I keep seeing new interstates being built and US routes being decommissioned in favor of interstate highways, but have there ever been any new US routes being built recently, or will there be new ones in the future? Ever since the interstate highway system has been implemented, US routes have mostly been placed on the sidelines in favor of these interstates, so I'm wondering if US routes will ever earn a better place in our highway system in the future.
IMO, between the amount of interstates that have taken in a US highway's alignment/pavement, and states that have seen fit to truncate US highways, I'm not sure there will be much more than what we have left. And usually these days, whenever there is talk of getting a certain type of designation or highway type to serve a city or area, the campaigning and such is clearly on the side of interstates, new or extended. The only action I hear of lately as far as US highway changes, is maybe the here-and-there bypass or transformative widening--not a big extension lengthening it further down the map.
US 48. 2002-Now.
US412: 1982-now
US400: 1992-now
US425: 1989-now
US491: 2003-now (renumbered US 666)
US371: 1994-Now
US121: Proposed in WV
As you can see, US routes are still being proposed/built. Some are renumbering of former state highways into a system, some are new build roads.
The numbered route systems in each of the Lower 48 have existed now for several decades. At this point, unless the road is a new alignment (i.e. the proposed US 121 and most of US 48), you're unlikely to have new US routes because changing route numbers tends to lead to driver confusion, unless the relevant state DOT adds the US route designation on top of the already existing route numbers and does not replace those existing route numbers (also a case with most of US 48).
Aren't we due for a US 437?
^ Is there a multiregional corridor where an Interstate has been proposed but unlikely and the regions involved would accept a "consolation prize"?
The states have been giving the regional state numbers. Iowa and Missouri 27 for Ave. If Saints. I think there is MN and IA 60 for Minneapolis to Souix city. And NO and IL 110 for CKC.Froggie.
Quote from: froggie on February 07, 2019, 04:36:20 PM
^ Is there a multiregional corridor where an Interstate has been proposed but unlikely and the regions involved would accept a "consolation prize"?
maybe I-92
^^ When I said "multiregional" I was referring to something spread across more than 2 or 3 states. Even if that wasn't the case, MN/IA 60 would not apply as that has existed for several decades...Iowa took the effort MANY decades ago to match their state highway numbers at the border to Minnesota's.
That said, I can see MN/IA 60 as an extension of US 77.
My personal opinion if California was more open to having US Routes than the path of CA 88/NV 88 would make a hell of a X95 US Route given that Carson Pass is an all-year Trans-Sierra Highway. More so CA 88 gets pressed into duty as US 50A when the route over Echo Pass gets shut down for extended periods of time. The way I see it any new US Route being considered ought to be multi-state or at minimum traverse a major travel corridor (preferably over 300 miles) between US Routes/Interstates. There is still opportunities for such routes like that but as stated above already there isn't much of an emphasis on signed highways to drive a push for new US Routes.
Just hang out in Arkansas for a little while...a new US route is liable to pop up any minute. :-D :pan:
Quote from: cjk374 on February 15, 2019, 06:41:40 AM
Just hang out in Arkansas for a little while...a new US route is liable to pop up any minute. :-D :pan:
Other than some realignments of US-49/63 and the US-412 Bypass completion, I think we're pretty much done with any changes to the US highway system other than some city bypasses. US-412 was always supposed to be a temporary designation of a High Priority Corridor anyway, which would likely eventually lead to its promotion to interstate status, although it will likely only be portions of it in our lifetimes. I can see the stretch from I-44 in Tulsa to at least I-49 in NWA being upgraded to an I-50 or a 2di of a smaller number. I'd like to see it stretch to at least I-55 in my lifetime, but I don't hold out a lot of hope for anything really past Harrison realistically. US-65 is another I could see changing into an interstate in our lifetimes, maybe even before I-69 gets built here. There needs to be more diagonal freeways in the central part of the country to realistically knock mileage off interstate travel. There's already one from SW-NE running through Arkansas, so the US-65 corridor would be the most logical SE-N(W?) corridor due to the terrain of the Ozarks. And US-65 is already 4 lane for a fair chunk of the state other than from Clinton to Harrison, there would just have to be bypasses, grade separations, and access roads constructed to promote it to freeway status.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 07, 2019, 09:51:43 PM
My personal opinion if California was more open to having US Routes than the path of CA 88/NV 88 would make a hell of a X95 US Route given that Carson Pass is an all-year Trans-Sierra Highway. More so CA 88 gets pressed into duty as US 50A when the route over Echo Pass gets shut down for extended periods of time. The way I see it any new US Route being considered ought to be multi-state or at minimum traverse a major travel corridor (preferably over 300 miles) between US Routes/Interstates. There is still opportunities for such routes like that but as stated above already there isn't much of an emphasis on signed highways to drive a push for new US Routes.
Since I-80 is effectively a commuter corridor west of Auburn -- with all the negatives normally ascribed to such -- a nice & relatively open surface US-designated route could be carved out of CA 88 and CA 12 from Carson City to Fairfield -- and possibly further west to US 101 via any combination of state routes; I'd opt for a new US 450! If not for the fact that the western end of such would also be a commute nightmare, I'd just eat all of 88 and segue it onto CA 4 (and possibly 242 & 24) to the Bay (sorry for the fictional detour).
However, the closest thing in the West to a "slam dunk" for a new US designation is, of course, the "Winnemucca-to-the-Sea" route of MSR 140, a stint over I-5, and US 199. While the simplest approach would be to simply extend US 199 over the entire thing, I for one wouldn't mind a reiteration of US 28 (bring
that number back to OR!). Essentially the only lengthy E-W corridor between US 20 and I-80, it's something that is worth addressing!
Quote from: MikieTimT on February 15, 2019, 08:36:24 AM
I can see the stretch from I-44 in Tulsa to at least I-49 in NWA being upgraded to an I-50 or a 2di of a smaller number.
If I-50 or another I-designation is applied to the US 412 corridor, it would -- at least initially -- probably include the Cimarron Turnpike section west from Tulsa to I-35, providing Interstate-signed access west from Tulsa as well as east to I-49; the fact that it's there and in operation would be the likely impetus for the entire E-W corridor. Now -- whether the numerical designation of US 412 would remain over the entire route, bifurcated by an Interstate as it would be, is a matter of conjecture; possibly either the eastern or western segment could subsequently receive another designation (sorry, I've already taken US 450 for my Carson Pass route!!!!).
I just saw this thread, and figured I'd post the Google My Map I made of my ideas for US Highways in Utah. This includes current routes, new designations, and extensions of existing routes and previously-decommissioned routes. Obviously, some of these are much more likely than others, but here it is anyway.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1v6ZgsUNp3RP0_oMucenIKPF0CKRgVC3d&usp=sharing
Quote from: sparker on February 20, 2019, 09:27:24 PM
However, the closest thing in the West to a "slam dunk" for a new US designation is, of course, the "Winnemucca-to-the-Sea" route of MSR 140, a stint over I-5, and US 199. While the simplest approach would be to simply extend US 199 over the entire thing, I for one wouldn't mind a reiteration of US 28 (bring that number back to OR!). Essentially the only lengthy E-W corridor between US 20 and I-80, it's something that is worth addressing!
I'd like to see if I could pique ODOT and OTC in making 140 into either US 140 (Gold Hill-Winnemuca) or getting UDOT and NDOT interested in extending 40 back out west; if so then getting CalTrans interested in swapping out 199.
Quote from: Bickendan on February 21, 2019, 07:01:53 AM
Quote from: sparker on February 20, 2019, 09:27:24 PM
However, the closest thing in the West to a "slam dunk" for a new US designation is, of course, the "Winnemucca-to-the-Sea" route of MSR 140, a stint over I-5, and US 199. While the simplest approach would be to simply extend US 199 over the entire thing, I for one wouldn't mind a reiteration of US 28 (bring that number back to OR!). Essentially the only lengthy E-W corridor between US 20 and I-80, it's something that is worth addressing!
I'd like to see if I could pique ODOT and OTC in making 140 into either US 140 (Gold Hill-Winnemuca) or getting UDOT and NDOT interested in extending 40 back out west; if so then getting CalTrans interested in swapping out 199.
Even though they're most of the state apart, Caltrans wouldn't likely accede to both US 40 and I-40 within the state. I can't see either CA or OR having any particular problem with getting rid of US 199 now that the parent's gone; US 28 (CA/NV 28 could be renumbered with a bit of effort and PR work), as I've cited earlier, could be a possibility. But the concept of US 140 from I-5 east to US 95, and retaining US 199 on its current alignment, might be the easiest to sell to the states involved (Caltrans wouldn't even have to participate -- which would probably suit them just fine!).
Quote from: Bickendan on February 21, 2019, 07:01:53 AM
Quote from: sparker on February 20, 2019, 09:27:24 PM
However, the closest thing in the West to a "slam dunk" for a new US designation is, of course, the "Winnemucca-to-the-Sea" route of MSR 140, a stint over I-5, and US 199. While the simplest approach would be to simply extend US 199 over the entire thing, I for one wouldn't mind a reiteration of US 28 (bring that number back to OR!). Essentially the only lengthy E-W corridor between US 20 and I-80, it's something that is worth addressing!
I'd like to see if I could pique ODOT and OTC in making 140 into either US 140 (Gold Hill-Winnemuca) or getting UDOT and NDOT interested in extending 40 back out west; if so then getting CalTrans interested in swapping out 199.
Good luck with that, though the odds of numbering the Winnemucca-to-the-Sea Highway as a (re-)extension of US-40 are less than making it US-28 or an eastward extension of US-199. Dont get me wrong, I love the idea of repurposing US-40 (as with most truncated US Routes), though you do have the issue of having US-40 and I-40 in the same state (even if they are very, very far apart and might as well be in two different states). I tried contacting NvDOT and OrDOT, and recall that OrDOT told me that traffic counts were too small for them to consider it (or something like that), but you may be better at convincing them than I could.
Was not the original route number for I-68 in MD and WV US 48? That if I recall was only built in the early 1980's.
Quote from: roadman65 on February 21, 2019, 11:10:30 PM
Was not the original route number for I-68 in MD and WV US 48? That if I recall was only built in the early 1980's.
Originally planned as ARC corridor "E" back in 1965, it was designated as US 48 when the new-terrain portion of the corridor between Keysers Ridge, MD and I-79 near Morgantown, WV was completed in the '80's. The US 48 designation was short lived; when the Cumberland-Hancock portion was completed in late 1990, it was "elevated" to Interstate status as I-68 the following year. I was fortunate enough to have driven WB on it as US 48 in the summer of 1989, and EB three years later after its completion as I-68.
Quote from: sparker on February 22, 2019, 04:29:21 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 21, 2019, 11:10:30 PM
Was not the original route number for I-68 in MD and WV US 48? That if I recall was only built in the early 1980's.
Originally planned as ARC corridor "E" back in 1965, it was designated as US 48 when the new-terrain portion of the corridor between Keysers Ridge, MD and I-79 near Morgantown, WV was completed in the '80's. The US 48 designation was short lived; when the Cumberland-Hancock portion was completed in late 1990, it was "elevated" to Interstate status as I-68 the following year. I was fortunate enough to have driven WB on it as US 48 in the summer of 1989, and EB three years later after its completion as I-68.
I just now checked my website article. I cited _Building the National Freeway, Special Edition of Maryland Roads_, August 2, 1991, by Maryland State Highway Administration.
I-68 in West Virginia was built as Appalachian Corridor E and US-48 between 1970 and 1976. The Maryland 44-mile portion from the West Virginia line to the eastern part of the city of Cumberland was built between 1964 and 1976, and was designated as US-48. Actually the 8-mile section thru Cumberland opened in 1965 as the US-40 Cumberland Thruway, and I am not sure when it was changed to US-48.
The 19-mile Cumberland-Green Ridge section construction started in May 1987, and the section was completed on August 2, 1991, and on that day the whole of Appalachian Corridor E between I-79 at Morgantown WV and I-70 at Hancock MD, was designated as Interstate I-68, and the US-48 designation was removed.
Quote from: Beltway on February 22, 2019, 06:26:24 AM
Quote from: sparker on February 22, 2019, 04:29:21 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 21, 2019, 11:10:30 PM
Was not the original route number for I-68 in MD and WV US 48? That if I recall was only built in the early 1980's.
Originally planned as ARC corridor "E" back in 1965, it was designated as US 48 when the new-terrain portion of the corridor between Keysers Ridge, MD and I-79 near Morgantown, WV was completed in the '80's. The US 48 designation was short lived; when the Cumberland-Hancock portion was completed in late 1990, it was "elevated" to Interstate status as I-68 the following year. I was fortunate enough to have driven WB on it as US 48 in the summer of 1989, and EB three years later after its completion as I-68.
I just now checked my website article. I cited _Building the National Freeway, Special Edition of Maryland Roads_, August 2, 1991, by Maryland State Highway Administration.
I-68 in West Virginia was built as Appalachian Corridor E and US-48 between 1970 and 1976. The Maryland 44-mile portion from the West Virginia line to the eastern part of the city of Cumberland was built between 1964 and 1976, and was designated as US-48. Actually the 8-mile section thru Cumberland opened in 1965 as the US-40 Cumberland Thruway, and I am not sure when it was changed to US-48.
The 19-mile Cumberland-Green Ridge section construction started in May 1987, and the section was completed on August 2, 1991, and on that day the whole of Appalachian Corridor E between I-79 at Morgantown WV and I-70 at Hancock MD, was designated as Interstate I-68, and the US-48 designation was removed.
My family went on a vacation to Washington DC in 1982, using that route to travel there. I do not remember how far east the US 48 designation was signed into Maryland, or if it was co-signed with US 40 anywhere along the route. In December 1990, my dad, brother and I went to a few places along the east coast and we came home via that route. They were finishing up the freeway construction between Cumberland and Hancock at the time, but again, I don't remember how much of the route was signed as US 48.
Quote from: hbelkins on February 22, 2019, 10:59:58 AM
My family went on a vacation to Washington DC in 1982, using that route to travel there. I do not remember how far east the US 48 designation was signed into Maryland, or if it was co-signed with US 40 anywhere along the route. In December 1990, my dad, brother and I went to a few places along the east coast and we came home via that route. They were finishing up the freeway construction between Cumberland and Hancock at the time, but again, I don't remember how much of the route was signed as US 48.
According to maps I have, it was signed as US-48 between I-79 and Cumberland upon opening. Again, I'm not sure about the US-40 Cumberland Thruway as to whether that became US-48 or didn't change until I-68.
The easterly short segments of National Freeway were US-40 in 1983 --
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/US48_1983_Map_XL.jpg
US 48 was reserved for the National Freeway by AASHTO in Oct 1969 with the endpoints as Morgantown and Cumberland - https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AAASHO_USRN_1969-10-26.pdf&page=5
The 1973 Alleghany County map shows the Cumberland Thruway as US 48 only with US 40 still following what is now US 40 ALT. US 48 is shown to end at Exit 44.
This entry from 1974 shows US 220 relocation in Cumberland that says US 48 continued past Exit 44 to at least where US 220 now leaves today's I-68
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:AASHTO_USRN_1974-06-25.pdf&page=2
I did not see an AASHTO entry extending US 48 further east...
Quote from: Beltway on February 22, 2019, 12:02:44 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on February 22, 2019, 10:59:58 AM
My family went on a vacation to Washington DC in 1982, using that route to travel there. I do not remember how far east the US 48 designation was signed into Maryland, or if it was co-signed with US 40 anywhere along the route. In December 1990, my dad, brother and I went to a few places along the east coast and we came home via that route. They were finishing up the freeway construction between Cumberland and Hancock at the time, but again, I don't remember how much of the route was signed as US 48.
According to maps I have, it was signed as US-48 between I-79 and Cumberland upon opening. Again, I'm not sure about the US-40 Cumberland Thruway as to whether that became US-48 or didn't change until I-68.
The easterly short segments of National Freeway were US-40 in 1983 --
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/US48_1983_Map_XL.jpg
That corresponds with the US 48 signage I viewed in 1989; WB it began at the south US 220 interchange in Cumberland and continued straight through to I-79. I looked in the rear view mirror, but didn't see any "END" signage for US 48 in the opposite direction; later maps (pre-I-68) showed a multiplex with US 40 on completed freeway sections between Cumberland and Hancock.
My family routinely took the trip across US 40/US 48 throughout the 1980s. I don't remember seeing US 48 shields east of Sideling Hill.
Quote from: hbelkins on February 22, 2019, 10:59:58 AM
My family went on a vacation to Washington DC in 1982, using that route to travel there. I do not remember how far east the US 48 designation was signed into Maryland, or if it was co-signed with US 40 anywhere along the route. In December 1990, my dad, brother and I went to a few places along the east coast and we came home via that route. They were finishing up the freeway construction between Cumberland and Hancock at the time, but again, I don't remember how much of the route was signed as US 48.
I drove U.S. 48 (end-to-end) from Hancock, Maryland to Morgantown, West Virginia in 1983. The freeway was complete then from the Cumberland Thruway (I think it was present-day Exit 46) section west all the way to I-79. IIRC, it was signed as U.S. 40/U.S. 48 from Hancock to Keyser's Ridge (present-day Exit 14), where U.S. 40 left the freeway headed west and north toward Uniontown, Pennsylvania (as it does today) and U.S. 48 continued on a relatively straight westbound path toward Morgantown and I-79.
East of Cumberland, there were two freeway segments of U.S. 40/U.S. 48 that were completed long before the entire freeway between Cumberland and Hancock was open to traffic.
The first freeway segment (headed eastbound) was in eastern Allegany County and included the interchange at Little Orleans Road (the structure that carries Little Orleans Road [Exit 68] over I-68 is distinctly older looking than most of the other bridges along this part of I-68).
The second freeway segment was in western Washington County, between the MD-144 interchange (Exit 77) at the eastern foot of Sideling Hill and the east end at I-70 (I-68 Exit 82).
Quote from: 1 on February 23, 2019, 10:45:09 PM
Quote from: MantyMadTown on February 23, 2019, 10:41:23 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on February 23, 2019, 03:18:59 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on February 07, 2019, 01:54:11 PM
Aren't we due for a US 437?
The old 12.5 conspiracy.
What?
400, 412 (412.5 rounded down), 425, next is supposedly 437.
I suppose that to some observers patterns=conspiracy. Wake me when it gets to 500! :sombrero:
Why isn't 412 related to 12? Couldn't they have named it some other number? Same with 425.
Quote from: MantyMadTown on February 24, 2019, 04:28:56 AM
Why isn't 412 related to 12? Couldn't they have named it some other number? Same with 425.
I'm guessing at the time, AASHTO was more preoccupied with the Interstate system, and when states requested new US routes, they just started issuing 4xx ones, due to indifference. Nobody aside from road geeks really care, so long as it gets them from point A to point B. I think AASHTO has finally snapped out of that, though.
Quote from: FightingIrish on February 24, 2019, 08:59:03 AM
I'm guessing at the time, AASHTO was more preoccupied with the Interstate system, and when states requested new US routes, they just started issuing 4xx ones, due to indifference. Nobody aside from road geeks really care, so long as it gets them from point A to point B. I think AASHTO has finally snapped out of that, though.
I agree with AASHO/AASHTO being preoccupied and indifferent with regard to the US route system. However, I think they started getting out of the business of assigning designations in the '70s, before the infamous 4xx routes were created.
Starting in about 1960, as more and more Interstates were opening to traffic, many state highway departments started truncating and/or decommissioning their parallel US routes. Obviously the Interstates had become the exciting new development, whereas the original "interstate highways" (the US routes) were considered outdated and obsolete. As an association consisting of state highway officials, it's not surprising that this mindset soon manifested itself within AASHO (which became AASHTO in 1973). It was during this general timeframe when AASHO/AASHTO became more apathetic as far as assigning new US route designations, instead shifting towards letting the states come up with their own designations.
*1963: US 259 was one of the last new designations free of controversy.
*1966: US 164[ii] did not connect with US 64. I suspect (but have no proof) that AZDoT wanted it to be US 64 (since it had been AZ 64). AASHO wouldn't allow that, since (at that time) it did not connect with the existing US 64, so 164 was a tolerable alternative.
*1970: US 163[ii] is nowhere near US 63. My understanding is that AZ and UT originally wanted 164[iii], probably since 164[ii] was going to be decommissioned that same year, but since it was a north-south route, AASHO told them it needed to be an odd number. However, instead of assigning a more logical number, AASHO allowed AZ/UT to simply subtract one integer to come up with "163".
*1970: US 57 is a single-state US route, running east-west but with a north-south number. This route had been TX 57, and it connects with Mexico 57. It seems Texas felt it should be a US route, and AASHO allowed them to keep using the same number 57.
*1973: US 48[ii] was an acceptable designation.
*1982: US 412 is nowhere near US 12. I assume AR and TN came up with the number, but I've never heard an explanation for their rationale.
*1989: US 425 is nowhere near US 25. I assume AR and LA came up with the number, but I've never heard an explanation for their rationale.
*1994: US 400 is nowhere near US... zero? Apparently AASHTO let KDoT choose from a list of available numbers.
*1994: US 371[ii] is an acceptable number, although it is questionable why this corridor was worthy of a US route designation, since US 71 is a much more direct route between US 371's endpoints.
*2002: US 48[iii] is an acceptable designation.
*2003: US 491 replaced the US 666 designation, and it was the state DOTs who proposed the number. 491 was a reasonable choice in light of the fact that the states involved did not want to duplicate their existing state highway numbers 291 and/or 391.
*2005: US 121[ii] will not connect with US 21; I do not know the story about where this number came from. But I view this as another "proof" that AASHTO is not methodically assigning 4xx numbers to new routes.
Quote from: usends on February 24, 2019, 11:55:09 AM
*2006: US 121[ii] will not connect with US 21; I do not know the story about where this number came from. But I view this as another "proof" that AASHTO is not methodically assigning 4xx numbers to new routes.
That number was assigned long before 2006. I drove by the Coalfield Expressway Authority office in Pineville, WV, in 2002 and it was adorned with a huge US 121 sign then.
This route really should have been an x19 or an x23. Or even an x52.
Quote from: hbelkins on February 24, 2019, 04:52:21 PM
That number was assigned long before 2006. I drove by the Coalfield Expressway Authority office in Pineville, WV, in 2002 and it was adorned with a huge US 121 sign then.
I meant to say 2005, that's the year AASHTO approved US 121. So if you saw signs prior to that, then that suggests VDOT and WVDOT came up with that number themselves.
I feel like 121 should have gone to FL/GA/SC 121.
Quote from: usends on February 24, 2019, 05:22:10 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on February 24, 2019, 04:52:21 PM
That number was assigned long before 2006. I drove by the Coalfield Expressway Authority office in Pineville, WV, in 2002 and it was adorned with a huge US 121 sign then.
I meant to say 2005, that's the year AASHTO approved US 121. So if you saw signs prior to that, then that suggests VDOT and WVDOT came up with that number themselves.
Yeah, it was proposed earlier. I don't have any sources to cite, but I suspect it was first proposed around 2000 or 2001.
Quote from: MantyMadTown on February 24, 2019, 04:28:56 AM
Why isn't 412 related to 12? Couldn't they have named it some other number? Same with 425.
The oddball US-4xx highways were intended to eventually become Interstate corridors. As such, perhaps their numbers were never intended to be permanent.
↓ See below. ↓
Quote from: formulanone on December 22, 2017, 07:07:28 AM
US 412 is a NHS/ISTEA High Priority Corridor, and was designated in 1982 (see https://www.aaroads.com/high-priority/corr08.html ). It might become a future Interstate.
US 425 was added to the US route system in 1989; this is the preferred corridor for any future extension of I-530 to I-69. Part of US 425 is included in the I-69 corridor (see 6.4 ).
US 400 is also a NHS/ISTEA High Priority Corridor, added to the US system in 1996, the newest US route (see https://www.aaroads.com/high-priority/corr03.html ). The number was picked by Kansas DOT out of a list of available numbers, and agreed to by Missouri and Colorado. US 400 is also planned as a future extension of I-66.
As I've said before, if both AASHTO meetings this year don't approve any new US routes then this decade will be the first one since the US routes were created not to see any new numbers added to the system. Perhaps we should campaign to get the system as proposed by froggie approved, that would see the addition of US 86 and 88 as well as the return of US 28, 32, 38, 66, 94 and 99 (and the relocation of US 96) :sombrero:.
Quote from: hbelkins on February 25, 2019, 11:37:36 AM
Quote from: usends on February 24, 2019, 05:22:10 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on February 24, 2019, 04:52:21 PM
That number was assigned long before 2006. I drove by the Coalfield Expressway Authority office in Pineville, WV, in 2002 and it was adorned with a huge US 121 sign then.
I meant to say 2005, that's the year AASHTO approved US 121. So if you saw signs prior to that, then that suggests VDOT and WVDOT came up with that number themselves.
Yeah, it was proposed earlier. I don't have any sources to cite, but I suspect it was first proposed around 2000 or 2001.
US 121 ends at I-77, which was the original US 21. The number works for me.
Quote from: kphoger on February 25, 2019, 02:58:20 PM
The oddball US-4xx highways were intended to eventually become Interstate corridors. As such, perhaps their numbers were never intended to be permanent.
This explanation is often given, but some of it just doesn't quite add up. For example...
Quote from: formulanone on December 22, 2017, 07:07:28 AM
US 425 was added to the US route system in 1989; this is the preferred corridor for any future extension of I-530 to I-69. Part of US 425 is included in the I-69 corridor (see 6.4 ).
I'm not sure either I-530 or I-69 were on the radar back in 1989.
Quote from: formulanone on December 22, 2017, 07:07:28 AM
US 400 is also a NHS/ISTEA High Priority Corridor, added to the US system in 1996, the newest US route (see https://www.aaroads.com/high-priority/corr03.html ). The number was picked by Kansas DOT out of a list of available numbers, and agreed to by Missouri and Colorado. US 400 is also planned as a future extension of I-66.
I think it would be more accurate to say: US 400 was the bone thrown to Kansas as a consolation after the western I-66 proposal got killed.
Also, did the list of available numbers (that AASHTO gave to KDoT) include only 4xx numbers?
Quote from: usends on February 25, 2019, 07:18:54 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 25, 2019, 02:58:20 PM
The oddball US-4xx highways were intended to eventually become Interstate corridors. As such, perhaps their numbers were never intended to be permanent.
This explanation is often given, but some of it just doesn't quite add up. For example...
Quote from: formulanone on December 22, 2017, 07:07:28 AM
US 425 was added to the US route system in 1989; this is the preferred corridor for any future extension of I-530 to I-69. Part of US 425 is included in the I-69 corridor (see 6.4 ).
I'm not sure either I-530 or I-69 were on the radar back in 1989.
Quote from: formulanone on December 22, 2017, 07:07:28 AM
US 400 is also a NHS/ISTEA High Priority Corridor, added to the US system in 1996, the newest US route (see https://www.aaroads.com/high-priority/corr03.html ). The number was picked by Kansas DOT out of a list of available numbers, and agreed to by Missouri and Colorado. US 400 is also planned as a future extension of I-66.
I think it would be more accurate to say: US 400 was the bone thrown to Kansas as a consolation after the western I-66 proposal got killed.
Also, did the list of available numbers (that AASHTO gave to KDoT) include only 4xx numbers?
That's a good question. I believe Kansas' rationale was that there was no other Route in the state with the number 400. If that's the case, then why wasn't US-400 numbered US-450, which is much more fitting–and available? For that matter, why wasn't US-350 extended east (even with MO-350 up in Kansas City, US-350 would've been concurrent with US-166 and only for a mile, if that).
How about a few public records requests to the parent agencies that submitted the requests for the rogue numbers.
Bringing back an old thread...
I'm not sure about any new US routes, as I see them as a "historic" part of America's highway system, although I do think there could be room for a few to replace bannered or split routes. That said, there may be NHS corridors that could use them (which run into multiple states, connect decent-size cities or run for an extended length, while at the same time have no potential of becoming Interstates).
However, what I WOULD do is resurrect all the former 2-digit US routes that have been downgraded to state or county routes (to the most reasonable extent possible). Routes that were completely supplanted by Interstates (i.e. a 2 lane corridor directly converted to a 4 lane Interstate) would be the exception, but the US route should be posted on all business loops. Routes that were paralleled by Interstates should always be posted. Yes, welcome back, Route 66, with US shields! 3-digit US routes don't have the history and I wouldn't bring any of them back, but I would replace as many bannered routes as possible with them.
That would not change any maintenance, as they could be under county or municipal jurisdiction.
That also would NOT change routes that were replaced by extensions of other US routes, although the numbers might be feasible to use on either replacing a 3di with a 2di US route, or a series of state-numbered NHS routes. Of 2di numbers no longer used:
US 28 - not sure where to place it? It's now mostly US 26.
US 32 and US 38 - both replaced by US 6. Not sure where to create those routes.
US 39, US 47, US 86 and US 88 - never used. There are probably good places for them.
US 37 - get rid of US 31W and place it there (gets it in the grid better than 31E), just like it used to be but in reverse.
US 55 - not sure? It was a rather pointless route in 1926; we'd be looking in the Midwest or Mid-South for a suitable corridor.
US 66 - Welcome Back!!!! :sombrero: :popcorn:
US 94 - pointless in 1926, now better signed as US 41. Where in the Deep South could suit that?
US 96 - very pointless in 1926, now better signed as US 59. Same as US 94 - where could it go?
US 99 - Again, Welcome Back! Although it would likely be better to wait until CA 99 is up to Interstate status, then place US 99 shields on the old alignments.
Quote from: RoadMaster09 on June 10, 2019, 10:03:13 PM
US 99 - Again, Welcome Back! Although it would likely be better to wait until CA 99 is up to Interstate status, then place US 99 shields on the old alignments.
I had much the same idea expressed in various threads dealing with US/CA 99 -- if and when it is decided to post Interstate shields on US 99 -- whether I-7 or I-9 -- it might be worthwhile from both a historic and practical standpoint to post concurrent "Historic US 99" signage on both the old "business" alignments through towns as well as on the reassurance shield assemblies on the interim segments of freeway. The historic route could function as virtual/effective "business loops" through those larger towns along the route that still have much of those alignments intact -- and for those that have multiple interruptions due to city-initiated changes or ensuing construction (such as Fresno) could be aligned effectively after consultation with the affected local jurisdictions. For instance, all of the "M" towns north of Fresno -- plus Turlock -- would be signed as "Historic US 99" on the original highway. The beige/brown rectangular historic signs found sporadically statewide along their respective appropriate routes would suffice (particularly if the shields featured button-copy numbers like the later versions of the state-name historic shields). This would save having to erect series of green I-shields -- and the whole corridor could be marketed as a destination for those tourists fancying themselves amateur historians! Get a little tourist money thrown at Delano and Tulare -- they could certainly use it, as could Madera, Merced, and Manteca to the north.
Quote from: MantyMadTown on February 07, 2019, 04:28:40 AM
I keep seeing new interstates being built and US routes being decommissioned in favor of interstate highways, but have there ever been any new US routes being built recently, or will there be new ones in the future? Ever since the interstate highway system has been implemented, US routes have mostly been placed on the sidelines in favor of these interstates, so I'm wondering if US routes will ever earn a better place in our highway system in the future.
Basically upgrade extremely long State Highways and redesignate them with U.S. Highways. They can also completely replace S.H. 99 with U.S. 377.
Quote from: RoadMaster09 on June 10, 2019, 10:03:13 PM
Bringing back an old thread...
I'm not sure about any new US routes, as I see them as a "historic" part of America's highway system, although I do think there could be room for a few to replace bannered or split routes. That said, there may be NHS corridors that could use them (which run into multiple states, connect decent-size cities or run for an extended length, while at the same time have no potential of becoming Interstates).
However, what I WOULD do is resurrect all the former 2-digit US routes that have been downgraded to state or county routes (to the most reasonable extent possible). Routes that were completely supplanted by Interstates (i.e. a 2 lane corridor directly converted to a 4 lane Interstate) would be the exception, but the US route should be posted on all business loops. Routes that were paralleled by Interstates should always be posted. Yes, welcome back, Route 66, with US shields! 3-digit US routes don't have the history and I wouldn't bring any of them back, but I would replace as many bannered routes as possible with them.
That would not change any maintenance, as they could be under county or municipal jurisdiction.
That also would NOT change routes that were replaced by extensions of other US routes, although the numbers might be feasible to use on either replacing a 3di with a 2di US route, or a series of state-numbered NHS routes. Of 2di numbers no longer used:
US 28 - not sure where to place it? It's now mostly US 26.
US 32 and US 38 - both replaced by US 6. Not sure where to create those routes.
US 39, US 47, US 86 and US 88 - never used. There are probably good places for them.
US 37 - get rid of US 31W and place it there (gets it in the grid better than 31E), just like it used to be but in reverse.
US 55 - not sure? It was a rather pointless route in 1926; we'd be looking in the Midwest or Mid-South for a suitable corridor.
US 66 - Welcome Back!!!! :sombrero: :popcorn:
US 94 - pointless in 1926, now better signed as US 41. Where in the Deep South could suit that?
US 96 - very pointless in 1926, now better signed as US 59. Same as US 94 - where could it go?
US 99 - Again, Welcome Back! Although it would likely be better to wait until CA 99 is up to Interstate status, then place US 99 shields on the old alignments.
Not a bad idea, although a US 96 exists today (which shouldn't exist though IMO)
You're right about US 96 (and US 57, which both are ridiculously out of place, although US 57 does have merit in connecting to MX 57).
In general, what I would do:
* Eliminate as many bannered or suffixed routes as possible. Alternate and divided routes should be entirely eliminated - the less important route should be either a 3-digit or a state highway. Other banners would only apply to routes that do not parallel or run with an Interstate.
* Where independent from an Interstate, US routes should always be NHS. Realignments or reclassification to NHS should be looked into. 2-digit routes should be realigned if necessary; 3-digit routes should be changed to state highways if not reclassified.
* Where parallel to an Interstate, US routes do not need to be NHS, and in fact likely would not be. As the "historic" route, there is no benefit to realigning onto the NHS Interstate in these cases.
* 2-digit US routes bypassed by Interstates that remain under state, county or city maintenance are not to be truncated or removed unless they were 100% covered by the Interstate (i.e. a 2-lane upgrade to a 4-lane freeway). In practice, that rarely occurs. Concurrent sections would be used to connect discontinuous sections (although they can be "hidden"). If the old US highway is not reasonably drivable (i.e. bridges removed, poor condition) the highway can be relocated to the Interstate.
* Single-state routes that are not NHS should be decommissioned and become state highways.
* Single-state NHS routes should ideally be extended into other states to become a more regional purpose (if possible). US 92 might be an exception.
* Multi-state 3-digit routes less than 200 miles should be extended if possible if they have national value, although the length rule is bendable if geography precludes such.
* Previously decommissioned 2-digit routes should be brought back if possible, using any combination of Interstates (can be hidden), state highways, realigned 3-digit US highways and county roads, as long as they meet at least collector highway standards. Urban business routes should be signed with the old US highway designation, even if the Interstate concurrent designation is hidden. That would be the US 66 rule.
👍 Roadmaster
Quote from: 3467 on July 15, 2019, 03:05:23 PM
👍 Roadmaster
I agree. You laid out well-thought out principles that clearly delineate that a US highway, while not always a freeway or expressway, is at least an important corridor that should have precedence over state routes. I also agree that the system needs to be cleaned up a bit, add some highways and remove others largely on the grounds that you have suggested.
In short, if there are two parallel non-Interstate corridors, the US route should be the primary route and the other route should be a state highway.
Quote from: mrsman on July 17, 2019, 01:44:41 PM
Quote from: 3467 on July 15, 2019, 03:05:23 PM
👍 Roadmaster
I agree. You laid out well-thought out principles that clearly delineate that a US highway, while not always a freeway or expressway, is at least an important corridor that should have precedence over state routes. I also agree that the system needs to be cleaned up a bit, add some highways and remove others largely on the grounds that you have suggested.
In short, if there are two parallel non-Interstate corridors, the US route should be the primary route and the other route should be a state highway.
Correct. The order is Interstate --> US highway --> State highway --> County highway. However, if they are NHS or higher standard routes, US routes should have never been decommissioned in the first place. It's a tricky task but I'd try to recommission the old US highways as much as possible. Split and alternate routes have no place in the system. Longer ones would probably take on a 3-digit number, shorter ones become state highways (or in a few cases, county highways).
Non-NHS US routes that do not parallel an Interstate should be reviewed, but in many cases they would just get an NHS classification anyway, and if not, they would become state highways. US highways should either have an inter-regional or national purpose, or parallel a route (an Interstate) that does.
^ Sounds rather familiar (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=15565.0)...
I haven't really read the replies, but this is an interesting question.
Quote from: froggie on July 21, 2019, 06:33:47 AM
^ Sounds rather familiar (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=15565.0)...
I do include the parallel-route exception though.
Not sure, and I don't think so. If anything they have a more modern interstate system and these days US highways are getting diminished.
Quote from: RoadMaster09 on July 20, 2019, 07:55:35 PM
It's a tricky task but I'd try to recommission the old US highways as much as possible. Split and alternate routes have no place in the system. Longer ones would probably take on a 3-digit number, shorter ones become state highways (or in a few cases, county highways).
I don't know if I agree with phasing out US route shields and redesignating them as state routes. It would be fine either way, but changing the shape of the route shield is just extra work for maintenance crews.
But I DEFINITELY agree that bannered and suffixed routes on the US system are obsolete in a world where people rarely are following the main US highway number for a considerable distance. Longer ones can be state numbers or 3dus. Business/bypass routes should be given state numbers.