Are US Highways obsolete?

[triplemultiplex]

Thousands of miles of the US highway system are obsolete and should be decommissioned into state or even county roads in some places.  The long concurrencies with interstates should be gotten rid of.  Ones that have been superseded by an interstate should also go away.  I have no problem creating official gaps in US highways like some of the examples mentioned.  There are also areas of the Southeast where the density of US highway routes seems way out of proportion to the population density.  The locus of this anomaly seems to be South Carolina.  Some thinning should probably occur in these areas.

US highways are a secondary system of national roads and I think interstates should always take precedent over US routes.  If there's ever a conflict, like with US 41 and the forthcoming I-41, the interstates should win.  Or there's some state highway using a number that would be useful for an interstate.  The interstate should win.  Every time.

We've renumbered countless miles of highway in our history.  People adapted and figured it out. It's not that much of a burden.

I have also been playing with a series of maps looking to pare down the mileage of US highways I feel is no longer necessary.  It's a long process as I'm sure Froggie can attest (but the fun is more in the process, not the product; for me at least).  The US Highway system really becomes a tangled web in certain places; whatever rules the system is supposed to follow have been chucked out the window.  It is very cobbled together and the disorder makes it less useful.

[roadman65]

You also have to take in the region as well where the US routes are.  In the Northeast US routes are generally state highways with funny shields.

In the South they are the primary roads with state designations as the secondary roads.  In Florida the US routes are the same as 0 ending cross state routes, as the three digits act as connectors and the county roads are the true secondary either in rural county highways or major urban arterials that are not part of the state system.

Out west they are the same as interstates, but without the freeway hence the decommissionings and silent duplexes.  Once an interstate comes in to the picture it is redundant of the new freeway except on toll roads.  Hence if it were not for the KTA US 81 south of Wichita would be paired with I-35 as it is with I-135 north of Wichita.

[texaskdog]

Thousands of miles of the US highway system are obsolete and should be decommissioned into state or even county roads in some places.  The long concurrencies with interstates should be gotten rid of.  Ones that have been superseded by an interstate should also go away.  I have no problem creating official gaps in US highways like some of the examples mentioned.  There are also areas of the Southeast where the density of US highway routes seems way out of proportion to the population density.  The locus of this anomaly seems to be South Carolina.  Some thinning should probably occur in these areas.

US highways are a secondary system of national roads and I think interstates should always take precedent over US routes.  If there's ever a conflict, like with US 41 and the forthcoming I-41, the interstates should win.  Or there's some state highway using a number that would be useful for an interstate.  The interstate should win.  Every time.

We've renumbered countless miles of highway in our history.  People adapted and figured it out. It's not that much of a burden.

I have also been playing with a series of maps looking to pare down the mileage of US highways I feel is no longer necessary.  It's a long process as I'm sure Froggie can attest (but the fun is more in the process, not the product; for me at least).  The US Highway system really becomes a tangled web in certain places; whatever rules the system is supposed to follow have been chucked out the window.  It is very cobbled together and the disorder makes it less useful.

Well said!

[DandyDan]

It's a nice system to have that can be complementary to the Interstate system, but a number of roads on it have no purpose for being a part of it, like US 159.  The thing about it is that there is no consistency in it, unlike the Interstate system.   A large number of roads a part of the system should probably be removed, largely roads which parallel the Interstates.  Some of this may lead to a large scale renumbering.

[billtm]

As mentioned earlier, the US highway system supplements the Interstate system, either scenically or buisnessally. It also provides a sense of continuity across the country. Even without it paralleling an Interstate  it may not provide the most direct route between points A and B since new state highways have been constructed after the US highway. In those cases I believe the US highway should be routed onto the state route and the state route onto the US highway. But in a couple of cases they can fill a major gap in the Interstate system where they are upgraded to an expresssway, but a logical Interstate number can't be applied. (I.e. US 67 in AR and US 15 in PA) And in those cases, I believe the US highway number should be kept.
Also, IMO interstates and US highways shouldn't contain the same number in the same state. Cough, I-41, cough cough.    

[Henry]

Also, IMO interstates and US highways shouldn't contain the same number in the same state. Cough, I-41, cough cough.    

I-74 and I-24 also violate that rule.

[roadman65]

I-69 and US 69 now do in Texas too.

I would like to see if US 83 gets truncated when I-69E gets finished?

[billtm]

Also, IMO interstates and US highways shouldn't contain the same number in the same state. Cough, I-41, cough cough.    

I-74 and I-24 also violate that rule.

If I controlled the Interstate system, I would give I-24 a pass, but I-74 makes me want to do this: .

[roadman65]

 The same with I-41

[billtm]

I-69 and US 69 now do in Texas too.

Future I-69 from Texarkana south becomes Future I-47. Problem solved.

[hbelkins]

3.  Economic development.  TDEC can sell an area better by saying that it is served by four-lane US 43 and US 64 then say SR 6 and SR 15.

I don't think being on a US highway has any effect on economic development. Being on an interstate does, but not a US route. If I say US 119, am I talking about the four-lane such as between Pikeville and South Williamson, or the curvy, narrow two-lane between Whitesburg and Cumberland?

With an interstate, you know what you're getting. Definitely not true with a US highway.

[texaskdog]

Okay: who here believes that people in general would travel on a US highway just because its a US highway assuming it will be a higher quality road?  Or if google maps (or whatever) suggested a different route of travel would you take it in leiu of a US highway?

[froggie]

The current US Highway system has evolved into a brand name rather than a system of through highways in many areas.

Not really.  The Interstate system has become the brand name....far moreso than the US routes.

[mukade]

Thousands of miles of the US highway system are obsolete and should be decommissioned into state or even county roads in some places.  The long concurrencies with interstates should be gotten rid of.  Ones that have been superseded by an interstate should also go away.  I have no problem creating official gaps in US highways like some of the examples mentioned.  There are also areas of the Southeast where the density of US highway routes seems way out of proportion to the population density.  The locus of this anomaly seems to be South Carolina.  Some thinning should probably occur in these areas.

US highways are a secondary system of national roads and I think interstates should always take precedent over US routes.  If there's ever a conflict, like with US 41 and the forthcoming I-41, the interstates should win.  Or there's some state highway using a number that would be useful for an interstate.  The interstate should win.  Every time.

We've renumbered countless miles of highway in our history.  People adapted and figured it out. It's not that much of a burden.

I have also been playing with a series of maps looking to pare down the mileage of US highways I feel is no longer necessary.  It's a long process as I'm sure Froggie can attest (but the fun is more in the process, not the product; for me at least).  The US Highway system really becomes a tangled web in certain places; whatever rules the system is supposed to follow have been chucked out the window.  It is very cobbled together and the disorder makes it less useful.

This sums it up well. In some states more so than others, but rather than making the US highway system a system of discontinuous routes, why not extend the Interstate highway numbering system for these primary US routes? The Interstate system is essentially the inter-city highway system for the country. There is really no need to conflate a the highest standard of road with the national numbering system. All that does is to encourage the waste of billions of dollars upgrading highways only to get the coveted Interstate shield. In many cases, why couldn't a modern expressway or roads like the parkways in Kentucky be marked as Interstate highways even if the shield bears different colors to distinguish the grade of highway?

[roadfro]

US highways aren't necessarily needed in the corridors parallel to Interstates, though most here would argue to keep them for nostalgia, grid, etc. (I happen to like them a whole bunch.) But there are so many US routes in their own corridors that the system itself shouldn't die. Examples abound, even in the east: US 6 across PA and NY (and through RI), US 22 across OH, WV and most of PA, US 30 across IN, OH, WV, US 206, US 209, just for starters.

Some examples of U.S. highways that have significant sections that are not near Interstates (or are needed even though they have sections that are close to one or more Interstates (Warning: East Coast and California bias ahead):

Odd:

Surprised you didn't mention 395, which other than the segments in Spokane, the Washington Tri-Cities, and Reno, really runs apart from any Interstate corridor.

93 (due to its long stretch in Nevada north of Vegas) would also fit this as well.

US 95 also fits this bill in Nevada. It comprises about 75% of the highway link between the major population centers in the state (Las Vegas and Reno/Carson City).

Thus, I believe that US Routes still do serve a legitimate purpose, and we shouldn't just ditch the system. However, there are areas where the system could be pared down quite a bit...it still amazes me how dense and overlapped some areas of the country are with their routes.

[Avalanchez71]

Like US 311.  Where does it go but around the bend and through the woods.  It is in no way a continuous throughofare.

[hotdogPi]

I think most US highways are obsolete, but I still think they should keep their numbers (and they should never be rerouted onto the Interstates).

[doorknob60]

In some areas, maybe a bit, but US-101, 97, 95, 395, and 93 have something to say about that. All quite important routes with no nearby interstates. And that's just the N-S routes in the west.

[MikeTheActuary]

Once upon a time, when annoyed at the messiness of overlapping Interstate and US routes, and the fuss associated with localities seeking a shiny new number to go on a new red-white-and-blue shield when upgrading an existing route, I dreamed up the idea of simply replacing the current Interstate and US highway numbering systems with a new hybrid National highway numbering system.

The general standards would have been along these lines:

Highway numbers would be 3di's or 4di's.

Routes 100-299: long-distance highways - transcontinental or nearly so.  Traditional major corridors would get xx0 or xx5 numbers,  Even numbers go east-west, odd numbers go north-south.  Numbers would be unique within the system.  Initial number assignments would leave gaps where possible for future expansion.

Routes 300-399: long distance diagonal routes, or future use.  Numbers unique within the system.

Routes 400-599: regional routes, assigned in a grid pattern (initially with gaps for future expansion), with the grid repeating as necessary.  There might be a 401 in California, another in Texas, and another in Virginia, for example.

Routes 600-700: local connectors, spurs, loops in the national highway system.  Numbers unique within a state, not necessarily related to any parent route or assigned in a particular pattern; number assignments instead made as to minimize potential confusion with other national routes.

Routes 800-899, 1000-9999: state use.  Such routes not formally part of the national highway system, but states wishing to sign certain routes with national highway shields could assign numbers within these ranges.

Routes 900-999: special use -- connections to intermodal facilities, national park routes, etc.  Numbers unique within a state.


Additionally, highway numbers would be prefixed with a letter, to designate the grade of a highway:

X = interstate-standard
A = sub-standard freeways, expressways
B = generally "good" sub-expressway routes
C = inferior route
D = hazardous route that is nonetheless part of the system

...with perhaps some possible variation (based on defined specifications, not political pressure) to allow for relaxation of eligibility for class A and B signage in rural/remote areas, or to accept some grandfathering for continuity's sake.  (E.g., I can't imagine seeing the Pennsylvania Turnpike or I-84 in Hartford being downgraded through the introduction of a new numbering scheme.)

National highway trailblazers would also be color-coded to reflect the grade of a highway segment (a la New Brunswick).

Grading would be based on the nature of the route between intersections with other national highway routes, or an ultimate terminus.  (E.g., to qualify for an "X", a highway segment would generally have to be interstate-standard between one intersecting X-route and another intersecting X-or-A route or the highway's terminus.)   As segments of a route get upgraded, the prefix and trailblazer color would change, but the route number would continue on.

For example, consider Corridor X.   Under this kind of scheme, it would have gone from "B78" to "A78" to most of it eventually becoming "X78", without the need for a new interstate number to be assigned and without the messiness of what to do with the US78 designation.

Similarly, for the Las Vegas - Phoenix freeway, there wouldn't need to be the whole rigmarole of getting I-11 assigned to the corridor.  Keep the "93" designation, and relabel/resign it as "X93" as the freeway is built.

Given the expense of resigning highways, and the attachment people feel towards their highway numbers and the Interstate brand, a complete restructuring such as this will never happen....but it's kind of fun to think about.

[Brandon]

The main problem with the US Highway system began well before 1956, IMHO.  The original system, as created in 1925-26 was a decent system meant for interstate travel and would've translated well to the freeway system in 1956.  However, by 1956, the system was a hopeless tangle of 2duses and 3duses that made little to no sense and covered a lot of local routes in addition to the 1925-26 intent.  I mean, seriously, was US-6 really needed across most of the country?  Did US-52 need to be extended northwest toward Saskatchewan?  Do we need US-395 to be longer than US-95, or US-191 longer than US-91?  Had the system not been abused so badly by 1956, the numbers and shields could've just been translated to the new interstate system as an extension of the US Highway system.  If you doubt me, look at the 1925-26 map of the system versus the 1956 map of the system.

[kkt]

Okay: who here believes that people in general would travel on a US highway just because its a US highway assuming it will be a higher quality road?  Or if google maps (or whatever) suggested a different route of travel would you take it in leiu of a US highway?

Well, higher quality than what?  Other things being equal, I'd expect a U.S. highway to be at least a decent 2-lane road.  If the alternative is a county road or Forest Service road, and I wanted a safe and efficient drive, I'd go with the U.S. route.

However, they are clearly no comparison with interstates.

[TheStranger]

  Do we need US-395 to be longer than US-95, or US-191 longer than US-91?  Had the system not been abused so badly by 1956, the numbers and shields could've just been translated to the new interstate system as an extension of the US Highway system.  If you doubt me, look at the 1925-26 map of the system versus the 1956 map of the system.

To be fair, much of 191's extensions occurred in the 1980s and 1990s; 91 was still a pretty substantial route in 1956.

[bugo]

No.  In many places, a US route is the main road to take between two major cities.  They should be left alone.

[mcdonaat]

Okay: who here believes that people in general would travel on a US highway just because its a US highway assuming it will be a higher quality road?  Or if google maps (or whatever) suggested a different route of travel would you take it in leiu of a US highway?

Well, higher quality than what?  Other things being equal, I'd expect a U.S. highway to be at least a decent 2-lane road.  If the alternative is a county road or Forest Service road, and I wanted a safe and efficient drive, I'd go with the U.S. route.

However, they are clearly no comparison with interstates.

They truly aren't in comparison. I take US routes mostly because the Interstates are way too crowded. I can take my time and not have to worry about being run over by 75 MPH traffic. US 90 is way more important than the state highways close to it, and the same with US 171, US 61, and US 79 north of Minden. However, some US highways have been bypassed by the Interstates (US 80 is in the shadows of I-20 the entire time), but still serve the purpose. You have a single number linking tons of small town business districts (US 80 serves as one the courthouse square streets, or comes within 4 streets, for Caddo, Webster, Bienville, Lincoln, Ouachita, Richland, and Madison Parishes. The only exception is Ouachita, where the former alignment of US 80 comes within 4 streets).

Interstates > US highways > State highways > County roads > Forest roads. US highways always trump state highways, because they have one number. Most state highways here are one or two parishes at the most. US highways are the long haul numbers.

[Urban Prairie Schooner]

Some US routes are certainly important as they serve corridors which Interstates do not traverse. Other US routes are essentially obsolete, as their functions have been usurped by parallel Interstates. A third subset of US routes are not paralleled by Interstates, but have nonsensical or otherwise indirect routings which call into question their use as long-haul routes.

US highways serve a role "in between" Interstate and state routes and should not disappear. Potentially a different sort of route could fill that role, but for tradition's sake the US route should fill the role, however imperfectly. In any case, the US highway system needs reform, not elimination. Removing less useful and obsolete routes, combining other routes where logical corridors exist, or splitting routes where a logical continuous corridor does not exist are reasonable changes that could be made.

As for US routes serving as "detour" or parallel routings to Interstates, I still hold out hope that a DETOUR or ALTERNATE Interstate banner could be adopted to fill that need.