I'm thinking that 46, 91, 159, 181, 211, 223, 266, and/or 311 might be at risk. (I don't see the purpose of 159 myself). Also a truncation of 85.
202 has a risk of truncation because of all the multiplexes.
Not a full decommissioning, but I could plausibly see Florida deciding they no longer have a use for US 23, especially with the recent opening of the nearby FL 23 toll road that could be a potential source of confusion.
138 was one I thought about because of its redundancy to I-76 and short length, along with a slew of sign errors by both states (especially Nebraska, given its short mileage in that state) marking it as NE and CO 138. I was informed that there are no plans to do so, though.
Put it this way: if Oregon were California, US 30 would probably end at McCammon, Idaho.
I definitely don't see US 91 going away, at least between Brigham City and the I-15 junction at Virginia. Idaho might someday decide the Pocatello-Idaho Falls portion is redundant and demote it to SH 91, but I just don't see that happening.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on February 05, 2019, 06:21:18 PM
138 was one I thought about because of its redundancy to I-76 and short length, along with a slew of sign errors by both states (especially Nebraska, given its short mileage in that state) marking it as NE and CO 138. I was informed that there are no plans to do so, though.
I'd imagine 138 is just like US 11 in that the old highway still sees regular use and crosses state lines.
The only one I think at risk would be 266.
I could see 211 being at risk since its current existence seems to be to keep the entirety of the legislative Lee Highway name on the US highway system (with increasing sentiment against its namesake), but since 311 was recently extended into another state I think it’s safe, unless VA and NC decide to absorb it into an extended US 360.
Quote from: 1 on February 05, 2019, 04:10:21 PM
I'm thinking that 46, 91, 159, 181, 211, 223, 266, and/or 311 might be at risk. (I don't see the purpose of 159 myself). Also a truncation of 85.
My first question is: at risk from whom? Certainly not AASHTO. They're not proactive; all they do is respond to requests that the state DOTs submit.
So then, at risk from the state DOTs? I doubt it. These routes have been in their current status for years, if not decades. If the state DOTs wanted to get rid of them, they would have done so a long time ago.
* NC and VA just requested US 311's extension to Danville a couple years ago, so they're certainly not going to turn around and decommission it...
unless they get smart and extend 360 along 311 to Winston-Salem.
* If TX wanted to get rid of 181, they would have requested it back in the '90s, when they truncated all their other US routes that parallel interstates. I imagine they kept 181 because in some places I-37 deviates pretty far from it.
* US 159 has been pointless as a through route since the '70s, yet it's still here, four or five decades later.
* US 266 has been pointless ever since I-40 was built through that area.
Quote from: usends on February 05, 2019, 07:25:52 PM
* NC and VA just requested US 311's extension to Danville a couple years ago, so they're certainly not going to turn around and decommission it... unless they get smart and extend 360 along 311 to Winston-Salem.
If one route is to eat the other, I'd axe 360 and extend 311. The route's more north-south, anyway; at least from Danville to Richmond.
The only part of US-223 that I think should be decommissioned is the stretch co-signed with US-23 from the OH/MI border north to Exit 5.
Thankfully you did not post this in the fictional forum.
My plan calls for US-159 to become I-446¼. It will extend from El Mezquital, Tamaulipas, in the south to Lake Athabasca in the north, where there will be a bridge connecting it to Uranium City and the six-lane trans-taiga superhighway (I-717). I think this is necessary because existing roads in the area are dangerously narrow and/or seasonal, and this will provide a safe, year-round highway instead.
Quote from: Takumi on February 05, 2019, 07:20:23 PM
I could see 211 being at risk since its current existence seems to be to keep the entirety of the legislative Lee Highway name on the US highway system (with increasing sentiment against its namesake), but since 311 was recently extended into another state I think it's safe, unless VA and NC decide to absorb it into an extended US 360.
US 211 lost its status when the final leg of I-66 opened. It used to be the link from US 11 (now served by I-81) to our Nation's Capital now also replaced by I-66. Considering its VA 211 west of I-81 I do not see why VDOT has not applied to have what little left of it (the US 29 overlap is gone for decades now)for removal and and commissioning of VA 211 in its place.
Also when the I-73/74 freeway is completed to Rockingham, I wish they would truncate US 220 there and whenever PennDOT completes I-99 to I-80 they truncate US 15 to Williamsport. Heck, get rid of all of US 220 from Cumberland to Sayre. Make US 220 from Williamsport to its north end PA 220, copying US 230 and US 611 to change in designations.
Sometimes I question how viable US 92 is when it essentially is next door to I-4/I-275 and is totally intrastate. FL 600 probably would be adequate enough of a designation.
I don't think any US route is currently at risk of being completely decommissioned, but I could see a few more truncations, particularly in southern Texas when parts of I-69 are completed.
Quote from: roadman65 on February 05, 2019, 09:24:00 PM
Quote from: Takumi on February 05, 2019, 07:20:23 PM
I could see 211 being at risk since its current existence seems to be to keep the entirety of the legislative Lee Highway name on the US highway system (with increasing sentiment against its namesake), but since 311 was recently extended into another state I think it’s safe, unless VA and NC decide to absorb it into an extended US 360.
US 211 lost its status when the final leg of I-66 opened. It used to be the link from US 11 (now served by I-81) to our Nation's Capital now also replaced by I-66. Considering its VA 211 west of I-81 I do not see why VDOT has not applied to have what little left of it (the US 29 overlap is gone for decades now)for removal and and commissioning of VA 211 in its place.
I-66 was completed in 1982. After I-66 was completed between US-29 at Gainesville and I-495 in 1964, the preferred route from Gainesville to I-81 was via VA-55, not US-211.
No originally US 211 was the route to DC from the US 11 corridor. I-66 was finished in stages with a big gap for a long time in the middle and of course inside the beltway. The latter US 50 handled that traffic good for the short time until that was done.
I'd be shocked to see any U.S. routes completely decommissioned before the entire system is eliminated in the next 100 years. Nobody cares enough about highway designations anymore.
Quote from: roadman65 on February 05, 2019, 11:57:40 PM
No originally US 211 was the route to DC from the US 11 corridor. I-66 was finished in stages with a big gap for a long time in the middle and of course inside the beltway. The latter US 50 handled that traffic good for the short time until that was done.
We moved to Alexandria in 1969, and VA-55 was clearly the better route to reach I-81 South. It was considerably shorter than US-211 and didn't have the mountainous terrain that is in Thornton Gap and Massanutten Mountain.
Quote from: Takumi on February 05, 2019, 07:20:23 PM
I could see 211 being at risk since its current existence seems to be to keep the entirety of the legislative Lee Highway name on the US highway system (with increasing sentiment against its namesake), but since 311 was recently extended into another state I think it's safe, unless VA and NC decide to absorb it into an extended US 360.
US 211 probably stays because it connects to Shenandoah National Park
Quote from: DandyDan on February 06, 2019, 06:28:46 AM
Quote from: Takumi on February 05, 2019, 07:20:23 PM
I could see 211 being at risk since its current existence seems to be to keep the entirety of the legislative Lee Highway name on the US highway system (with increasing sentiment against its namesake), but since 311 was recently extended into another state I think it’s safe, unless VA and NC decide to absorb it into an extended US 360.
US 211 probably stays because it connects to Shenandoah National Park
US-211 probably stays because VDOT sees no reason to interfere with it.
US routes should be important interstate (small "i") highways that link areas and corridors not served by Interstate (capital "I") highways. There probably should be concurrencies and renumberings to keep highways above the 300-mile length guideline.
If I was in charge, I'd decommission or truncate a whole bunch of routes. There's no need for US 11 to exist, since it's paralleled by a interstate for most of its length. (If they can do away with US 25 in Ohio and Michigan, or US 21 in West Virginia and Ohio, why keep US 11.) And what major corridor does US 522 serve between Culpeper and its southern terminus?
As for US 211, its short length and intrastate nature make it a prime candidate for decommissioning, but the physical characteristics of the road (mostly four-lane) would warrant some sort of US highway designation. The issue would be either finding some other number to extend along US 211, or finding another route to extend US 211 along. Now that US 311 is an interstate route, its logical extension is along US 360.
And I really think the useless concurrency of US 17 with US 50 needs to be eliminated.
Quote from: hbelkins on February 05, 2019, 08:08:17 PM
Quote from: usends on February 05, 2019, 07:25:52 PM
* NC and VA just requested US 311's extension to Danville a couple years ago, so they're certainly not going to turn around and decommission it... unless they get smart and extend 360 along 311 to Winston-Salem.
If one route is to eat the other, I'd axe 360 and extend 311. The route's more north-south, anyway; at least from Danville to Richmond.
If that's your justification for calling such a route 311 instead of 360, you would actually be in error. From the 58/360 junction in South Boston to the 14th St/Main St intersection (the western 60/360 junction) in Richmond is approximately 58 miles north-south but 80 miles east-west. Would be even more skewed east-west if going from Danville.
Quote from: hbelkinsAnd I really think the useless concurrency of US 17 with US 50 needs to be eliminated.
Or extended north replacing US 522 from Winchester. That would be another option.
400 should be. 90% of the route is useless.
US 93's Arizona portion could be gone upon the eventual completion of I-11 there. In that case, its new southern end could be at the northern I-15 (Apex?) junction.
US 90 Business in New Orleans.
Quote from: NE2 on February 06, 2019, 02:13:50 PM
US 90 Business in New Orleans.
Many business routes would qualify, many are concurrent with state routes.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on February 06, 2019, 12:22:56 PM
400 should be. 90% of the route is useless.
Strongly disagree. I get it that people don't like the number, but US-400 is a major corridor with heavy long-distance traffic. Its number was also originally intended to be temporary, as the corridor was anticipated to be upgraded to an Interstate at some point in the future when it was first designated. If, on the other hand, you're referring to the fact that a lot of it is duplexed, then your math is way off. About
30% 35% of the route is not duplexed with any other route number.
Of those segments that are not duplexed, here are the AADTs:
2010-2520 – K-34 to US-54 (Mullinville)2010-11300 – Dodge City to US-54 (Mullinville) 4000-5070 – US-54 (Haverhill) to K-99
3460-4690 – K-99 to US-75 (Neodesha)
3570-5700 – US-75 to K-171 (Pittsburg)
1570-1610 – US-69-Alt (Baxter Springs) to US-166
By way of comparison, US-54 doesn't top AADT 4500 anywhere east of El Dorado. And commercial traffic accounts for roughly one-fourth of the traffic on US-400 for the majority of its route.
Edited for accuracy.
Quote from: NE2 on February 06, 2019, 02:13:50 PM
US 90 Business in New Orleans.
I can't be arsed to explain what's special about this one.
US 33, 35, 42, 57 and 73. At least according to froggie :bigass:.
Quote from: hbelkins on February 06, 2019, 11:10:55 AM...
If I was in charge, I'd decommission or truncate a whole bunch of routes. There's no need for US 11 to exist, since it's paralleled by a interstate for most of its length. (If they can do away with US 25 in Ohio and Michigan, or US 21 in West Virginia and Ohio, why keep US 11.)
...
Why keep US 25 north of Corbin? And why not do away with US 25W entirely?
I really think US-46 should be downgraded to a state highway. I can't believe that it's still active and hasn't been decommissioned yet. For one thing it's the shortest non-spur US highway and is only in New Jersey. Maybe not even a state highway but a local road considering it runs real close with I-80.
Quote from: 1 on February 05, 2019, 04:10:21 PM
I'm thinking that 46, 91, 159, 181, 211, 223, 266, and/or 311 might be at risk. (I don't see the purpose of 159 myself). Also a truncation of 85.
The purpose of US-159 is for through traffic on US 59 to bypass Atchison, Kansas and Saint Joseph, Missouri. It really doesn't make a lot of sense to me because a US highway spur route usually only connects with it's parent route once but in this case US-159 starts and ends at US-59.
I don't think US-223 is really at risk. It serves a purpose and connects two US highways. It could perhaps be downgraded to a state highway. I think M-223 would be fine for it. The only reason I can think that it follows US-23 into Ohio is so it can grab that second state, Ohio ends US-223 the first chance they get. And Ohio does have it signed too, https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7237414,-83.688943,3a,15y,199.04h,87.56t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sibOnT3y8aZophLYYP84Gww!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 however there is only one sign and no end sign for US-223 just a mention of OH-51 and OH-184.
US-223 is also signed northbound in Ohio https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7222989,-83.6884848,3a,75y,357.9h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suPNSV5cEVcHe6x2kUEmRAg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on February 06, 2019, 04:46:37 PM
US 33, 35, 42, 57 and 73. At least according to froggie :bigass:.
US-33 simply because it's a violator for it's entire route. I guess US-35 is for most of it's route too. US-42 should be a north-south route. US-57 is kinda lame using that number simply because of the Federal highway in Mexico. US-73 doesn't make much sense. I guess I don't disagree.
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 06, 2019, 06:29:46 PM
I really think US-46 should be downgraded to a state highway. I can't believe that it's still active and hasn't been decommissioned yet. For one thing it's the shortest non-spur US highway and is only in New Jersey. Maybe not even a state highway but a local road considering it runs real close with I-80.
Can we at least get it to not end in the middle of the GW Bridge? I could go for that.
Quote from: SectorZ on February 06, 2019, 06:47:07 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 06, 2019, 06:29:46 PM
I really think US-46 should be downgraded to a state highway. I can't believe that it's still active and hasn't been decommissioned yet. For one thing it's the shortest non-spur US highway and is only in New Jersey. Maybe not even a state highway but a local road considering it runs real close with I-80.
Can we at least get it to not end in the middle of the GW Bridge? I could go for that.
Yeah that's just dumb. I'm guessing it's so it can touch another state since it doesn't even go to the state line on the western end.
Honestly I don't see why US-73 isn't just a spur of US-75. It historically went south of Kansas City into Oklahoma ending in Atoka. US-69 took over most of that route.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on February 06, 2019, 02:41:39 PM
Quote from: NE2 on February 06, 2019, 02:13:50 PM
US 90 Business in New Orleans.
Many business routes would qualify, many are concurrent with state routes.
In Michigan the business routes are usually concurrent with state routes for only part of their routes. To have a Business Loop or Spur is telling you that you are going to be able to reconnect with the parent highway at the other end of the route.
I'll give ya a couple crazy one's. I-75's Business Spur in Bay City, MI starts at the eastern terminus of US-10 and western terminus of M-25. All it does is runs along the freeway, the freeway ends before you get into Bay City and the Business Spur runs on a set of one way streets. It then crosses the Saginaw River, goes up to M-84, makes a left and then makes another left back onto M-25 and heads back towards I-75 on the same segment. So all it really does is goes into downtown Bay City and turns around.
St. Johns Business Loop or Spur whatever you wanna call that one just follows old US-27 and doesn't ever reconnect with US-127. US-127 runs on a bypass of St. Johns and only connects with it on the northern end. There are three exits off US-127 where you could reconnect before the Business route ends. It's signed as Business US-127.
Quote from: froggie on February 06, 2019, 11:44:59 AM
Quote from: hbelkinsAnd I really think the useless concurrency of US 17 with US 50 needs to be eliminated.
Or extended north replacing US 522 from Winchester. That would be another option.
This. At least a piece of US 17 would actually be west of US 11.
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 06, 2019, 07:10:46 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on February 06, 2019, 02:41:39 PM
Quote from: NE2 on February 06, 2019, 02:13:50 PM
US 90 Business in New Orleans.
Many business routes would qualify, many are concurrent with state routes.
In Michigan the business routes are usually concurrent with state routes for only part of their routes. To have a Business Loop or Spur is telling you that you are going to be able to reconnect with the parent highway at the other end of the route.
Another reason is that business routes are less useful to steer travelers to off-freeway businesses, now that logo signs and smartphones often serve that function.
Many business routes have faded away on their own, even if not formally decommissioned. At least in California, the lifecycle seems to be (1) business route is set up to placate a community pissed off at being bypassed by a new freeway; (2) community adapts to the new freeway (often by businesses relocating); (3) signage on the business route deteriorates or disappears; and (4) the state DOT notices that the community no longer cares about its business route, and removes freeway signage pointing to the business route.
US 90 Business in New Orleans is all freeway or future frontage roads, and is part of future I-49.
Quote from: hbelkins on February 06, 2019, 11:10:55 AM
US routes should be important interstate (small "i") highways that link areas and corridors not served by Interstate (capital "I") highways. There probably should be concurrencies and renumberings to keep highways above the 300-mile length guideline.
If I was in charge, I'd decommission or truncate a whole bunch of routes. There's no need for US 11 to exist, since it's paralleled by a interstate for most of its length. (If they can do away with US 25 in Ohio and Michigan, or US 21 in West Virginia and Ohio, why keep US 11.) And what major corridor does US 522 serve between Culpeper and its southern terminus?
As for US 211, its short length and intrastate nature make it a prime candidate for decommissioning, but the physical characteristics of the road (mostly four-lane) would warrant some sort of US highway designation. The issue would be either finding some other number to extend along US 211, or finding another route to extend US 211 along. Now that US 311 is an interstate route, its logical extension is along US 360.
And I really think the useless concurrency of US 17 with US 50 needs to be eliminated.
My idea for US 211 would involve it replacing US 29 east of Warrenton, with 29 north being truncated to Culpeper. I'm also in the "replace 522 with 17" crowd. 522 between Culpeper and Winchester can revert to being VA 3, and Culpeper to Powhatan can become an extension of VA 229.
Quote from: Eth on February 05, 2019, 04:36:47 PM
Not a full decommissioning, but I could plausibly see Florida deciding they no longer have a use for US 23, especially with the recent opening of the nearby FL 23 toll road that could be a potential source of confusion.
Does GA-23 cause any confusion? I think terminating US-23 in Waycross, GA would be the best place for that route to end, either there or Folkston. South of Callahan, FL that should just be a state highway.
I'm not real sure on how major of a highway US-23 is in the southern section of the route but in Michigan it's a major route.
Also keep in mind that in 1926 it originally terminated in Portsmouth, Ohio on the south end and has been extended so cutting it back makes some sense.
Quote from: oscar on February 06, 2019, 07:38:01 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 06, 2019, 07:10:46 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on February 06, 2019, 02:41:39 PM
Quote from: NE2 on February 06, 2019, 02:13:50 PM
US 90 Business in New Orleans.
Many business routes would qualify, many are concurrent with state routes.
In Michigan the business routes are usually concurrent with state routes for only part of their routes. To have a Business Loop or Spur is telling you that you are going to be able to reconnect with the parent highway at the other end of the route.
Another reason is that business routes are less useful to steer travelers to off-freeway businesses, now that logo signs and smartphones often serve that function.
Many business routes have faded away on their own, even if not formally decommissioned. At least in California, the lifecycle seems to be (1) business route is set up to placate a community pissed off at being bypassed by a new freeway; (2) community adapts to the new freeway (often by businesses relocating); (3) signage on the business route deteriorates or disappears; and (4) the state DOT notices that the community no longer cares about its business route, and removes freeway signage pointing to the business route.
I've seen several where they are simply the old route through town and the parent route is on a bypass. I was on a new stretch of US-131 yesterday that goes around Constantine, MI and the old route is Business US-131.
I love looking at them on Google Maps. You can clearly see how the old route went through. https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8720747,-85.6636748,749m/data=!3m1!1e3
Google Maps is nice though there are some shortcuts I would have never knew about. I use it as a GPS system all the time.
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 06, 2019, 09:23:59 PM
Quote from: Eth on February 05, 2019, 04:36:47 PM
Not a full decommissioning, but I could plausibly see Florida deciding they no longer have a use for US 23, especially with the recent opening of the nearby FL 23 toll road that could be a potential source of confusion.
Does GA-23 cause any confusion? I think terminating US-23 in Waycross, GA would be the best place for that route to end, either there or Folkston. South of Callahan, FL that should just be a state highway.
I'm not real sure on how major of a highway US-23 is in the southern section of the route but in Michigan it's a major route.
Also keep in mind that in 1926 it originally terminated in Portsmouth, Ohio on the south end and has been extended so cutting it back makes some sense.
Except for a little piece in downtown Jacksonville, all of US 23 in Florida is also US 1. (I'm guessing you're looking at Google Maps, which does a poor job of showing the 1/23 concurrency that starts north of Alma, GA and goes all the way to Jax.) The independent portion can just revert to (the already existing, but currently unsigned) SR 139.
Quote from: Eth on February 06, 2019, 10:15:06 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 06, 2019, 09:23:59 PM
Quote from: Eth on February 05, 2019, 04:36:47 PM
Not a full decommissioning, but I could plausibly see Florida deciding they no longer have a use for US 23, especially with the recent opening of the nearby FL 23 toll road that could be a potential source of confusion.
Does GA-23 cause any confusion? I think terminating US-23 in Waycross, GA would be the best place for that route to end, either there or Folkston. South of Callahan, FL that should just be a state highway.
I'm not real sure on how major of a highway US-23 is in the southern section of the route but in Michigan it's a major route.
Also keep in mind that in 1926 it originally terminated in Portsmouth, Ohio on the south end and has been extended so cutting it back makes some sense.
Except for a little piece in downtown Jacksonville, all of US 23 in Florida is also US 1. (I'm guessing you're looking at Google Maps, which does a poor job of showing the 1/23 concurrency that starts north of Alma, GA and goes all the way to Jax.) The independent portion can just revert to (the already existing, but currently unsigned) SR 139.
While Florida has a little reason to decommission/renumber its part of US 23, there is no reason for Georgia to lift a finger to synch with Florida. And AASHTO being AASHTO, it might disapprove a decommission request made only by Florida, which would leave US 23 terminating at the state line.
Quote from: oscar on February 06, 2019, 10:25:07 PM
Quote from: Eth on February 06, 2019, 10:15:06 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 06, 2019, 09:23:59 PM
Quote from: Eth on February 05, 2019, 04:36:47 PM
Not a full decommissioning, but I could plausibly see Florida deciding they no longer have a use for US 23, especially with the recent opening of the nearby FL 23 toll road that could be a potential source of confusion.
Does GA-23 cause any confusion? I think terminating US-23 in Waycross, GA would be the best place for that route to end, either there or Folkston. South of Callahan, FL that should just be a state highway.
I'm not real sure on how major of a highway US-23 is in the southern section of the route but in Michigan it's a major route.
Also keep in mind that in 1926 it originally terminated in Portsmouth, Ohio on the south end and has been extended so cutting it back makes some sense.
Except for a little piece in downtown Jacksonville, all of US 23 in Florida is also US 1. (I'm guessing you're looking at Google Maps, which does a poor job of showing the 1/23 concurrency that starts north of Alma, GA and goes all the way to Jax.) The independent portion can just revert to (the already existing, but currently unsigned) SR 139.
While Florida has a little reason to decommission/renumber its part of US 23, there is no reason for Georgia to lift a finger to synch with Florida. And AASHTO being AASHTO, it might disapprove a decommission request made only by Florida, which would leave US 23 terminating at the state line.
And Florida never really has cared that there has been duplicate signed numbers in field. Nobody really seems to confuse US 1 and FL A1A as the prime example. There was a time when FL A19A touched US 19 and FL 41 was only a couple miles from US 41.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 06, 2019, 11:41:33 PM
And Florida never really has cared that there has been duplicate signed numbers in field. Nobody really seems to confuse US 1 and FL A1A as the prime example.
How is that duplicate? We lived not far from A1A back in the 1960s, and people spoke it "A one A" using the "long A". For US-1 usually "Route One". Sounds very different, and back then it never occurred to me that A1A had any relation to US-1.
Quote from: Beltway on February 06, 2019, 11:48:50 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 06, 2019, 11:41:33 PM
And Florida never really has cared that there has been duplicate signed numbers in field. Nobody really seems to confuse US 1 and FL A1A as the prime example.
How is that duplicate? We lived not far from A1A back in the 1960s, and people spoke it "A one A" using the "long A". For US-1 usually "Route One". Sounds very different, and back then it never occurred to me that A1A had any relation to US-1.
How is it not when they both a highway with "1" as part of the number. In the case of the "A1A" the way I've always understood the Florida road lore was that it was to make just different enough so people didn't confuse it with US 1.
Interestingly nobody ever seemed to confuse US 17 and FL 17 despite the two actually having a junction in Haines City.
Quote from: Eth on February 06, 2019, 10:15:06 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 06, 2019, 09:23:59 PM
Quote from: Eth on February 05, 2019, 04:36:47 PM
Not a full decommissioning, but I could plausibly see Florida deciding they no longer have a use for US 23, especially with the recent opening of the nearby FL 23 toll road that could be a potential source of confusion.
Does GA-23 cause any confusion? I think terminating US-23 in Waycross, GA would be the best place for that route to end, either there or Folkston. South of Callahan, FL that should just be a state highway.
I'm not real sure on how major of a highway US-23 is in the southern section of the route but in Michigan it's a major route.
Also keep in mind that in 1926 it originally terminated in Portsmouth, Ohio on the south end and has been extended so cutting it back makes some sense.
Except for a little piece in downtown Jacksonville, all of US 23 in Florida is also US 1. (I'm guessing you're looking at Google Maps, which does a poor job of showing the 1/23 concurrency that starts north of Alma, GA and goes all the way to Jax.) The independent portion can just revert to (the already existing, but currently unsigned) SR 139.
Well I can see where they come together north of Alma and every place I pan into has both US-1 and US-23. I guess that could be a good place to end US-23 too I really wasn't thinking about the concurrency with US-1.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 06, 2019, 11:41:33 PM
Quote from: oscar on February 06, 2019, 10:25:07 PM
Quote from: Eth on February 06, 2019, 10:15:06 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 06, 2019, 09:23:59 PM
Quote from: Eth on February 05, 2019, 04:36:47 PM
Not a full decommissioning, but I could plausibly see Florida deciding they no longer have a use for US 23, especially with the recent opening of the nearby FL 23 toll road that could be a potential source of confusion.
Does GA-23 cause any confusion? I think terminating US-23 in Waycross, GA would be the best place for that route to end, either there or Folkston. South of Callahan, FL that should just be a state highway.
I'm not real sure on how major of a highway US-23 is in the southern section of the route but in Michigan it's a major route.
Also keep in mind that in 1926 it originally terminated in Portsmouth, Ohio on the south end and has been extended so cutting it back makes some sense.
Except for a little piece in downtown Jacksonville, all of US 23 in Florida is also US 1. (I'm guessing you're looking at Google Maps, which does a poor job of showing the 1/23 concurrency that starts north of Alma, GA and goes all the way to Jax.) The independent portion can just revert to (the already existing, but currently unsigned) SR 139.
While Florida has a little reason to decommission/renumber its part of US 23, there is no reason for Georgia to lift a finger to synch with Florida. And AASHTO being AASHTO, it might disapprove a decommission request made only by Florida, which would leave US 23 terminating at the state line.
And Florida never really has cared that there has been duplicate signed numbers in field. Nobody really seems to confuse US 1 and FL A1A as the prime example. There was a time when FL A19A touched US 19 and FL 41 was only a couple miles from US 41.
Michigan does that too. All the 2-di Interstate's have a state highway counterpart usually in a different part of the state though. M-75 and I-75 come fairly close together but not real close. M-69 is in the U.P. so it's a long ways from I-69. M-94 is also in the U.P. so also a long ways from I-94. M-96 is in the Battle Creek and Kalamazoo area not a super long ways from I-96. The U.S. highways seem to have a counterpart with a state highway in areas that use to be part of that U.S. highway like M-25 is on an old routing of US-25 and M-10 is on an old routing of US-10. M-27 is on an old routing of US-27. There's an M-45 in the Grand Rapids area to go along with US-45 in the U.P. I guess if you have them in different parts of the state it'll cause much less confusion. Although I have never confused or heard many people confuse M-24 from US-24, US-24's northern terminus is only 12 miles from M-24's southern terminus.
Quote from: Ben114 on February 05, 2019, 04:24:08 PM
202 has a risk of truncation because of all the multiplexes.
I've already developed a plan for this in every state:
DE: Eliminate multiplexes with DE 141 and I-95. Extend US 301 along DE 1 then duplex with US 13 into Wilmington. Have US 301 take over US 13's route to Morrisville and route US 13 through Wilmington to DE/US 202.
PA/NJ: Rerouted US 13
NY: Yes, I know there is a NY 13, but it is far enough away so that US 13 can enter NY and end at US 9W in Haverstraw. Concurrencies with US 9W, US 6, NY 35, and NY 22 are eliminated. Two standalone portions in Westchester County are filled in with slight extensions of NY 116 and NY 100.
CT: US 6, I-84, and US 7 concurrencies are eliminated. The Federal Rd portion from US 7 to CT 25 reverts to SR 805. CT 25 is re-extended to Canton as it was from 1963-1974. US 44 and CT 10 concurrencies eliminated.
MA: MA 10 concurrency eliminated. New state route from Westfield to Belchertown. MA 21 is extended over the remainder to NH.
NH: Portion south of Hillsboro becomes NH 21 to act as a continuation of MA 21. Concurrencies with NH 9, US 3, I-393, US 4, NH 16, and NH 11 eliminated. Standalone portion from Northwood to Rochester becomes an extended NH 43.
ME: All concurrencies with state routes elimiated. One standalone portion in Hampden and Bangor either decommissioned or becomes a new state route.
Wouldn't surprise me to see the US 1A's in CT and RI become state routes.
I often pictured US 209 being eliminated and becoming a part of an extended/somewhat rerouted US 44. US 44 is essentially redundant from Arlington to its western terminus, as it is duplexed with NY 55. Instead, it would take over NY 199 to Kingston, and US 209 to Millersburg, PA. The portion between NY 55 in Arlington and NY 22 in Amenia would become a rerouted NY 343. This actually simplifies things, as NY 343 can continue straight across NY 22 to the US 44 path rather than duplexing with 22 to Dover Plains and running parallel to US 44 to Millbrook. The current 343 west of 22 would become a CR.
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 06, 2019, 06:42:49 PM
Quote from: 1 on February 05, 2019, 04:10:21 PM
I'm thinking that 46, 91, 159, 181, 211, 223, 266, and/or 311 might be at risk. (I don't see the purpose of 159 myself). Also a truncation of 85.
The purpose of US-159 is for through traffic on US 59 to bypass Atchison, Kansas and Saint Joseph, Missouri. It really doesn't make a lot of sense to me because a US highway spur route usually only connects with it's parent route once but in this case US-159 starts and ends at US-59.
One thing to keep in mind with US 159 is that before I-29 existed, US 159 crossed the Rulo, NE bridge to go into Missouri and then made a hard left turn northward to Craig, MO, as opposed to its current east-west route. Calling it a bypass makes sense if you know that. Of course, if you have driven it south of Horton, KS, you might wonder why a road which seems like a county road has a US Highway shield.
Why they decided to truncate US-61 in Wyoming, MN instead of its intersection with I-94 in St. Paul... or even its intersection with US-10 near Hastings... I will never know.
Seriously...from St. Paul to Wyoming...CSAH that highway!
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on February 07, 2019, 03:14:18 AMDE: Eliminate multiplexes with DE 141 and I-95. Extend US 301 along DE 1 then duplex with US 13 into Wilmington. Have US 301 take over US 13's route to Morrisville and route US 13 through Wilmington to DE/US 202.
Personally, I would extend US 301 into NJ (it would run concurrent w/US 13/40 to I-295) and have it take over US 130. If there are any button-copy US 130 shields remaining, such would involve a simple switchero of the numerals. Yeah, I know; fictional territory. Such would be a way of eliminating a short, intrastate US route while keeping the corridor in the system. Plus, such would be more fitting to have a
child route (US 301) end at its parent route (US 1).
Another one IMHO, that could be decommissioned would be the eastern portion of US 422 in PA. Redesignate such as either PA 122 or 622. Again, fictional territory.
Quote from: dvferyance on February 05, 2019, 07:11:32 PM
The only one I think at risk would be 266.
Sure, and by that same logic, US 166. But their parent still exists, albeit as an Historic Route, so I'd keep them.
However, if any US route should be eliminated, it would be US 46, as it violates the rule that intrastate routes cannot be less than 300 miles long, and NJ doesn't have any roads near that length.
Quote from: Henry on February 07, 2019, 10:19:57 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on February 05, 2019, 07:11:32 PM
The only one I think at risk would be 266.
Sure, and by that same logic, US 166. But their parent still exists, albeit as an Historic Route, so I'd keep them.
However, if any US route should be eliminated, it would be US 46, as it violates the rule that intrastate routes cannot be less than 300 miles long, and NJ doesn't have any roads near that length.
I like the x66 routes as they make the legacy of US 66 live on.
Quote from: DJ Particle on February 07, 2019, 06:21:19 AM
Why they decided to truncate US-61 in Wyoming, MN instead of its intersection with I-94 in St. Paul... or even its intersection with US-10 near Hastings... I will never know.
Seriously...from St. Paul to Wyoming...CSAH that highway!
Been a long-term goal of MnDOT for years. But they would need to
A) come to an agreement with every municipality and the three counties along the segment, and
B) fund any improvements the counties would want before agreeing to take it over.
Quote from: plain on February 06, 2019, 07:29:38 PM
Quote from: froggie on February 06, 2019, 11:44:59 AM
Quote from: hbelkinsAnd I really think the useless concurrency of US 17 with US 50 needs to be eliminated.
Or extended north replacing US 522 from Winchester. That would be another option.
This. At least a piece of US 17 would actually be west of US 11.
And truncate it at Hancock. What through corridor does US 522 serve in Pennsylvania?
Quote from: froggie on February 07, 2019, 01:39:09 PM
Quote from: DJ Particle on February 07, 2019, 06:21:19 AM
Why they decided to truncate US-61 in Wyoming, MN instead of its intersection with I-94 in St. Paul... or even its intersection with US-10 near Hastings... I will never know.
Seriously...from St. Paul to Wyoming...CSAH that highway!
Been a long-term goal of MnDOT for years. But they would need to A) come to an agreement with every municipality and the three counties along the segment, and B) fund any improvements the counties would want before agreeing to take it over.
Wonder if we could see another MN x61 come into play if some of the route is ready to be axed but not all of it. I've read Wyoming at least has concerns about losing US 61.
I just realized I'd neglected a significant section of stand-alone US-400, so I have updated my numbers below to be more accurate.
Quote from: kphoger on February 06, 2019, 02:56:24 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on February 06, 2019, 12:22:56 PM
400 should be. 90% of the route is useless.
Strongly disagree. I get it that people don't like the number, but US-400 is a major corridor with heavy long-distance traffic. Its number was also originally intended to be temporary, as the corridor was anticipated to be upgraded to an Interstate at some point in the future when it was first designated. If, on the other hand, you're referring to the fact that a lot of it is duplexed, then your math is way off. About 30% 35% of the route is not duplexed with any other route number.
Of those segments that are not duplexed, here are the AADTs:
2010-2520 – K-34 to US-54 (Mullinville)
2010-11300 – Dodge City to US-54 (Mullinville)
4000-5070 – US-54 (Haverhill) to K-99
3460-4690 – K-99 to US-75 (Neodesha)
3570-5700 – US-75 to K-171 (Pittsburg)
1570-1610 – US-69-Alt (Baxter Springs) to US-166
By way of comparison, US-54 doesn't top AADT 4500 anywhere east of El Dorado. And commercial traffic accounts for roughly one-fourth of the traffic on US-400 for the majority of its route.
I also forgot to say that my preference would be to truncate US-400 at the western end of the Dodge City bypass. Everything west of there is a pointless duplex with US-50.
Quote from: hbelkins on February 07, 2019, 01:53:16 PM
Quote from: plain on February 06, 2019, 07:29:38 PM
Quote from: froggie on February 06, 2019, 11:44:59 AM
Quote from: hbelkinsAnd I really think the useless concurrency of US 17 with US 50 needs to be eliminated.
Or extended north replacing US 522 from Winchester. That would be another option.
This. At least a piece of US 17 would actually be west of US 11.
And truncate it at Hancock. What through corridor does US 522 serve in Pennsylvania?
None really. US 17 can end in Hancock and US 522 can continue from there, or become a state route. 522 in Virginia can also become a state route.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on February 07, 2019, 02:23:27 PM
Quote from: froggie on February 07, 2019, 01:39:09 PM
Quote from: DJ Particle on February 07, 2019, 06:21:19 AM
Why they decided to truncate US-61 in Wyoming, MN instead of its intersection with I-94 in St. Paul... or even its intersection with US-10 near Hastings... I will never know.
Seriously...from St. Paul to Wyoming...CSAH that highway!
Been a long-term goal of MnDOT for years. But they would need to A) come to an agreement with every municipality and the three counties along the segment, and B) fund any improvements the counties would want before agreeing to take it over.
Wonder if we could see another MN x61 come into play if some of the route is ready to be axed but not all of it. I've read Wyoming at least has concerns about losing US 61.
Not sure why they would. They have the I-35 interchange. And if it becomes CSAH, the city still wouldn't have to pay (much) for roadwork.
Quote from: kphoger on February 05, 2019, 08:57:52 PM
My plan calls for US-159 to become I-446¼. It will extend from El Mezquital, Tamaulipas, in the south to Lake Athabasca in the north, where there will be a bridge connecting it to Uranium City and the six-lane trans-taiga superhighway (I-717). I think this is necessary because existing roads in the area are dangerously narrow and/or seasonal, and this will provide a safe, year-round highway instead.
But if you want it to be in all 15 North American countries, the countries will be, the U.S., Mexico, Canada, Alaska, Yukon, Northwest Terrtiories, Nunavut, Quebec, Greenland, Iceland, Phogerland, Hawaii, Bermuda, Belize, and Saint Pierre and Miquelon, not central america, caribbean, or south america because i considered them other continents.
Quote from: froggie on February 07, 2019, 04:35:12 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on February 07, 2019, 02:23:27 PM
Quote from: froggie on February 07, 2019, 01:39:09 PM
Quote from: DJ Particle on February 07, 2019, 06:21:19 AM
Why they decided to truncate US-61 in Wyoming, MN instead of its intersection with I-94 in St. Paul... or even its intersection with US-10 near Hastings... I will never know.
Seriously...from St. Paul to Wyoming...CSAH that highway!
Been a long-term goal of MnDOT for years. But they would need to A) come to an agreement with every municipality and the three counties along the segment, and B) fund any improvements the counties would want before agreeing to take it over.
Wonder if we could see another MN x61 come into play if some of the route is ready to be axed but not all of it. I've read Wyoming at least has concerns about losing US 61.
Not sure why they would. They have the I-35 interchange. And if it becomes CSAH, the city still wouldn't have to pay (much) for roadwork.
Probably just one of those stupid small town fears that they see 61 as some kind of status symbol. Maybe they fear it'd impact their CBD, not that Wyoming really has one; it's pretty much just a couple buildings sitting on the corner of the 61 intersection with Forest Blvd.
Quote from: kphoger on February 07, 2019, 02:45:04 PM
About 30% 35% of the route is not duplexed with any other route number.
Yeah, I figured 37%. But if you isolate the western 2/3rds of the route, only 12% of that segment is not duplexed.
https://www.usends.com/blog/us-400-its-number-is-not-the-only-error
People saying that US-400 should be decommissioned. It perhaps should have a different number but the route is fine. Sort of like US-412 or US-425. US-400's long concurrencies with other US routes is an issue to me too, especially the one with US-50 on it's western end that makes very little sense. US-400 could very easily be a spur of US-50 or 69. US-412 could very easily be a spur of either US-51 or US-56 and US-425 could very easily be a spur of US-61, 63, 65, 79 or 84. All these highways are rather new, not quite 30 years old or right around it.
US-93 and US-95 is endangered of losing their US route status in Nevada due to the on going talks over the location of I-11.
Quote from: bing101 on February 08, 2019, 08:33:13 PM
US-93 and US-95 is endangered of losing their US route status in Nevada due to the on going talks over the location of I-11.
Most of US 93 in Nevada is in the eastern part of the state, far away from any possible I-11 corridor. Part of it is multiplexed with I-11, I-15, and I-515, which would make just that part dispensable if and when Arizona replaces its part of US 93 with I-11.
Much of US 95 in Nevada is also well east, or (south of Boulder City) west, of any possible I-11 corridor. And the parts in California and Arizona, and Idaho, aren't going anywhere. So keeping US 95 in Nevada would be useful for continuity, even if some portions between Boulder City and Winnemucca would be/remain multiplexed with Interstates.
Quote from: oscar on February 08, 2019, 09:17:10 PM
Quote from: bing101 on February 08, 2019, 08:33:13 PM
US-93 and US-95 is endangered of losing their US route status in Nevada due to the on going talks over the location of I-11.
Most of US 93 in Nevada is in the eastern part of the state, far away from any possible I-11 corridor. Part of it is multiplexed with I-11, I-15, and I-515, which would make just that part dispensable if and when Arizona replaces its part of US 93 with I-11.
Much of US 95 in Nevada is also well east, or (south of Boulder City) west, of any possible I-11 corridor. And the parts in California and Arizona, and Idaho, aren't going anywhere. So keeping US 95 in Nevada would be useful for continuity, even if some portions between Boulder City and Winnemucca would be/remain multiplexed with Interstates.
I'd argue that US 95 would still have viability even if I-11 somehow made it closer to Reno somehow in some far flung future. US 95 serves a pretty decent corridor along the Colorado River which ends in southern Arizona at San Luis. Even a very long multiplex of US 95 wouldn't change the corridor very much outside of extremely rural Nevada.
Janeway is going to kill Tuvix.
US 202 could be gotten rid of. Its basically an aggregation of SRS from ME to DE. Not a direct route at all.
Others:
46, 62,
Quote from: plain on February 07, 2019, 04:23:02 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on February 07, 2019, 01:53:16 PM
Quote from: plain on February 06, 2019, 07:29:38 PM
Quote from: froggie on February 06, 2019, 11:44:59 AM
Quote from: hbelkinsAnd I really think the useless concurrency of US 17 with US 50 needs to be eliminated.
Or extended north replacing US 522 from Winchester. That would be another option.
This. At least a piece of US 17 would actually be west of US 11.
And truncate it at Hancock. What through corridor does US 522 serve in Pennsylvania?
None really. US 17 can end in Hancock and US 522 can continue from there, or become a state route. 522 in Virginia can also become a state route.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/4b/e8/95/4be895914d83a29d7ebf7ab358133f49.gif)
Quote from: NE2 on February 08, 2019, 11:09:23 PM
Janeway is going to kill Tuvix.
NOMAD is going to kill us all first!
Rick
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on February 09, 2019, 10:34:32 PM
US 202 could be gotten rid of. Its basically an aggregation of SRS from ME to DE. Not a direct route at all.
US-202 is an interregional route between I-95 in DE, thru PA, and to I-287 at Bridgewater NJ.
Quote from: Henry on February 07, 2019, 10:19:57 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on February 05, 2019, 07:11:32 PM
The only one I think at risk would be 266.
Sure, and by that same logic, US 166. But their parent still exists, albeit as an Historic Route, so I'd keep them.
In fact, 266 could easily be extended into Arkansas along AR 22 and probably farther (with a duplex with US 64). It's probably the only remaining US route that makes logical sense to extend into Arkansas as just about all the good candidates are now taken.
US-57. Make it a state highway.
Quote from: Beltway on February 10, 2019, 12:51:11 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on February 09, 2019, 10:34:32 PM
US 202 could be gotten rid of. Its basically an aggregation of SRS from ME to DE. Not a direct route at all.
US-202 is an interregional route between I-95 in DE, thru PA, and to I-287 at Bridgewater NJ.
Further upthread, someone suggested that either that either the DE-PA-NJ stretch of US 202 be either renumbered or truncated north of I-287. US 202 from central NJ northward featured multiple concurrencies.
^ Could renumber the "important" part of the corridor (Wilmington to 287) as US 122...that was it's original route number prior to 1935.
get rid of us 422 and 322 in cleveland
Quote from: silverback1065 on February 20, 2019, 06:13:31 PM
get rid of us 422 and 322 in cleveland
I don't think I'd stop there either.
US 266 is likely safe because there is an OK 266 not far away in Verdigris. ODOT couldn't be bothered to renumber one of them.
Quote from: hbelkins on February 06, 2019, 11:10:55 AM
US routes should be important interstate (small "i") highways that link areas and corridors not served by Interstate (capital "I") highways. There probably should be concurrencies and renumberings to keep highways above the 300-mile length guideline.
If I was in charge, I'd decommission or truncate a whole bunch of routes. There's no need for US 11 to exist, since it's paralleled by a interstate for most of its length. (If they can do away with US 25 in Ohio and Michigan, or US 21 in West Virginia and Ohio, why keep US 11.) And what major corridor does US 522 serve between Culpeper and its southern terminus?
As for US 211, its short length and intrastate nature make it a prime candidate for decommissioning, but the physical characteristics of the road (mostly four-lane) would warrant some sort of US highway designation. The issue would be either finding some other number to extend along US 211, or finding another route to extend US 211 along. Now that US 311 is an interstate route, its logical extension is along US 360.
And I really think the useless concurrency of US 17 with US 50 needs to be eliminated.
US 11 provides a good signed alternate route to I-81.
US-159's purpose is to bypass Atchison, Kansas and Saint Joseph, Missouri for through traffic on US-59.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on November 09, 2020, 01:37:58 PM
US 11 provides a good signed alternate route to I-81.
So would VA 11, WV 11, MD 11, PA 11, and NY 11. Make it a long multi-state state route.
Quote from: hbelkins on November 09, 2020, 05:29:58 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on November 09, 2020, 01:37:58 PM
US 11 provides a good signed alternate route to I-81.
So would VA 11, WV 11, MD 11, PA 11, and NY 11. Make it a long multi-state state route.
Hence you have an interstate connection. Now you have a definition of a US highway.
Guess we'll find out (hopefully) soon if there are any decommissionings this year. This year's fall AASHTO meeting is happening virtually starting today (11/9) through Thursday. The Special Committee on US Route Numbering should meet some time during the meeting.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on November 09, 2020, 05:44:50 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 09, 2020, 05:29:58 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on November 09, 2020, 01:37:58 PM
US 11 provides a good signed alternate route to I-81.
So would VA 11, WV 11, MD 11, PA 11, and NY 11. Make it a long multi-state state route.
Hence you have an interstate connection. Now you have a definition of a US highway.
But it's not the through route between the cities served by the route. The interstate is. If there has to be a US route designation, move it to the interstate. Look at US 40 in western Kansas. It is concurrent with I-70 and the old route isn't even signed as a state route in most places.
The advent of the interstates has changed the purpose of the US route system. If they truly are supposed to be through routes of major regional significance, there's no need to have a US route parallel to an interstate. Save the US routes for the corridors the interstates don't serve. I think a really good argument could be made for decommissioning US 60 east of Fort Knox. There are really only two independent segments that aren't closely paralleled by an interstate -- between Charleston and Lewisburg, and between Lexington and Richmond. Most through interregional traffic is going to use I-64 between those locations anyway. Make them state routes.
^^^
And what about US-25 in KY? Most of it is redundant.
Quote from: GaryV on November 10, 2020, 12:43:49 PM
^^^
And what about US-25 in KY? Most of it is redundant.
US 25 has a significant split to Middlesboro that makes it a contender to stay.
Minnesota has long-range plans to decommission the remaining section of US 61 north of I-94 in the next decade or so. It's mostly redundant to I-35E and handles local movements only, plus a good chunk of it between 94 and MN 36 is local street which MnDOT feels is best handled at the city/county level.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on November 10, 2020, 02:25:53 PM
Minnesota has long-range plans to decommission the remaining section of US 61 north of I-94 in the next decade or so. It's mostly redundant to I-35E and handles local movements only, plus a good chunk of it between 94 and MN 36 is local street which MnDOT feels is best handled at the city/county level.
Why go to the trouble of taking down a US 61 sign only to put up a SR 61 sign?
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on November 10, 2020, 03:38:23 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on November 10, 2020, 02:25:53 PM
Minnesota has long-range plans to decommission the remaining section of US 61 north of I-94 in the next decade or so. It's mostly redundant to I-35E and handles local movements only, plus a good chunk of it between 94 and MN 36 is local street which MnDOT feels is best handled at the city/county level.
Why go to the trouble of taking down a US 61 sign only to put up a SR 61 sign?
As it relates to my post, this segment will be turned back over to Ramsey/Washington/Chisago Counties. If you're asking about the MN 61 segment, that's covered elsewhere.