Pointless US Highway Reroutes. Why???

[US 41]

A few examples.

1) US 65 from Little Rock to Pine Bluff runs concurrent with I-530 while the old 65 is now SR 365.
2) US 395 from Reno to Carson City runs concurrent with I-580 while the old 395 is now Alt US 395.
3) SR 36 in Colorado.
4) US 220 runs concurrent with I-73 in North Carolina while old 220 is now Alt US 220.

I guess my point is why have these US routes been rerouted onto the interstates when the state still maintains the old highways. Wouldn't it make more sense to reroute the US route back onto its original route?

[Stratuscaster]

As far as US routes go:

The purpose of the U.S. road numbering and marking system is to facilitate
travel on the main interstate lines, over the shortest routes and the best
roads.

http://route.transportation.org/Documents/HO1_Policy_Establ_Develop_USRN.pdf

[briantroutman]

That gets at a topic that's long been a point of contention on these boards.

Some people believe that the US numbered highway system should be a separate network utilizing surface roads where an Interstate runs parallel (such as US 11 and I-81 in Virginia). Others believe that US routes should follow the best quality route through a corridor, even if that means an overlap with an Interstate. AASHTO policies (as mentioned) support the latter philosophy.

I also tend to fall into the latter group more than the former because I believe it's more in tune with the purpose behind having numbered routes in the first place. Take the US 395/I-580 example. In the context of the Reno area, it may seem to be duplicative and unnecessary to mark US 395 on the freeway, but consider it from the perspective of the long-distance driver. He may be following US 395 for hundreds of miles from Oregon to Southern California. The US 395 freeway becomes I-580 as approaches Reno, but does it make any sense for him to exit the freeway there just to avoid duplication?

[US 41]

That gets at a topic that's long been a point of contention on these boards.

Some people believe that the US numbered highway system should be a separate network utilizing surface roads where an Interstate runs parallel (such as US 11 and I-81 in Virginia). Others believe that US routes should follow the best quality route through a corridor, even if that means an overlap with an Interstate. AASHTO policies (as mentioned) support the latter philosophy.

I also tend to fall into the latter group more than the former because I believe it's more in tune with the purpose behind having numbered routes in the first place. Take the US 395/I-580 example. In the context of the Reno area, it may seem to be duplicative and unnecessary to mark US 395 on the freeway, but consider it from the perspective of the long-distance driver. He may be following US 395 for hundreds of miles from Oregon to Southern California. The US 395 freeway becomes I-580 as approaches Reno, but does it make any sense for him to exit the freeway there just to avoid duplication?

I see your point. Although I think 99% of people know that the US Routes are typically the old routes while interstates are the new ones. If I am going through Reno and I see a sign that reads "I-580 Carson City" or one that says "US 395 Carson City" and I'm in a hurry, I am going to follow the interstate. However US Routes are usually the fastest and shortest ways from town to town, which is why they are still needed.

[Duke87]

AASHTO policy may support putting US routes on interstates, but ultimately it is up to the whims of each individual state whether to do this. Some are more keen on it than others.

Out west it is often done for significant lengths as a practical matter because the old route is either built over, abandoned, or too low grade for modern US route standards with no reason to improve it. In the eastern part of the country there are fewer long concurrencies and they are usually motivated either by the old road having been downloaded to county or local maintenance, or by the freeway having been built as the US highway with the interstate designation coming later.

[odditude]

I see your point. Although I think 99% of people know that the US Routes are typically the old routes while interstates are the new ones.

i think you are overly optimistic - i'd say 20% at best. 99% of people don't even notice the difference in shield design between a US Route and a State Route, let alone know what it actually means.

[SD Mapman]

As far as US routes go:

The purpose of the U.S. road numbering and marking system is to facilitate
travel on the main interstate lines, over the shortest routes and the best
roads.

http://route.transportation.org/Documents/HO1_Policy_Establ_Develop_USRN.pdf

Then what about US 87 near Sheridan? Huh? Huh? It's routed on a washout.

[Rothman]

I never liked US 400.

[froggie]

Then what about US 87 near Sheridan? Huh? Huh? It's routed on a washout.

but ultimately it is up to the whims of each individual state whether to do this.

(emphasis mine)

[US 41]

US 87 is a another perfect example. South of Buffalo, WY, US 87 runs concurrent with I-25. Why not put US 87 back on its old route which is WY SR 196? Besides US 87 is basically useless as it is right now. It's concurrent with I-25 almost its entire length south of Billings, MT all the way to Raton, NM. 

In New Mexico US 85 has been done away with as far as I know of, because NMDOT decided it was pointless to have a useless concurrency. US 85 was routed on the best route but eventually it had its downside. Now there are just state routes where US 85 used to be. It would have been a lot better to reroute US 85 back onto SR 1, SR 185, and SR 478. Instead now we have state highways and eventually no one will remember that the road used to be a US Highway. Not to mention that the old US 85 is now three different numbered routes across the state.

[SD Mapman]

Then what about US 87 near Sheridan? Huh? Huh? It's routed on a washout.

but ultimately it is up to the whims of each individual state whether to do this.

(emphasis mine)

Actually, last I heard, WY wanted to move it onto WY 193, but AASHTO turned them down (don't have a source, sorry).

[bassoon1986]

As far as US routes go:

The purpose of the U.S. road numbering and marking system is to facilitate
travel on the main interstate lines, over the shortest routes and the best
roads.

http://route.transportation.org/Documents/HO1_Policy_Establ_Develop_USRN.pdf

I think it's funny when this rule has been used for very short distances. US 80 in east Texas dips down SE from Marshall and parallels I-20 between 2 exits before it goes through the town of Waskom. The north frontage road for I-20 is old US 80, and US 80 got rerouted onto I-20 for just 4 miles.

[english si]

Actually, last I heard, WY wanted to move it onto WY 193, but AASHTO turned them down (don't have a source, sorry).

Indeed, AASHTO wanted it all on I-25.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

Actually, last I heard, WY wanted to move it onto WY 193, but AASHTO turned them down (don't have a source, sorry).

Indeed, AASHTO wanted it all on I-25.

US 87 was permanently closed by repeated landslides so Wyoming gave up and set up a permanent "detour" on 193. Even when you approach where US 87 leaves I-90 it's basically an afterthought. You see the exit sign for whatever towns, then after that is a small "US 87 Story/Banner, Next Right" sign.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

US 87 is a another perfect example. South of Buffalo, WY, US 87 runs concurrent with I-25. Why not put US 87 back on its old route which is WY SR 196? Besides US 87 is basically useless as it is right now. It's concurrent with I-25 almost its entire length south of Billings, MT all the way to Raton, NM. 

Don't have a quote, but I thought it was AASHTO policy that once a route is moved off its old alignment onto an interstate or whatever, it cannot move back to the old alignment.

[Brian556]

Quote from bassoon1986:

I think it's funny when this rule has been used for very short distances. US 80 in east Texas dips down SE from Marshall and parallels I-20 between 2 exits before it goes through the town of Waskom. The north frontage road for I-20 is old US 80, and US 80 got rerouted onto I-20 for just 4 miles.

This is a rather strange situation. US 80 is routed onto I-20 for just a few miles, despite the fact that the north side frontage road, which is the original US 80, was left intact as a two way roadway. There is no reason at all to have US 80 routed to the freeway.

I've driven through there several times on I-20, but it never donned on me that it was set up in such an odd way. Thanks for pointing that out.

[Brian556]

Also, Tennessee re-routed US 41 off of I-24 between Monteagle and Kimball. I-24 EB lanes took over the old US 41/64 east of Monteagle. The re-route of US 41 to SR 150 was done in/around 1980 in order to provide an easy-to follow detour route for when accidents occurred on the EB I-24 downhill grade.

US 64 remains on I-24 in this area.

[noelbotevera]

Pennsylvania has evaded and did their best without having useless US multiplexes onto Interstate highways. US 11/I-81 is a perfect example, almost never straying from it, but it did not get moved to I-81. The only point where US 11 leaves I-81 is between Camp Hill at the PA 581 interchange until US 6 near the Scranton area.

[roadman65]

I never liked US 400.

Actually when I traveled on it this past July between Wichita and Joplin, MO it was quite used.  In fact, where US 400 splits off of US 54 near Augusta, KS more traffic heads east on US 400 then on straight through US 54.  Although, that may be because the Kansas Turnpike takes the traffic away from US 54 between Wichita and El Dorado, and all that is left between Wichita and the two route split is US 400, still there was enough on that section of US route to carry out bypasses of Parsons and Neoshoda and from my view I saw enough travel on it to warrant the designation.

Its really the out of place number that is useless as US 154 would have worked better or even US 254 as well, but because of that failed I-66 attempt it needed a special out of the usual route number.

[TheStranger]

US 87 is a another perfect example. South of Buffalo, WY, US 87 runs concurrent with I-25. Why not put US 87 back on its old route which is WY SR 196? Besides US 87 is basically useless as it is right now. It's concurrent with I-25 almost its entire length south of Billings, MT all the way to Raton, NM. 

Don't have a quote, but I thought it was AASHTO policy that once a route is moved off its old alignment onto an interstate or whatever, it cannot move back to the old alignment.

Which is what makes the saga of US 117 and I-795 in North Carolina fascinating (as once 795 was established, 117 was moved back to its original surface routing).

[andy3175]

Actually, last I heard, WY wanted to move it onto WY 193, but AASHTO turned them down (don't have a source, sorry).

Indeed, AASHTO wanted it all on I-25.

I think AASHTO preferred to have US 87 on nearby I-90 or on a combination of I-90 and Wyo 342, as it rejected a proposal to move US 87 onto WYO 193. That proposal was heard by AASHTO on May 19, 2001 and is documented here: http://route.transportation.org/Documents/2001_USRN_Cmte.pdf

The application from Wyoming for the relocation of U.S. Route 87 was disapproved because there was no indication that the deficiencies noted on Wyoming S.R. 193 will be corrected.

Additionally, the Committee members suggested that Wyoming consider alternative routings for U.S. Route 87, such as:

a. Continue U.S. Route 87 on Interstate Route 90 north of Buffalo, past the landslide area, then back onto existing U.S. Route 87 via Wyoming S.R. 342; or

b. Relocate the entire length of U.S. Route 87 onto Interstate Route 90 from north of Buffalo to Sheridan.

I do not know what the exact issues were/are with Wyoming 193 in terms of road quality that would make it better than Wyoming 342 or existing US 87. When I last drove US 87 through here in 2014, I saw US 87 signage stop at the Fetterman Monument turnoff. From that point forward, Wyo 193 continued northwest into Story. US 87 magically reappeared after the point where Wyo 193 reconnected with the old US 87. Then US 87 continues, fully signed, past Wyo 342, Wyo 335, etc. into Sheridan. US 87 follows Business Loop 90 and US 14 through downtown Sheridan (signage marks the business route as Business US 14-87 and also as mainline US 14-87, but since US 87 does not reappear alongside I-90 until north of Sheridan, I believe the intent is for US 87 to pass through downtown Sheridan.

(A similar signage situation used to exist for US 30 in Rawlins, where US 30 used to be unsigned on I-80 between the two business loop interchanges on either side of downtown, so the presumed route of mainline US 30 at that time was through Rawlins rather than around it. Since then, US 30 is signed around the city via I-80.)

So, while US 87 signage stops at the two Wyo 193 intersections, if you keep driving straight ahead and make no turns, you'll continue toward Sheridan as if you never left US 87. Perhaps this is a newer improvement that was made to keep through traffic on the US 87-Wyo 193 combo. Maybe now that it's a straight shot past the two ends of former US 87 the AASHTO road quality concerns have been addressed. I don't know. There weren't any detour or trailblazer TO US 87 signs along Wyo 193, but US 87 is certainly signed north of Wyo 193 all the way to Sheridan. Finally, I believe the two extant segments of former US 87 are unsigned Wyoming state highways: Wyo 344 (shown as ML 60B in Sheridan County, with Wyo 344 itself seemingly eliminated from the previous version of this manual) and Wyo 346 (shown as ML 346 in Sheridan and Johnson Counties) in the last version of the Wyoming Dept of Transportation route marker reference book (easiest to search for 344 and 346):

http://www.dot.state.wy.us/files/live/sites/wydot/files/shared/Maintenance/Maintenance%20Section%20Reference%20Book/2013%20Maintenance%20Section%20Reference%20Book%20(2-15-2013).pdf

[sipes23]

US 87 is a another perfect example. South of Buffalo, WY, US 87 runs concurrent with I-25. Why not put US 87 back on its old route which is WY SR 196?

And WYO 196 is a vastly more fun road to drive despite being in sight of the interstate much of the time. My wife got a little car sick, so it's not a pleasure I'll get to indulge in very often.

[Stratuscaster]

I prefer that the US route - when/where possible - be on a parallel route to a companion Interstate. Overlapping an Interstate for huge lengths seems pointless.

[kkt]

That gets at a topic that's long been a point of contention on these boards.

Some people believe that the US numbered highway system should be a separate network utilizing surface roads where an Interstate runs parallel (such as US 11 and I-81 in Virginia). Others believe that US routes should follow the best quality route through a corridor, even if that means an overlap with an Interstate. AASHTO policies (as mentioned) support the latter philosophy.

I also tend to fall into the latter group more than the former because I believe it's more in tune with the purpose behind having numbered routes in the first place. Take the US 395/I-580 example. In the context of the Reno area, it may seem to be duplicative and unnecessary to mark US 395 on the freeway, but consider it from the perspective of the long-distance driver. He may be following US 395 for hundreds of miles from Oregon to Southern California. The US 395 freeway becomes I-580 as approaches Reno, but does it make any sense for him to exit the freeway there just to avoid duplication?

I see your point. Although I think 99% of people know that the US Routes are typically the old routes while interstates are the new ones. If I am going through Reno and I see a sign that reads "I-580 Carson City" or one that says "US 395 Carson City" and I'm in a hurry, I am going to follow the interstate. However US Routes are usually the fastest and shortest ways from town to town, which is why they are still needed.

If you're in Reno and you saw a sign for US 395 to Carson City, it would take you on I-580.  Old US 395 is now 395A.

And that's the expected thing in lots of the country.  A US route is expected to be the best route to places along it.

AASHTO should have demanded that US routes be cleaned up at the same time as the interstate opened.

[SD Mapman]

That gets at a topic that's long been a point of contention on these boards.

Some people believe that the US numbered highway system should be a separate network utilizing surface roads where an Interstate runs parallel (such as US 11 and I-81 in Virginia). Others believe that US routes should follow the best quality route through a corridor, even if that means an overlap with an Interstate. AASHTO policies (as mentioned) support the latter philosophy.

I also tend to fall into the latter group more than the former because I believe it's more in tune with the purpose behind having numbered routes in the first place. Take the US 395/I-580 example. In the context of the Reno area, it may seem to be duplicative and unnecessary to mark US 395 on the freeway, but consider it from the perspective of the long-distance driver. He may be following US 395 for hundreds of miles from Oregon to Southern California. The US 395 freeway becomes I-580 as approaches Reno, but does it make any sense for him to exit the freeway there just to avoid duplication?

I see your point. Although I think 99% of people know that the US Routes are typically the old routes while interstates are the new ones. If I am going through Reno and I see a sign that reads "I-580 Carson City" or one that says "US 395 Carson City" and I'm in a hurry, I am going to follow the interstate. However US Routes are usually the fastest and shortest ways from town to town, which is why they are still needed.

If you're in Reno and you saw a sign for US 395 to Carson City, it would take you on I-580.  Old US 395 is now 395A.

And that's the expected thing in lots of the country.  A US route is expected to be the best route to places along it.

AASHTO should have demanded that US routes be cleaned up at the same time as the interstate opened.

I think the problem is that it's lots of area, not lots of people.