Why did AASHTO disapprove the relocation of US 87 onto WY 193?

[bugo]

US 87 has a segment that is permanently closed due to a landslide near Story, Wyoming. There is a good detour route, WY 193, that bypasses the landslide. Wyoming wanted to reroute US 87 onto WY 193 but it was denied. The current US 87 will likely never be repaired because it might damage a historic site near the landslide. Why on earth would they deny this rerouting?

[NE2]

Because they want it moved to I-90. Fuck them.

http://route.transportation.org/Documents/2001_USRN_Cmte.pdf

[halork]

At the risk of running off onto a tangent, US-87 ought to be decertified from end-to-end anyway. It's useless outside of Texas and Montana; let those states give their sections a state route number.

[Rover_0]

At the risk of running off onto a tangent, US-87 ought to be decertified from end-to-end anyway. It's useless outside of Texas and Montana; let those states give their sections a state route number.

At the risk of going off into another tangent, if you decertify US-87, why not transfer it over to US-191 anyways? It would still fit the grid and actually have a route of its own.

[Scott5114]

Because they want it moved to I-90. Fuck them.

http://route.transportation.org/Documents/2001_USRN_Cmte.pdf

They actually denied it because WY 193 doesn't meet US highway standards. They recommended I-90 as an alternate routing.

In this case, though, AASHTO should have approved a waiver to WY 193. Having a substandard route is better than having no thru route at all. I'm loathe to advocate it, but WYDOT should pull an ODOT and just sign the reroute. Maybe they could include ½" DETOUR plaques with the signs.

[texaskdog]

Because they want it moved to I-90. Fuck them.

http://route.transportation.org/Documents/2001_USRN_Cmte.pdf

They actually denied it because WY 193 doesn't meet US highway standards. They recommended I-90 as an alternate routing.

In this case, though, AASHTO should have approved a waiver to WY 193. Having a substandard route is better than having no thru route at all. I'm loathe to advocate it, but WYDOT should pull an ODOT and just sign the reroute. Maybe they could include ½" DETOUR plaques with the signs.

Google map shows them running together.

87 is pretty useless most of the way

[texaskdog]

how about rerouting US 87 via US 310 (which can be shortened if not eliminated), WY 120, and a duplex with US 26 back to Scottsbluff, then south on multistate 71 down and replace US 350 to Trinidad?  Or even take over 287.....I know we're getting into fictional highway territory.

[bugo]

Because they want it moved to I-90. Fuck them.

http://route.transportation.org/Documents/2001_USRN_Cmte.pdf

They actually denied it because WY 193 doesn't meet US highway standards. They recommended I-90 as an alternate routing.

There are no "US Highway Standards".

[NE2]

AASHTO applies their "Green Book" standards to new U.S. Highways.

[kkt]

I see AASHTO's point.  Route numbers are to guide motorists to the best, quickest, or easiest way between two points.  If US 87 isn't that way, what's it for?

[NE2]

I see AASHTO's point.  Route numbers are to guide motorists to the best, quickest, or easiest way between two points.  If US 87 isn't that way, what's it for?

That's what I-90 is for. US 87 is for the best non-Interstate route.

[kkt]

I see AASHTO's point.  Route numbers are to guide motorists to the best, quickest, or easiest way between two points.  If US 87 isn't that way, what's it for?

That's what I-90 is for. US 87 is for the best non-Interstate route.

But why?  Sure, road geeks care because road archaeology.  But they'd get their information elsewhere.  For most of the travelling public, getting rid of redundant old route numbers when they're superseded by parallel freeways is helpful.

[bugo]

I see AASHTO's point.  Route numbers are to guide motorists to the best, quickest, or easiest way between two points.  If US 87 isn't that way, what's it for?

That's what I-90 is for. US 87 is for the best non-Interstate route.

But why?  Sure, road geeks care because road archaeology.  But they'd get their information elsewhere.  For most of the travelling public, getting rid of redundant old route numbers when they're superseded by parallel freeways is helpful.

It's not redundant. What if, say, an earthquake damaged part of I-90? With an independent US 87, traffic could be detoured onto a state highway. Decommission US 87 and move it onto I-90 and you don't have a state-maintained detour route.

[oscar]

But why?  Sure, road geeks care because road archaeology.  But they'd get their information elsewhere.  For most of the travelling public, getting rid of redundant old route numbers when they're superseded by parallel freeways is helpful.

It's not redundant. What if, say, an earthquake damaged part of I-90? With an independent US 87, traffic could be detoured onto a state highway. Decommission US 87 and move it onto I-90 and you don't have a state-maintained detour route.

Removing the US 87 route markers doesn't necessarily remove the state maintenance. WYDOT can assign new state route numbers to the decommissioned part of US 87, such as adding most of it to WY 193.

[bugo]

That's what I-90 is for. US 87 is for the best non-Interstate route.

But why?  Sure, road geeks care because road archaeology.  But they'd get their information elsewhere.  For most of the travelling public, getting rid of redundant old route numbers when they're superseded by parallel freeways is helpful.

It's not redundant. What if, say, an earthquake damaged part of I-90? With an independent US 87, traffic could be detoured onto a state highway. Decommission US 87 and move it onto I-90 and you don't have a state-maintained detour route.

Removing the US 87 route markers doesn't necessarily remove the state maintenance. WYDOT can assign new state route numbers to the decommissioned part of US 87, such as adding most of it to WY 193.
[/quote]

You mixed up the quote. I want it to be known that I fully support US 87 and other US and state routes that are paralleled by interstates having their own alignment which provides an alternate to the interstate in case the interstate is blocked or if one simply wants to take the old 2 lane road instead of the freeway. I also think US 87 should be rerouted on WY 193. AASHTO might have a stick up their ass saying that WY 193 isn't up to "US highway standards" (whatever that is) but current US 87 is impassable. The supposedly substandard WY 193 is still superior to the US 87 alignment that is no longer a through highway. AASHTO seems to be more lenient these days. Maybe if Wyoming reapplied for the rerouting it would be approved.

[Henry]

I agree; US 87 ought to be rerouted onto WY 193, regardless of whether or not it is the best detour around the damaged area. It's one thing to have Interstate-standard and substandard freeways, but what the hell are US highway standards? Never heard of them, and if there were such a thing, it's the stupidest thing ever invented in the roadgeek world!

[andy3175]

US 87 in Wyoming is one of my favorite topics. I agree with Jeremy's position on this one. It should be rerouted onto Wyoming 193, especially since WyoDOT realigned the intersection so that through traffic transitions from US 87 onto Wyoming 193 and then back onto US 87. The curious thing is, while US 87 is following a non-Interstate highway alignment just south of Sheridan, I have wondered why other old alignments of US 87 have not similarly retained the US 87 designation and instead are given state highway designations. Significant sections of old US 87 have been retained in the Wyoming state highway system, for better or for worse, but only this segment and a shared segment with US 20-26 between Casper and Glenrock allow US 87 some travel away from the Interstates. I've always been amazed to see all the shared alignments among most roadways in Wyoming, not just pairing Interstate and US but also matching Interstate business routes with US routes, combining multiple US routes, merging and detangling Wyoming 130-230 at both ends, and watching Wyoming 789 share pavement with just about any route it meets. It's great for signage geeks (like when I go to Buffalo and try to figure out where, exactly, the north end of Business Loop I-25 is). So maybe WyoDOT will sign both US 87 and Wyoming 193*, just to keep US 87 sharing alignment with another route?


* - If AASHTO gives permission. I don't know if WyoDOT would go against AASHTO's ruling on this matter. But I doubt WyoDOT intends to place US 87 back onto I-90.

[707]

I wonder if it has anything to do with the reasoning behind why the AASHO denied an extension of US 666 in Utah many decades ago?

[Brian556]

I say put it on WY 193. I feel that it is important to maintain the original US highway designations off-interstate so that it is easy for drivers to find and use it as an alternate when there is a problem on the interstate.

It is a shame that states like Texas chose to build interstates over the top of the original US highways. This is to the detriment of motorists because it leaves no reasonable alternate route if a problem occurs on the interstate.

Thumbs up to Florida for not doing this.

[texaskdog]

I say put it on WY 193. I feel that it is important to maintain the original US highway designations off-interstate so that it is easy for drivers to find and use it as an alternate when there is a problem on the interstate.

It is a shame that states like Texas chose to build interstates over the top of the original US highways. This is to the detriment of motorists because it leaves no reasonable alternate route if a problem occurs on the interstate.

Thumbs up to Florida for not doing this.

Last year in Wisconsin there was a traffic jam outside of Eau Claire.  Having US 12 there was a big help as I knew the alternate route.

[Henry]

I wonder if it has anything to do with the reasoning behind why the AASHO denied an extension of US 666 in Utah many decades ago?

I thought the real reason was the superstition behind 666, and the fear of sign theft.

[bugo]

I wonder if it has anything to do with the reasoning behind why the AASHO denied an extension of US 666 in Utah many decades ago?

I thought the real reason was the superstition behind 666, and the fear of sign theft.

The Christian superstition. Had it been any other religion, it wouldn't have been changed.

[The High Plains Traveler]

I say put it on WY 193. I feel that it is important to maintain the original US highway designations off-interstate so that it is easy for drivers to find and use it as an alternate when there is a problem on the interstate.

It is a shame that states like Texas chose to build interstates over the top of the original US highways. This is to the detriment of motorists because it leaves no reasonable alternate route if a problem occurs on the interstate.

Thumbs up to Florida for not doing this.

Sorry, I don't get it. It's much more useful for the congestion alternative to have the parallel route marked "Emergency" I-xx, like Michigan does with I-94. Otherwise, how do I know a particular U.S. route is a parallel alternate?

[texaskdog]

maybe they could get in the habit of marking these roads with the same number.  "Wyoming 25" could parallel I-25 wherever needed.  If someone can't tell the difference between the highways they are an idiot.

[bugo]

maybe they could get in the habit of marking these roads with the same number.  "Wyoming 25" could parallel I-25 wherever needed.  If someone can't tell the difference between the highways they are an idiot.

If the old route crossed the new route, it could cause major confusion similar to the US 74/I-74 clusterfuck in North Carolina and the pending US 69/I-69 crossing in Texas. There are some other examples like US 27 and GA 27 and US 70 and TX 70.