Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[rickmastfan67]

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?

US-19 is extremely well used between Washington, PA and Zelienople, PA.

[mightyace]

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.

Hmm.  I lived in the Akron/Cuyahoga Falls area for 10 years (1985-1995) and I didn't run into any of what you said.

I'm not trying to say the you're wrong.  I'm just wondering why you and I have had completely opposite experiences.

[mightyace]

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.

By your criteria, it would make sense to remove it up to Harrisburg, PA.  But, it definitely should remain between Harrisburg and Scranton.  US 11 follows the Susquehanna River valley the entire way while I-81 goes from mountaintop to mountaintop many miles to the east.  In the winter time, US 11 can be a much safer route than I-81 between H'burg and Scranton.

Of course, North of Scranton, US 11 and I-81 closely parallel each other until 11 turns eastward in far upstate New York.  In that case, you could decommission all of US 11.  The stretch east of I-81 could be a East-West state route or 3dus (US x02 or x09?).  And, 11 could be removed from the concurrency with US 15 between Harrisburg and the Sunbury area.  That stretch of 11 between Sunbury and Scranton could be also be given a predominant state or 3dus route #. (US x15 or x06?)  Or, even reroute US 15 to Scranton as it the current routing will likely be truncated in Williamsport once I-99 is finished.

[Hellfighter]

I say bring back US-40 to extend along I-80 from Salt Lake City to Oakland as an emergency route.

[corco]

I say bring back US-40 to extend along I-80 from Salt Lake City to Oakland as an emergency route.

Along what alignment? Lots of I-80 in that stretch was built directly over US-40

[agentsteel53]

maybe along 40A over Beckwourth Pass?  Now California state route 70.

[Revive 755]

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.

A few years ago IDOT rerouted US 51 onto I-57 between IL 3 and a new interchange just north of Dongola.  Here the old US 51 alignment was extremely narrow:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=37.328809,-89.156628&spn=0,359.890137&z=14&layer=c&cbll=37.338375,-89.170736&panoid=ktFvCuNlsYrKahfKb8UWBA&cbp=12,348.36,,0,10.63

The case of I-72 and US 36 west of Springfield is mostly the same as that for I-39 and US 51, with the freeway originally being intended for US 36 alone.  East of Springfield I'm not sure though whether I-72 was constructed first and US 36 relocated onto the route, or a freeway for US 36 built and the I-72 designation acquired later.

I'm guessing the concurrence of I-70 and US 40 at the Indiana border is due to part of the original US 40 alignment being absorbed by I-70 starting just short of the state line.
In Missouri, most of the concurrences are due to the US Route being upgraded into the interstate.  Exceptions are found for US 50 in the St. Louis area and probably a few in Kansas City where the original route had been turned over to the city.

Then there can be states like Kansas, where I believe most of the US - Interstate concurrences are due to the [sarcasm]wonderful[/sarcasm] mileage cap.

[flowmotion]

I agree with Froggie's point that US highway system should reflect "the shortest routes and the best roads" between population centers. If that means that US highways become discontinuous, so be it. (They already effectively are because duplex signage is often missing or inconsistent.)

Roadgeeks may also tend to underestimate the implications of sign clutter, map clutter, and inconsistent signs on the average driver. IMO the importance of a high quality highway system outweighs any particular hobbiest concerns.

[leifvanderwall]

I have mixed feelings on his topic. I feel that US 87 and US 85 have no business being signed with I-25 out west, but as far as roads like US 11 & US 19 are concerned I would leave them be. Yes the interstate is right there but US 19 & US 11 go through population centers. It's sort of like the conflict with Michigan removing US 12 after 94 was built- today, Michigan could have used the old US 12 routing going through K'zoo, Battle Creek, Jackson, and Ann Arbor. Florida is one of those states also that leaves the US routings where they are despite an interstate being a mile away like US 90, US 41, & US 92

[Duke87]

I say bring back US-40 to extend along I-80 from Salt Lake City to Oakland as an emergency route.

Along what alignment? Lots of I-80 in that stretch was built directly over US-40

Run it concurrent with 80 where the old alignment was assimilated or is no longer passable.

Actually, I like this approach in general. Business loop "interstates" bother me as they are mere surface streets and are thus not worthy of an interstate designation. Use the old US route instead.

Although, when you have miles and miles at a time of an interstate being built right on top of an old US route or the old road getting abandoned, it probably is best to downplay the concurrency. Nobody but a roadgeek would ever be trying to follow US 40 from Salt Lake City to Oakland, so you don't need reassurance shields along the freeway. And indeed, that would only serve to deemphasize I-80 and unnecessarily clutter up shield assemblies. US 40 can be allowed to appear to blip in and out of existence exactly the same way BL 80 does.
Really, just the old surface bits are actually functionally important. The parts where it's on the freeway only need carry the designation for the sake of continuity, and it's fine if that designation is kept merely on paper and left implied in the field.

[agentsteel53]

Although, when you have miles and miles at a time of an interstate being built right on top of an old US route or the old road getting abandoned, it probably is best to downplay the concurrency. Nobody but a roadgeek would ever be trying to follow US 40 from Salt Lake City to Oakland, so you don't need reassurance shields along the freeway. And indeed, that would only serve to deemphasize I-80 and unnecessarily clutter up shield assemblies. US 40 can be allowed to appear to blip in and out of existence exactly the same way BL 80 does.
Really, just the old surface bits are actually functionally important. The parts where it's on the freeway only need carry the designation for the sake of continuity, and it's fine if that designation is kept merely on paper and left implied in the field.

sounds like how US-50 and I-70 coexist in Utah.  50 isn't signed nearly as often.  The only exception being, 50 does not go into towns - Bus Loop 70 does.

[florida]

Like other have said, leaving the US routes on their original alignments does allow for an alternative. Down here, having a county route be an alternative to an interstate isn't the best idea as some are maintained hideously. It's all about connectivity.

[froggie]

Down here, having a county route be an alternative to an interstate isn't the best idea as some are maintained hideously. It's all about connectivity.

Make it a state route then, if county routes are so poor down there.  That problem doesn't exist in other states, though...Upper Midwest in particular.

[Mr_Northside]

Like other have said, leaving the US routes on their original alignments does allow for an alternative. Down here, having a county route be an alternative to an interstate isn't the best idea as some are maintained hideously. It's all about connectivity.

Sometimes it's nice to have the more "original" alternative just for the hell of it.
A few years back the family & I headed down to near Harrisonburg VA, and not being in any kind of hurry at all, we decided to take US-11 (from S of Winchester) just for "fun".

[florida]

Down here, having a county route be an alternative to an interstate isn't the best idea as some are maintained hideously. It's all about connectivity.

Make it a state route then, if county routes are so poor down there.  That problem doesn't exist in other states, though...Upper Midwest in particular.

Don't tell me, tell FDOT 

[US71]

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?

Tough call. There are a few instances in Louisiana where the Interstate was built on top of a US Route (I-10/US 90). What do we do then? The co-route IS signed, BTW. One prime example is Calcasieu River near Lake Charles.

[The High Plains Traveler]

I'm a believer in one highway = one designation. If a U.S. route uses an interstate concurrently for a relatively short distance before taking off in another direction, then that's one thing - for example, U.S. 71 on I-29 north of Kansas City. That only covers about 70 miles.  But, U.S. 52 on I-94 in North Dakota and Minnesota for 340 miles with no independent segment of its own, I think that's too long. The U.S. 52 segment in North Dakota really has no continuity with the segment in Minnesota. Now, if you were to propose replacing U.S. 10 in Minnesota with 52, thus reducing the concurrency to 90 miles or so in North Dakota, I might think differently about it.

I also disagree with using Interstate-concurrent U.S. routes as business routes, either posted as Business (U.S. Route) like Kansas or as the mainline. Nothing wrong or difficult to understand with an interstate business route, since by definition that is a surface street that (usually) provides a loop through an urban area. But, how much do through travelers really use business routes, especially in larger towns? Travel-oriented business have largely relocated from main streets to locations near and visible from freeways, because that's where the business is coming from.

The interstate system has created numbering redundancies, but this is an opportunity to fine tune some of the U.S. highway system to correct some awkward routings imposed in the 1920s and 1930s. Maybe that's another thread altogether...

[xonhulu]

The interstate system has created numbering redundancies, but this is an opportunity to fine tune some of the U.S. highway system to correct some awkward routings imposed in the 1920s and 1930s. Maybe that's another thread altogether...

I'm not sure what you mean by "awkward routings."  What do you think are examples of this?  When an interstate was routed along an existing US Highway, doesn't that imply it had a pretty important routing?

[thenetwork]

Like other have said, leaving the US routes on their original alignments does allow for an alternative. Down here, having a county route be an alternative to an interstate isn't the best idea as some are maintained hideously. It's all about connectivity.

I'm all for keeping a US route off the Interstate counterpart route if at all possible.

1)  It does provide for a marked alternative route in the event of a traffic alternative or a marked detour route. 

I have been one of many who were stuck in interstate traffic, seeing what looked to be a parallel highway or frontage road that could bypass or travel faster than the pace on the freeway, only to find that the road either does not return to the interstate at a further point or goes in a whole different direction.  Or on the flip side, not taking a chance on a paralleling road, continuing to suffer through the traffic mess and then finding out that there was a perfectly good alternative road I could have taken.

2)  It should be marked as a paralleling through route (especially in sparsely populated areas with equally sparse roads) for those vehicles that may not be suitable for interstate traffic (slower vehicles and people who just don't like driving the interstates). 

3) If, like others said, the freeway was built atop the original alignment, then that section should be fully marked on all signage for that stretch of interstate for the route(s) involved, and when there is an opportunity for the old US highway to return to a regular road, then the exit should be labeled as such -- something that is overlooked by C-DOT in Colorado, especially on I-70.

[agentsteel53]

I have been one of many who were stuck in interstate traffic, seeing what looked to be a parallel highway or frontage road that could bypass or travel faster than the pace on the freeway, only to find that the road either does not return to the interstate at a further point or goes in a whole different direction.  Or on the flip side, not taking a chance on a paralleling road, continuing to suffer through the traffic mess and then finding out that there was a perfectly good alternative road I could have taken.

yes, but then people will know about it and that, too, will get just as clogged.  There should be some advantage to carrying a 1947 map around!

[vdeane]

Even a US route is not a guaranteed alternative.  Let's say you were traveling on I-90 east in NY and heard that there were huge backups in Buffalo.  So you go onto US 20 to avoid it.  Good luck getting back though - once you hit Buffalo, I-90 and US 20 diverge, not to meet again until Albany!

[The High Plains Traveler]

The interstate system has created numbering redundancies, but this is an opportunity to fine tune some of the U.S. highway system to correct some awkward routings imposed in the 1920s and 1930s. Maybe that's another thread altogether...

I'm not sure what you mean by "awkward routings."  What do you think are examples of this?  When an interstate was routed along an existing US Highway, doesn't that imply it had a pretty important routing?

U.S. 87, for one. It bears almost due north-south from Montana, eventually joining what became I-90 and I-25. But then, when it again becomes an independent route at Raton NM, it bears sharply southeast into Texas. It finally ends up east of San Antonio. This was a mid-1930s addition to the system.

If one were to redraw 87 to eliminate its 600 mile concurrency with Interstates, one could bring it down through central Wyoming and (as another poster in this thread suggested) replace at least part of U.S. 191. As I said before, what you could do with the rest of the orphaned sections is probably another topic.
 

[agentsteel53]

U.S. 87, for one. It bears almost due north-south from Montana, eventually joining what became I-90 and I-25. But then, when it again becomes an independent route at Raton NM, it bears sharply southeast into Texas. It finally ends up east of San Antonio. This was a mid-1930s addition to the system.

If one were to redraw 87 to eliminate its 600 mile concurrency with Interstates, one could bring it down through central Wyoming and (as another poster in this thread suggested) replace at least part of U.S. 191. As I said before, what you could do with the rest of the orphaned sections is probably another topic.
 

87 between Denver and the Gulf of Mexico is an important enough truck route to merit a single number.  It was the original Colorado to Gulf Highway (as was US-287; one was mountainous and the other was windy over the prairie - drivers could decide which one they wanted).

[The High Plains Traveler]

U.S. 87, for one. It bears almost due north-south from Montana, eventually joining what became I-90 and I-25. But then, when it again becomes an independent route at Raton NM, it bears sharply southeast into Texas. It finally ends up east of San Antonio. This was a mid-1930s addition to the system.

If one were to redraw 87 to eliminate its 600 mile concurrency with Interstates, one could bring it down through central Wyoming and (as another poster in this thread suggested) replace at least part of U.S. 191. As I said before, what you could do with the rest of the orphaned sections is probably another topic.
 

87 between Denver and the Gulf of Mexico is an important enough truck route to merit a single number.  It was the original Colorado to Gulf Highway (as was US-287; one was mountainous and the other was windy over the prairie - drivers could decide which one they wanted).

The modern version of that is now the Ports to Plains Highway (which is routed not on U.S. 87 all the way across Texas but rather further west, in part). It also uses U.S. 287 or U.S. 87 and I-25 from Amarillo north.

[xonhulu]

U.S. 87, for one. It bears almost due north-south from Montana, eventually joining what became I-90 and I-25. But then, when it again becomes an independent route at Raton NM, it bears sharply southeast into Texas. It finally ends up east of San Antonio. This was a mid-1930s addition to the system.

If one were to redraw 87 to eliminate its 600 mile concurrency with Interstates, one could bring it down through central Wyoming and (as another poster in this thread suggested) replace at least part of U.S. 191. As I said before, what you could do with the rest of the orphaned sections is probably another topic.

I could agree with this suggestion.  Of course, then US 491 has to change numbers yet again...