-64 from Sam Black Church, WV all the way to Lexington, Va., let it fly solo to Richmond, then stick it back on I-64 all the way to the Hampton Roads area. The state could label the old route with any number it wanted and maps would still show it as a viable alternative in case of an incident.

I'd also kill US 19 north of where Corridor L merges into I-79 in West Virginia. How much through traffic uses US 19 between Flatwoods, WV and Erie, Pa. anyway? And I'd kill US 25 north of Corbin, Ky. I'd turn US 25E into US 25 and either sign US 25W as a state route or, if needed, extend US 129 north from Knoxville.

The US route system is supposed to be an interstate highway network for through traffic. Lots of the existing routes, not near an interstate, serve that purpose nicely. In my area US 27, US 19, US 35, US 29, US 119, US 460, US 23 and any number of other routes still serve their original purpose. The ones that don't should either be signed on the Interstates or done away with. I know some will consider that heresy but so be it.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

TheStranger

HB: What would your thoughts then be on the US 31W/31E split?  It seems that 31E runs significantly more independent of I-65 than 31W, though both take entirely different corridors north from about Elizabethtown to Louisville (with Route 61 paralleling the old KY Turnpike)...
Chris Sampang

hbelkins

Quote from: TheStranger on November 18, 2009, 02:31:00 PM
HB: What would your thoughts then be on the US 31W/31E split?  It seems that 31E runs significantly more independent of I-65 than 31W, though both take entirely different corridors north from about Elizabethtown to Louisville (with Route 61 paralleling the old KY Turnpike)...

AASHTO frowns on the splits. Concerning the 31E-31W split, 31E really is a major north-south corridor and large chunks of it have been improved. 31W from Nashville to E-town is really a parallel route to I-65 and doesn't carry through or regional traffic. Between E-town and Louisville, however, it sees a lot of traffic since Ft. Knox is in the middle.

If the split should be done away with, I'd put 31 on the eastern corridor and downgrade the western corridor to a state route.

And no, I'm not going to sing an ode to "US Federal Route Thirty-One Dub" to accompany a crappy video...
:pan:


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.



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.