Is it easier to decommission a intrastate US route over a multi state route

[roadman65]

Was noticing that US 730 never got the ax like US 830 did.  Was wondering if it's because US 730 is in both OR and WA while historic US 830 was entirely in WA.

Also the same reason why US 199 still exists today due to it being in two states as well verses Historic US 299 that was a one stater too.

It makes one think that a single state US route is easier to delete than one in other states.

[US 89]

Well, if the route is entirely in one state, it means you don't have to convince any other states to go along with whatever your plan for it is...

[Max Rockatansky]

Substantially, the single state involved would just need to file an application with AASHTO to delete said route.  If the Route in question involved several states they would also need to file individual applications with AASHTO. 

How California got around the multi-state process of deletion was to truncate the US Routes in question to the last state highway junction before the state line.  Those applications pretty much went through every time since they never involved other states.

[roadman65]

That explains US 6 ending in Bishop from originally following CA 14 all the way to LA and using other roads to Long Beach.  Many other states are involved with US 6 to decommission more, even though CO ignores its overlaps with interstates, yet it's a cross country route to mess with many states.

[Bruce]

Was noticing that US 730 never got the ax like US 830 did.  Was wondering if it's because US 730 is in both OR and WA while historic US 830 was entirely in WA.

Also the same reason why US 199 still exists today due to it being in two states as well verses Historic US 299 that was a one stater too.

It makes one think that a single state US route is easier to delete than one in other states.

Small bit of context: the bulk of the US 830 corridor (Vancouver to Maryhill to Kennewick) was sought for the extension of US 12, so keeping it on the US Highway System was a priority in the 1960s.

[Bitmapped]

AASHTO explicitly pushed for removal of shorter single-state US routes, which is probably a factor in their elimination.

[epzik8]

I suppose if it's short enough, but unless it serves a function to warrant being classified as a U.S. route, like US 57 in Texas.

[SEWIGuy]

I suppose if it's short enough, but unless it serves a function to warrant being classified as a U.S. route, like US 57 in Texas.

What function does it serve as a US route that it couldn't as a state route?

[JoePCool14]

I suppose if it's short enough, but unless it serves a function to warrant being classified as a U.S. route, like US 57 in Texas.

What function does it serve as a US route that it couldn't as a state route?

Texas is a massive state. I don't think it's a stretch to say that even an intrastate US route there has merit beyond just Texas.

[oscar]

I suppose if it's short enough, but unless it serves a function to warrant being classified as a U.S. route, like US 57 in Texas.

What function does it serve as a US route that it couldn't as a state route?

Texas is a massive state. I don't think it's a stretch to say that even an intrastate US route there has merit beyond just Texas.

Plus US 57 is part of a "multi-state route", even though the other states are Mexican estados.

[kphoger]

I suppose if it's short enough, but unless it serves a function to warrant being classified as a U.S. route, like US 57 in Texas.

What function does it serve as a US route that it couldn't as a state route?

It connects the Interstate trunk highway system to a binational metro area with a population of >200,000, two ports of entry, and rail terminals on both sides of the border–and south of which on the Mexican side is a four-lane federal highway.  I'd say it serves at least as much of a US Route function than US-67 south of I-10, whose traffic counts are half that of US-57.

[SEWIGuy]

I suppose if it's short enough, but unless it serves a function to warrant being classified as a U.S. route, like US 57 in Texas.

What function does it serve as a US route that it couldn't as a state route?

It connects the Interstate trunk highway system to a binational metro area with a population of >200,000, two ports of entry, and rail terminals on both sides of the border–and south of which on the Mexican side is a four-lane federal highway.  I'd say it serves at least as much of a US Route function than US-67 south of I-10, whose traffic counts are half that of US-57.

Clearly an important route.  Why can't it be TX-57 instead?

[hbelkins]

There's nothing to stop a state from reposting a single-state US route as a state route, or for that matter, reposting a state route as a US route, even if AASHTO doesn't sign off on it.

[SEWIGuy]

Don't get me wrong. I don't particularly care that its a intra-state US highway and wouldn't go through the effort of changing it. I just don't think there is anything special about US highways compared to state highways.

[kphoger]

I suppose if it's short enough, but unless it serves a function to warrant being classified as a U.S. route, like US 57 in Texas.

What function does it serve as a US route that it couldn't as a state route?

It connects the Interstate trunk highway system to a binational metro area with a population of >200,000, two ports of entry, and rail terminals on both sides of the border–and south of which on the Mexican side is a four-lane federal highway.  I'd say it serves at least as much of a US Route function than US-67 south of I-10, whose traffic counts are half that of US-57.

Clearly an important route.  Why can't it be TX-57 instead?

It could.  But, then, couldn't that same argument hold true for most any US Route?

In answer to your first question, one might ask, "What function does any US Route serve that it couldn't as a state route?"  And at that point, it's a meaningless conversation.

[SEWIGuy]

I suppose if it's short enough, but unless it serves a function to warrant being classified as a U.S. route, like US 57 in Texas.

What function does it serve as a US route that it couldn't as a state route?

It connects the Interstate trunk highway system to a binational metro area with a population of >200,000, two ports of entry, and rail terminals on both sides of the border–and south of which on the Mexican side is a four-lane federal highway.  I'd say it serves at least as much of a US Route function than US-67 south of I-10, whose traffic counts are half that of US-57.

Clearly an important route.  Why can't it be TX-57 instead?

It could.  But, then, couldn't that same argument hold true for most any US Route?

In answer to your first question, one might ask, "What function does any US Route serve that it couldn't as a state route?"  And at that point, it's a meaningless conversation.

You could decommission the entire US Highway system and it would largely be no different than it is now. 

[Rothman]

I suppose if it's short enough, but unless it serves a function to warrant being classified as a U.S. route, like US 57 in Texas.

What function does it serve as a US route that it couldn't as a state route?

It connects the Interstate trunk highway system to a binational metro area with a population of >200,000, two ports of entry, and rail terminals on both sides of the border–and south of which on the Mexican side is a four-lane federal highway.  I'd say it serves at least as much of a US Route function than US-67 south of I-10, whose traffic counts are half that of US-57.

Clearly an important route.  Why can't it be TX-57 instead?

It could.  But, then, couldn't that same argument hold true for most any US Route?

In answer to your first question, one might ask, "What function does any US Route serve that it couldn't as a state route?"  And at that point, it's a meaningless conversation.

You could decommission the entire US Highway system and it would largely be no different than it is now.

That could be said about any of our systems.

[SEWIGuy]

I suppose if it's short enough, but unless it serves a function to warrant being classified as a U.S. route, like US 57 in Texas.

What function does it serve as a US route that it couldn't as a state route?

It connects the Interstate trunk highway system to a binational metro area with a population of >200,000, two ports of entry, and rail terminals on both sides of the border–and south of which on the Mexican side is a four-lane federal highway.  I'd say it serves at least as much of a US Route function than US-67 south of I-10, whose traffic counts are half that of US-57.

Clearly an important route.  Why can't it be TX-57 instead?

It could.  But, then, couldn't that same argument hold true for most any US Route?

In answer to your first question, one might ask, "What function does any US Route serve that it couldn't as a state route?"  And at that point, it's a meaningless conversation.

You could decommission the entire US Highway system and it would largely be no different than it is now.

That could be said about any of our systems.

The interstate system at least speaks to a certain type and quality of highway - obviously with some exceptions.

The US highway system doesn't do that.

[Some one]

Who cares? The US highway system has been around for almost a century now. No point in decommissioning all of them now.

[cockroachking]

There's nothing to stop a state from reposting a single-state US route as a state route, or for that matter, reposting a state route as a US route, even if AASHTO doesn't sign off on it.

Or if you are NYSDOT, post every US Highway as both US-x and NY-x randomly, including on the same assembly. 

[SEWIGuy]

Who cares? The US highway system has been around for almost a century now. No point in decommissioning all of them now.

I agree.