News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

Poll on US Highways and Interstates

Started by SEWIGuy, September 21, 2021, 10:50:15 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

How would you prefer US Highways be handled when an Interstate takes over the corridor.

Keep US Highway on parallel road (e.g., US-11)
Turn it to state route on parallel road (e.g., US-16 in Minnesota and Wisconsin)
End the route where the interstate takes over and turn remaining to a state route (e.g., US-61)
Hide the route on the interstate and have it reemerge later (e.g., US-41 in Wisconsin)
Duplex the route on the interstate

froggie

Quote from: SectorZ on September 25, 2021, 08:29:43 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on September 21, 2021, 08:09:49 PM
It depends. I'm fine with some paralleling but things like US 5 and US 11 are just ridiculous.

US 5 has plenty of independent utility along the I-91 corridor.

South of Springfield Mass, perhaps.  It's a useless US route this side of the Mohawk Trail.


Rothman

Quote from: froggie on September 25, 2021, 08:32:05 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on September 25, 2021, 08:29:43 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on September 21, 2021, 08:09:49 PM
It depends. I'm fine with some paralleling but things like US 5 and US 11 are just ridiculous.

US 5 has plenty of independent utility along the I-91 corridor.

South of Springfield Mass, perhaps.  It's a useless US route this side of the Mohawk Trail.
Not sure why.  It's I-91's business route.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

hobsini2

Quote from: paulthemapguy on September 21, 2021, 10:54:22 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 21, 2021, 10:50:15 AM
I know that the answer likely changes depending on the circumstance... .
It definitely does.  The choice of what to do is highly contingent upon the geography and the layout of existing corridors.  This will be another one of those polls where I don't answer because there is nothing close to an overarching philosophy that I can agree upon...as long as you don't do what Illinois did with I-39, putting the US route as a duplex with the interstate and then inventing a stupid state route number for the surface road.  Two highways having three numbers is unnecessarily convoluted. Why not two numbers for two routes?
I get it and don't necessarily disagree. However, I also put US Routes on a higher place of importance than a state route. If the former route becomes a 3di of the old highway, such as the case with IL 251, when the US route gets moved onto a freeway, I have no problem with it. Also, keep in mind that the freeway was 51 long before 39 in both Illinois and Wisconsin.
I knew it. I'm surrounded by assholes. Keep firing, assholes! - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)

HighwayStar

Quote from: hobsini2 on September 25, 2021, 10:38:52 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on September 21, 2021, 10:54:22 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 21, 2021, 10:50:15 AM
I know that the answer likely changes depending on the circumstance... .
It definitely does.  The choice of what to do is highly contingent upon the geography and the layout of existing corridors.  This will be another one of those polls where I don't answer because there is nothing close to an overarching philosophy that I can agree upon...as long as you don't do what Illinois did with I-39, putting the US route as a duplex with the interstate and then inventing a stupid state route number for the surface road.  Two highways having three numbers is unnecessarily convoluted. Why not two numbers for two routes?
I get it and don't necessarily disagree. However, I also put US Routes on a higher place of importance than a state route. If the former route becomes a 3di of the old highway, such as the case with IL 251, when the US route gets moved onto a freeway, I have no problem with it. Also, keep in mind that the freeway was 51 long before 39 in both Illinois and Wisconsin.

Agreed, much of the benefit of US routes (both realized, and potential) is that they can confer some level of recognition for out of state drivers.
In my ideal world, US routes would be almost entirely distinct from the Interstate system, and state routes would be distinct from both. Most travel could be accomplished with only US and Interstate routes, leaving state routes to fairly local travel that is overwhelmingly done by state residents.
There are those who travel, and those who travel well

hbelkins

Quote from: HighwayStar on September 26, 2021, 12:16:14 PM

Agreed, much of the benefit of US routes (both realized, and potential) is that they can confer some level of recognition for out of state drivers.

As a kid in the 60s, when we took family vacations to the Outer Banks, I thought it was really neat that the same route that we saw in Winston-Salem and Greensboro (US 421) ran within 30 miles of where I lived. However, if I was going to set out to travel to North Carolina today, unless I was traveling the long way for scenic purposes, or to clinch a route, there's no way I would head to the nearest access point for US 421 and then use it the rest of the way.  In fact, even if I planned to use 421 for a significant portion of my trip, I wouldn't even access it until I got to Mountain City, Tenn.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

DenverBrian

Quote from: SkyPesos on September 25, 2021, 01:35:05 AM
Quote from: DenverBrian on September 25, 2021, 01:10:56 AM
I could see the need to retain contiguous US routing when everyone was using paper maps. In the current era of online/onboard navigation, there is no longer any need for that kind of continuity, IMO.
So are you suggesting that each US route should be able to have multiple gaps and segments, like some of Indiana's state routes?
Since many US routes already have multiple gaps and segments...yes.

SkyPesos

Quote from: DenverBrian on September 27, 2021, 07:08:20 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on September 25, 2021, 01:35:05 AM
Quote from: DenverBrian on September 25, 2021, 01:10:56 AM
I could see the need to retain contiguous US routing when everyone was using paper maps. In the current era of online/onboard navigation, there is no longer any need for that kind of continuity, IMO.
So are you suggesting that each US route should be able to have multiple gaps and segments, like some of Indiana's state routes?
Since many US routes already have multiple gaps and segments...yes.
Besides US 2 and the ones through Yellowstone, I can't think of any more.

SeriesE

I voted for option 3 even though I prefer the US highway shield to the Interstate shield. It's more logical to reduce unnecessary duplexes and fewer people will travel the US route as it was before Interstate came along

hotdogPi

Quote from: SkyPesos on September 27, 2021, 07:24:27 PM
Quote from: DenverBrian on September 27, 2021, 07:08:20 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on September 25, 2021, 01:35:05 AM
Quote from: DenverBrian on September 25, 2021, 01:10:56 AM
I could see the need to retain contiguous US routing when everyone was using paper maps. In the current era of online/onboard navigation, there is no longer any need for that kind of continuity, IMO.
So are you suggesting that each US route should be able to have multiple gaps and segments, like some of Indiana's state routes?
Since many US routes already have multiple gaps and segments...yes.
Besides US 2 and the ones through Yellowstone, I can't think of any more.

9, 10, and 422.
Clinched, minus I-93 (I'm missing a few miles and my file is incorrect)

Traveled, plus US 13, 44, and 50, and several state routes

I will be in Burlington VT for the eclipse.

SkyPesos

Quote from: 1 on September 27, 2021, 07:31:54 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on September 27, 2021, 07:24:27 PM
Quote from: DenverBrian on September 27, 2021, 07:08:20 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on September 25, 2021, 01:35:05 AM
Quote from: DenverBrian on September 25, 2021, 01:10:56 AM
I could see the need to retain contiguous US routing when everyone was using paper maps. In the current era of online/onboard navigation, there is no longer any need for that kind of continuity, IMO.
So are you suggesting that each US route should be able to have multiple gaps and segments, like some of Indiana’s state routes?
Since many US routes already have multiple gaps and segments...yes.
Besides US 2 and the ones through Yellowstone, I can't think of any more.

9, 10, and 422.
So then that's 4 plus the ones through Yellowstone (I think it's US 20, 89, 191 and 287 from the best of my memory, correct me if it's wrong) with a single gap. I think it could count as "many", but "multiple gaps" is an exaggeration, as the ones named here only have a single gap.

TheHighwayMan3561

I'll say 10 is debatable, since they make an effort to post the Badger as the continuation of US 10, and WI posts an EAST US 10 marker going down the ship ramp.
self-certified as the dumbest person on this board for 5 years running

US 89

Quote from: SkyPesos on September 27, 2021, 07:47:31 PM
Quote from: 1 on September 27, 2021, 07:31:54 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on September 27, 2021, 07:24:27 PM
Quote from: DenverBrian on September 27, 2021, 07:08:20 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on September 25, 2021, 01:35:05 AM
Quote from: DenverBrian on September 25, 2021, 01:10:56 AM
I could see the need to retain contiguous US routing when everyone was using paper maps. In the current era of online/onboard navigation, there is no longer any need for that kind of continuity, IMO.
So are you suggesting that each US route should be able to have multiple gaps and segments, like some of Indiana's state routes?
Since many US routes already have multiple gaps and segments...yes.
Besides US 2 and the ones through Yellowstone, I can't think of any more.

9, 10, and 422.
So then that's 4 plus the ones through Yellowstone (I think it's US 20, 89, 191 and 287 from the best of my memory, correct me if it's wrong) with a single gap. I think it could count as "many", but "multiple gaps" is an exaggeration, as the ones named here only have a single gap.

That is correct for Yellowstone. 14, 16, and 212 all end at the boundary.

US 6 in Colorado also has an official gap where the road is locally maintained in Rifle. And US 85 makes an impossible jump from a bridge to I-25 without an interchange south of Colorado Springs, so that probably counts as a gap as well.

DenverBrian

And US 36 as it goes through the Denver metro.

I didn't realize that some people are so deeply invested in the idea that US highways are/must be contiguous.

jaehak

I generally like seeing some original routings for US Highways, especially in urban area. I'd definitely change some up though, like 69 and 169 in KC. I'd keep 69 on the Overland Parkway and on 18th Street Expressway, but its other meanders are just weird and follow a route that nobody would actually use. After 18th Street I'd probably keep it on the interstate until it splits off 35 in Liberty. I
d put 169 back on Metcalf, I thought that was a useful routing, but then put it back on I 35 when it meets Metcalf and keeps it on Interstates until it goes its own way downtown.

HighwayStar

Quote from: DenverBrian on October 01, 2021, 09:49:55 AM
And US 36 as it goes through the Denver metro.

I didn't realize that some people are so deeply invested in the idea that US highways are/must be contiguous.

Frankly it makes sense. Gaps serve no purpose, and nothing good comes of them. Routes should be continuous so as to minimize confusion.
There are those who travel, and those who travel well

DenverBrian

Quote from: HighwayStar on October 01, 2021, 11:35:47 AM
Quote from: DenverBrian on October 01, 2021, 09:49:55 AM
And US 36 as it goes through the Denver metro.

I didn't realize that some people are so deeply invested in the idea that US highways are/must be contiguous.

Frankly it makes sense. Gaps serve no purpose, and nothing good comes of them. Routes should be continuous so as to minimize confusion.
Meh. No one's looking at paper maps anymore. Nav systems take care of this easily.

vdeane

Quote from: DenverBrian on October 01, 2021, 02:55:28 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on October 01, 2021, 11:35:47 AM
Quote from: DenverBrian on October 01, 2021, 09:49:55 AM
And US 36 as it goes through the Denver metro.

I didn't realize that some people are so deeply invested in the idea that US highways are/must be contiguous.

Frankly it makes sense. Gaps serve no purpose, and nothing good comes of them. Routes should be continuous so as to minimize confusion.
Meh. No one's looking at paper maps anymore. Nav systems take care of this easily.
Not everyone uses nav systems or wants to.  I for one do not intend to turn over navigation to a computer that doesn't care about the things that I care about in driving and being a roadgeek.  Plus GPS seems to turn people's brains to mush when they rely on it too much.  It's amazing how many people think I have a superpower just because I actually make sure I know where I'm going with maps/street view before I go places.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

HighwayStar

Quote from: vdeane on October 01, 2021, 03:03:58 PM
Quote from: DenverBrian on October 01, 2021, 02:55:28 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on October 01, 2021, 11:35:47 AM
Quote from: DenverBrian on October 01, 2021, 09:49:55 AM
And US 36 as it goes through the Denver metro.

I didn't realize that some people are so deeply invested in the idea that US highways are/must be contiguous.

Frankly it makes sense. Gaps serve no purpose, and nothing good comes of them. Routes should be continuous so as to minimize confusion.
Meh. No one's looking at paper maps anymore. Nav systems take care of this easily.
Not everyone uses nav systems or wants to.  I for one do not intend to turn over navigation to a computer that doesn't care about the things that I care about in driving and being a roadgeek.  Plus GPS seems to turn people's brains to mush when they rely on it too much.  It's amazing how many people think I have a superpower just because I actually make sure I know where I'm going with maps/street view before I go places.

Agreed. Moreover, nav systems are fallible, and distract the driver from the road which is what they should be paying attention to.

What is less distracting, "Follow US 10 for 25 miles" or..

"Follow US 10 for 1 Mile" "Turn Right onto Deviancy Street" "Using the Left Lane, Turn onto Gerald Avenue"  "In 1000 feet, make a legal U turn" "Turn right to continue on US 10"

I will also point out that navigation should be a part of drivers ed, and those that cannot pass that section should have to ride a bus.
There are those who travel, and those who travel well

kkt

Quote from: ran4sh on September 24, 2021, 11:59:43 PM
I'm one of those people who believes that a route designation should reflect the funding (i.e. Interstate/US/State Primary routes should be state or federally funded, with lower classifications being locally funded), and also, that a route designation should reflect the best route to use between points along the route.

The poll option that is the most consistent with those 2 principles is to have the routes overlap on the Interstate. The other option is to have the US route end at the Interstate if the US route doesn't continue past the overlap.

This is my thinking.  If the US route is no longer independent of the interstate, it should be truncated to the part that is not on the interstate.  If the US route is independent of the interstate on segments before and after a segment where it's replaced by the interstate, it should be duplexed with the interstate during the section in between them.  This is the US route reflects the best route between points philosophy.  If the old route is wanted as a US route anyway, it could be signed as a Alt route or a Historic US route.

adventurernumber1

#44
I voted for the first option in the poll - really it does depend on a case-by-case basis, but 90+% of the time I would probably favor either option 1 or option 5. Of course there are some extreme examples (such as US 11 and I-70/US 40 in KS), but even in these I still prefer it to decommissioning and truncating – although there are plenty of times the latter could certainly come in handy. But decommissioning in my view should only be done as a last resort. California went to the extreme with this and lost a significant portion of its US Highway mileage. And beyond just California, US 91, what was intended as a major x1 US Highway corridor, has been almost completely lost except for the short remaining section north of Salt Lake City. It may have been almost completely replaced by I-15 for all intents and purposes, but it's still strange to think about how a major US x1 corridor has been nearly decimated by perhaps what may have been a truncation gone too far.

The general driving public is probably more interested in clarity and simplicity, which is completely understandable. In situations like this when there is an extremely long concurrency with Interstate and US Highway, the latter could be unsigned but still secretly there so as not to be discontinuous with its other segments - if I recall correctly I think this may be the case with US 85's extremely long concurrency with I-25, for example. I simply feel that US Highways should be retained as much as is reasonably possible. The East may have more instances where it's fit to utilize option 1, and the West with option 5, but the majority of the time I would likely gravitate towards either of those options.

Now alternating between different highway shields for my avatar - my previous highway shield avatar for the last few years was US 76.

Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/127322363@N08/

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-vJ3qa8R-cc44Cv6ohio1g

SkyPesos

Quote from: adventurernumber1 on October 02, 2021, 02:20:32 PM
I voted for the first option in the poll - really it does depend on a case-by-case basis, but 90+% of the time I would probably favor either option 1 or option 5. Of course there are some extreme examples (such as US 11 and I-70/US 40 in KS), but even in these I still prefer it to decommissioning and truncating – although there are plenty of times the latter could certainly come in handy. But decommissioning in my view should only be done as a last resort. California went to the extreme with this and lost a significant portion of its US Highway mileage. And beyond just California, US 91, what was intended as a major x1 US Highway corridor, has been almost completely lost except for the short remaining section north of Salt Lake City. It may have been almost completely replaced by I-15 for all intents and purposes, but it's still strange to think about how a major US x1 corridor has been nearly decimated by perhaps what may have been a truncation gone too far.

The general driving public is probably more interested in clarity and simplicity, which is completely understandable. In situations like this when there is an extremely long concurrency with Interstate and US Highway, the latter could be unsigned but still secretly there so as not to be discontinuous with its other segments - if I recall correctly I think this may be the case with US 85's extremely long concurrency with I-25, for example. I simply feel that US Highways should be retained as much as is reasonably possible. The East may have more instances where it's fit to utilize option 1, and the West with option 5, but the majority of the time I would likely gravitate towards either of those options.
I'm still scratching my head over why US 99 was completely removed over a few concurrencies that are much shorter compared to those on US 40 or US 66 (which I get the reasoning for truncating or removing). CA 99 is a freeway for a good portion for its length, and is somewhat independent from I-5. OR still have OR 99, and its suffixed split going between both state lines, and WA still have WA 99 too.

TheHighwayMan3561

Quote from: SkyPesos on October 02, 2021, 02:41:08 PM
I'm still scratching my head over why US 99 was completely removed over a few concurrencies that are much shorter compared to those on US 40 or US 66 (which I get the reasoning for truncating or removing). CA 99 is a freeway for a good portion for its length, and is somewhat independent from I-5. OR still have OR 99, and its suffixed split going between both state lines, and WA still have WA 99 too.

One thought is it's easier to get three states on board for something than it is for 10, especially when State A may say "Route X has no use to us" but State B, hundreds of miles and multiple states away from State A feels very differently about Route X.

The ultimate decommissioning of US 66 in 1985 sounded like it was more AASHTO-led than the remaining states that still had it all coming to the decision.
self-certified as the dumbest person on this board for 5 years running

HighwayStar

Quote from: adventurernumber1 on October 02, 2021, 02:20:32 PM
The general driving public is probably more interested in clarity and simplicity,

This is my argument against any kind of "funding based" approach, no one really cares. It is also an argument against gaps of any kind. One could even go as far as to say it is an argument against concurrences generally, not in the absolute sense but in the sense of trying to avoid it. Having 2 or more names for one road is somewhat confusing.
There are those who travel, and those who travel well

US 89

Quote from: DenverBrian on October 01, 2021, 09:49:55 AM
And US 36 as it goes through the Denver metro.

I didn't realize that some people are so deeply invested in the idea that US highways are/must be contiguous.

That is not a gap though. US 36 is still defined as a continuous route by AASHTO: it follows I-270 from I-25 to I-70, then I-70 from I-270 to Byers. CDOT has simply chosen to not sign these concurrencies, as is the case with most Interstate/US overlaps in the state. (There are exceptions: I-25/US 160 and I-25/US 24, for example, are both pretty well signed.)

That is distinct from what happens with US 6 in Rifle and US 85 in Stratmoor. With US 6, CDOT actually requested to formally decommission the segment of US 6 that was to become locally maintained, and AASHTO went along with it. So there is now a hole in the official definition. US 85, on the other hand, is formally defined to jump directly from the Venetucci Blvd/B St intersection to I-25. A quick look at a map will show that there are no ramps of any sort to or from I-25 there, so US 85, while appearing continuous on a map, cannot actually be followed as a continuous route. I think US 24 may do something similar with I-70 in eastern Colorado too.

The four Yellowstone US routes (US 20, 89, 191, 287) fall in that same category, but there it's a little more straightforward - the routes simply are not defined by AASHTO within park boundaries. Implied routes exist, but they are not signed, and more importantly AASHTO does not recognize them.

DenverBrian

Quote from: US 89 on October 03, 2021, 05:38:07 PM
Quote from: DenverBrian on October 01, 2021, 09:49:55 AM
And US 36 as it goes through the Denver metro.

I didn't realize that some people are so deeply invested in the idea that US highways are/must be contiguous.

That is not a gap though. US 36 is still defined as a continuous route by AASHTO: it follows I-270 from I-25 to I-70, then I-70 from I-270 to Byers. CDOT has simply chosen to not sign these concurrencies, as is the case with most Interstate/US overlaps in the state.
Then what's the point? If the public is unaware and the routes are not signed, then it's a difference without a distinction. Not a lot of people who consult a paper map for their route; even fewer who consult a paper map, then consult AASHTO to check and see if the route they're considering is "officially" defined as a continuous route or not.



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.