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

[silverback1065]

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

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

dont forget I/US-41 in wisconsin, but I'm not sure they will be cosigned, US 41 may disappear and reappear on either side it connects with I-41.

[Henry]

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

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

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

That's exactly what I meant.

[Big John]

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

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

dont forget I/US-41 in wisconsin, but I'm not sure they will be cosigned, US 41 may disappear and reappear on either side it connects with I-41.

US 41 won't be signed in the Milwaukee area but will be co-signed elsewhere.

[english si]

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

Or every fucking business interstate!

Worse are the bannered US routes, as the shields are the same color and shape.

Surely, however - all the examples you give - are very different to what is being proposed. The examples I give of it being a fairly humdrum thing that is really rather common are better - business and bannered routes tend to be (though not always) the kind of alternate route that texasdog is proposing whereby following it won't take you in a wildly different direction.

[texaskdog]

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

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

No, if you don't know what an interstate highway sign looks like compared to a Wyoming state highway sign YOU'RE AN IDIOT!

[bugo]

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

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

No, if you don't know what an interstate highway sign looks like compared to a Wyoming state highway sign YOU'RE 8AN IDIOT!

Not everyone is as knowledgeable about roads as we are. Calling them "idiots" is unnecessary and offensive

[english si]

Not everyone is as knowledgeable about roads as we are.

Do you really have to have levels of roadgeekery anywhere near ours to be able to tell the difference between a yellow rectangle and a blue-and-red shield shape?

And if you can't tell that difference, then you would struggle more with business I-25, with the shields the same shape. Is that the point of business interstates? Confuse the ignorant into driving through your town in the hope that they might shop? 

Calling them "idiots" is unnecessary and offensive

Saying that people in general are too uninformed/stupid to tell two very different shields apart is unnecessary and offensive.

[Molandfreak]

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

I will never understand your type. Why do that when there are simply better ways of routing it?

[andy3175]

Enough name calling; let's get back to the topic at hand. Thank you.

[texaskdog]

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

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

No, if you don't know what an interstate highway sign looks like compared to a Wyoming state highway sign YOU'RE 8AN IDIOT!

Not everyone is as knowledgeable about roads as we are. Calling them "idiots" is unnecessary and offensive

People drive roads their whole lives.  They have to study a book and have experience on the roads and understand signs to get their licenses.  Even if someone is not going to know each states signs, they would at least know what an interstate shield looks like and seeing one means you are getting on a 4+ lane controlled expressway. 

Point being why have signs in different color schemes if no one is going to know the difference?  For all I care the state road could be 125.  Or you could put alternate on it.

[silverback1065]

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

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

No, if you don't know what an interstate highway sign looks like compared to a Wyoming state highway sign YOU'RE 8AN IDIOT!

Not everyone is as knowledgeable about roads as we are. Calling them "idiots" is unnecessary and offensive

People drive roads their whole lives.  They have to study a book and have experience on the roads and understand signs to get their licenses.  Even if someone is not going to know each states signs, they would at least know what an interstate shield looks like and seeing one means you are getting on a 4+ lane controlled expressway. 

Point being why have signs in different color schemes if no one is going to know the difference?  For all I care the state road could be 125.  Or you could put alternate on it.

I agree, it isn't that hard to know the difference between State, US, County, and Interstate routes.  people are so ignorant to new signage and sometimes typical signage.  It always surprises me how ignorant people can be with signage and navigation, this can get really bad and cause accidents.  Recently in Indianapolis someone died because they didn't understand what a flashing arrow signal was for (with a huge sign explaining what it is for next to it) people need to take responsibility (they usually blame and sue the DOT) and become more familiar with roads and signs, it benefits us all and can save lives. You don't need to be a road geek to know what signs and maps mean and to be able to navigate the country using both.

[texaskdog]

Right.  If the possibility for confusion is that bad, why not have ever road have a unique number?  Why can't a US highway and interstate be in the same STATE without confusion?  We have loop 360 here and Texas 360 in Dallas and no one seems to have a problem.

[halork]

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

I will never understand your type. Why do that when there are simply better ways of routing it?

I'm being practical. US-87 has lost it's significance as an inter-state route. Decommissioning it would allow Texas, Wyoming and Montana to control the routing of their highways without having to get Federal approval, and save money by allowing the removal of signage along hundreds of miles of useless concurrencies. As for a major re-route as you suggest, I'd love to see that (and I have a few ideas of my own), but that would require a significant amount of coordination between the states, and a compelling reason to spend the money to do it.  I don't see that happening.

[bugo]

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

I will never understand your type. Why do that when there are simply better ways of routing it?

I'm being practical. US-87 has lost it's significance as an inter-state route. Decommissioning it would allow Texas, Wyoming and Montana to control the routing of their highways without having to get Federal approval, and save money by allowing the removal of signage along hundreds of miles of useless concurrencies. As for a major re-route as you suggest, I'd love to see that (and I have a few ideas of my own), but that would require a significant amount of coordination between the states, and a compelling reason to spend the money to do it.  I don't see that happening.

What's wrong with US 87's routings in New Mexico, Texas, and Montana?

Decommissioning it would be a silly waste of money. Leave it be.

[halork]

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

I will never understand your type. Why do that when there are simply better ways of routing it?

I'm being practical. US-87 has lost it's significance as an inter-state route. Decommissioning it would allow Texas, Wyoming and Montana to control the routing of their highways without having to get Federal approval, and save money by allowing the removal of signage along hundreds of miles of useless concurrencies. As for a major re-route as you suggest, I'd love to see that (and I have a few ideas of my own), but that would require a significant amount of coordination between the states, and a compelling reason to spend the money to do it.  I don't see that happening.

What's wrong with US 87's routings in New Mexico, Texas, and Montana?

Decommissioning it would be a silly waste of money. Leave it be.

Actually, it would be very cheap, and cheaper in the long run. When the shields are due to be replaced, simply remove them along the concurrent sections. Texas, Montana, and Wyoming could replace markers on the stand-alone sections with state route markers.

Or they could just go with the Colorado solution, and just pull down the signs along concurrencies and forget about it. Getting back to the original topic, that is why I agree with AASHTO's suggestion to move US-87 back to the I-25 routing here. Then Wyoming could pull down all the US-87 markers at their convenience, and be done with it.

[Molandfreak]

Alternatively, MDT could just extend U.S. 310 north along 87's old route, then just keep U.S. 87 as is in Texas and New Mexico.


iPhone

[kkt]

The U.S. and Interstate routes are supposed to be the best or fastest way between points.  That's the reason the route is signed, to help people unfamiliar with the area find the best route.  A long stretch of U.S. route that is parallel to an interstate contradicts that policy.

Wanting to keep it signed for historical reasons is not as important as being clear to today's driving public.  Neither is a bypass -- if the interstate is closed, the DOT should be able to have detour signs up within a day.  A state route number would work equally well.

AASHTO has been fairly consistent about this recently.  For instance, in Reno, US 395 rereouted to I-580 while the old route became Alt US 395.

[Molandfreak]

The U.S. and Interstate routes are supposed to be the best or fastest way between points.  That's the reason the route is signed, to help people unfamiliar with the area find the best route.  A long stretch of U.S. route that is parallel to an interstate contradicts that policy.

Wanting to keep it signed for historical reasons is not as important as being clear to today's driving public.  Neither is a bypass -- if the interstate is closed, the DOT should be able to have detour signs up within a day.  A state route number would work equally well.

AASHTO has been fairly consistent about this recently.  For instance, in Reno, US 395 rereouted to I-580 while the old route became Alt US 395.

Then why even sign it as a state route if it's that unimportant to the driving public? Detours/parallels are far from the worst of routing choices within the U.S. Highway system.

[kkt]

The U.S. and Interstate routes are supposed to be the best or fastest way between points.  That's the reason the route is signed, to help people unfamiliar with the area find the best route.  A long stretch of U.S. route that is parallel to an interstate contradicts that policy.

Wanting to keep it signed for historical reasons is not as important as being clear to today's driving public.  Neither is a bypass -- if the interstate is closed, the DOT should be able to have detour signs up within a day.  A state route number would work equally well.

AASHTO has been fairly consistent about this recently.  For instance, in Reno, US 395 rereouted to I-580 while the old route became Alt US 395.

Then why even sign it as a state route if it's that unimportant to the driving public? Detours/parallels are far from the worst of routing choices within the U.S. Highway system.

Wyoming wants it to be handled by the state, so I'm fine with it being a state route.

[The High Plains Traveler]

Since I live very close to U.S. 87 in Colorado (only as indicated by the map), I'll throw my opinion in here. U.S. 87 is either concurrent with, or closely parallel to I-25 for about 770 miles between Raton, NM and Billings, MT. It doesn't serve any communities in that long segment that are not also directly accessible from I-25. Further, when it does leave I-25 at Raton, it trends southeast, then south in Texas, but well outside the expected corridor for U.S. 87. It's more like U.S. 77 by the time it ends. Dangerously close to a Fictitious Highways thread here, but I think it would be better to repurpose U.S. 87 on a corridor further west, either along U.S. 191 or 310, or a combination of both. I have ideas for redesignating 87's route (and another route) through Texas, but will save that for the other board.

[texaskdog]

I have ideas for redesignating 87's route (and another route) through Texas, but will save that for the other board.

stop teasing

[The High Plains Traveler]

I have ideas for redesignating 87's route (and another route) through Texas, but will save that for the other board.

stop teasing

You can exhale now; https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=15479.0

[vdeane]

The U.S. and Interstate routes are supposed to be the best or fastest way between points.  That's the reason the route is signed, to help people unfamiliar with the area find the best route.  A long stretch of U.S. route that is parallel to an interstate contradicts that policy.

That means that the vast majority of the US route system is wholly redundant and should be decommissioned.  Pointless overlaps like those that exist between US and interstate highways out west should not be allowed to exist.

[The High Plains Traveler]

The U.S. and Interstate routes are supposed to be the best or fastest way between points.  That's the reason the route is signed, to help people unfamiliar with the area find the best route.  A long stretch of U.S. route that is parallel to an interstate contradicts that policy.

That means that the vast majority of the US route system is wholly redundant and should be decommissioned.  Pointless overlaps like those that exist between US and interstate highways out west should not be allowed to exist.

Largely true in the West, where the original routings were simply upgraded to freeway. In the Midwest and East, not so simple, and you would have to make a case-by-case argument. How far does a route stray from the Interstate that parallels it for it to meet the true definition of a U.S. route ("best or fastest route"). A lot has to do with how states deal with old routings. Minnesota, for instance, largely turned old routings back to counties, and thus there is no state highway to carry the original U.S. number.

[kkt]

The U.S. and Interstate routes are supposed to be the best or fastest way between points.  That's the reason the route is signed, to help people unfamiliar with the area find the best route.  A long stretch of U.S. route that is parallel to an interstate contradicts that policy.

That means that the vast majority of the US route system is wholly redundant and should be decommissioned.  Pointless overlaps like those that exist between US and interstate highways out west should not be allowed to exist.

In a lot of the west, the redundant US routes were decommissioned in the early-mid 1960s.  99, 66, 10, 40, etc. etc.  I look at some of the eastern states, the southeast especially, and wonder what all those US routes are still doing there.  US 87 is an exception, probably because it was not redundant on both its ends.