I suspect with the increased usage of GPS/Navigation units in cars and trucks, that more and more drivers will rely upon these gadgets over anything else to get around. Not only will they help phase out the paper map industry as we know it, but eventually I see them phasing out the need for many of the signed routes that we have in our cities today. California already sort of has this attitude that unless its either a rural route or a freeway, that a state highway should not be signed otherwise. Look at the demise of State Routes 209 and 273 in San Diego, State Route 42 in Los Angeles, etc.

As more and more use GPS units, there will be less and less of a need for numbered routes in cities, as the use of street names will suffice just the same. So I expect in the coming years that more U.S. highways will be truncated or syphoned onto freeways, more and more state routes will be truncated or segmented (ala South Dakota 42 through Sioux Falls), and more and more routes will be turned over to city maintenance, leaving numbered routes outside the city or relegated to its freeway system. In the cases where its a mileage swap with the state for other projects, it will be more easily justified when the need for signed routes in cities is diminished.

I wish this were not the case, as I find following the alignment of a state or U.S. route through a city one of the more enjoyable aspects of roadding. Being relegated to a secondary route on a freeway is just about useless otherwise.

Thoughts?