Will there ever be new US highways?

Started by MantyMadTown, February 07, 2019, 04:28:40 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

MantyMadTown

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.
Forget the I-41 haters


txstateends

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.
\/ \/ click for a bigger image \/ \/

SteveG1988

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.
Roads Clinched

I55,I82,I84(E&W)I88(W),I87(N),I81,I64,I74(W),I72,I57,I24,I65,I59,I12,I71,I77,I76(E&W),I70,I79,I85,I86(W),I27,I16,I97,I96,I43,I41,

froggie

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).

hbelkins



Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

froggie

^ Is there a multiregional corridor where an Interstate has been proposed but unlikely and the regions involved would accept a "consolation prize"?

3467

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.

Ben114

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

froggie

^^ 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.

Max Rockatansky

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.

cjk374

Just hang out in Arkansas for a little while...a new US route is liable to pop up any minute.  :-D :pan:
Runnin' roads and polishin' rails.

MikieTimT

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.

sparker

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!!!!).

US 89

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

Bickendan

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.

sparker

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!). 

Rover_0

#16
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.
Fixing erroneous shields, one at a time...

roadman65

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.
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

sparker

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. 

Beltway

#19
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.
 
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

hbelkins

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.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

Beltway

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
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

Mapmikey

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...


sparker

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.

Rothman

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.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.



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.