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

Do you think every state should overhaul their highway system...

Started by texaskdog, February 02, 2018, 11:04:18 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

texaskdog



froggie

Probably would cause more confusion than it's worth at this point...

webny99

It's also (at least IMO) highly dependent on which state you're talking about.

jeffandnicole

New Jersey already did it twice - in 1927 and 1953.  Do they have to redo it again because of California in 1964?

Perfxion

Texas has to have like 81,000 miles of various state highways. Would be senseless to blow it up at this point. Even though the FM/RM/UR/Re/RR/Loops/Spurs/PR/SH are all excessive. And a big chunk not needed. It still too much for so little gain.
5/10/20/30/15/35/37/40/44/45/70/76/78/80/85/87/95/
(CA)405,(NJ)195/295(NY)295/495/278/678(CT)395(MD/VA)195/495/695/895

Max Rockatansky

Florida, Nevada, and Washington did it way better than California.   

Doctor Whom

In terms of mass renumbering, no, but some states should rethink their rules about which level of state/local government maintains which class of roads.

oscar

Hawaii did it twice, in the mid-1950s (adopting a Hawaii-wide numbered route system for the first time), and the late 1960s (splitting the unified state and county route system into separate state and county networks. with some renumberings and route removals in the process). No need for another overhaul, especially since Hawaiians don't use route numbers for navigation anyway (ditto Alaska, and Canada's Arctic territories).

The OP should tell us what specific states need an overhaul. Some of them clearly do not.
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

Hurricane Rex

Oregon maybe, although our system isn't bad with exceptions for our countless 3dis. The only thing I'd change is making the internal numbers the same as the public numbers.
ODOT, raise the speed limit and fix our traffic problems.

Road and weather geek for life.

Running till I die.

Duke87

What I find interesting is that many states have done a massive renumbering at some point in the past... but the idea is nearly unthinkable now, on account of the cost being too high (not to mention the inevitable confusion) to possibly be justified by any benefit.

So... what was different then, that made renumberings in the olden days possible when they aren't now? Were they less expensive to implement (in relative terms)? Did states generally have more room in their budgets such that the cost was less of a big deal? Were people less averse to change?

If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.

Max Rockatansky

Quote from: Duke87 on February 02, 2018, 06:15:55 PM
What I find interesting is that many states have done a massive renumbering at some point in the past... but the idea is nearly unthinkable now, on account of the cost being too high (not to mention the inevitable confusion) to possibly be justified by any benefit.

So... what was different then, that made renumberings in the olden days possible when they aren't now? Were they less expensive to implement (in relative terms)? Did states generally have more room in their budgets such that the cost was less of a big deal? Were people less averse to change?

Back when most of those big renumberings were happening using route numbers for navigation was a way bigger deal than it is now.  Also consider that state level highways were often in much better shape than county and locally maintained roadways.  Nowadays most people use some sort of device like a GPS to tell them how to get somewhere, so from the aspect why invest in revamping a highway numbering system for navigation?  Secondly the level of road maintenance by some county or local DOTs have gotten close to those of state DOTs. 


RobbieL2415

If my state could afford it, I wish they would.

The last "overhaul" that affected several major highways at one time was from 1973-1999.

US 89

The thing about renumbering now is that in addition to all the signs, most every DOT has all their numbers in a huge computer database, and changing them all would likely be a tremendous headache.

Utah has never done a complete system-wide renumbering, but there are a few events that come close. Utah had always used hidden state route numbers for its Interstate and US routes for internal purposes. For example, SR-1 was US 91. In 1962 these numbers were moved onto Interstates, such that SR-1 was I-15, SR-2 was I-80, etc. In 1977 the hidden numbers were scrapped completely, and the legislative route numbers were changed to match the signed numbers. The other event that comes close was in 1969, when almost 90 mostly short routes were deleted from the system.

hbelkins

Kentucky has never really done a massive renumbering, although there have been a few tweaks here and there. The ones I'm most familiar with recently are KY 57 and KY 227.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

cl94

The only major renumbering New York did was in 1930. Most of that was signing routes that were previously unnumbered. Several routes 80 and below predate the renumbering, with most of the changes to those in 1930 being realignments/extensions/truncations. A minor renumbering was done in 1927, mostly to avoid duplication and unnecessary concurrencies with US routes. Major 1927 changes are below.

NY 1 -> US 1
NY 2 -> US 11
NY 4 -> NY 2 (later US/NY 15)
NY 6 -> US 9E/US 9 (modern US 9)
NY 7 -> US 20 east of Auburn, NY 35 west of Auburn
NY 9 -> NY 7 (there was a continuous state route 9 from the PA/NY line to Calais at one point)
NY 20 -> NY 57
NY 30 -> US 4
NY 37 -> US 6 (US 6 was previously unnumbered west of Peekskill)
NY 50 -> US 6N -> US 209 in 1933

Other than a truncation east of Albany (became US 20) and realignment west of Buffalo (old route now US 20), NY 5 generally follows the same route as it did pre-1927
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

mrcmc888

All I can think of with Tennessee is getting rid of the confusing primary/secondary route designations.  Delaware really doesn't need an overhaul.

Neither have had a mass renumbering, and neither really need it.

jp the roadgeek

CT did it in 1926 and 1963, mostly in response to the addition of US highways in 1926 and Interstates in 1963.  The 1926 renumbering created many new numbered state routes, while the 1963 renumbering tended to combine many existing routes into longer routes, and add new routes that the federal system had decommissioned.

As far as renumberings, I'm kind of torn.  Can the system use an updating and somewhat of a logical pattern?  Yes.  Would it confuse people and cost money that the state currently doesn't have ?  Also yes.  I've already created a new route system for CT that would require some minor accommodation from surrounding states, would attempt to use up any unused numbers so long as they didn't conflict with Interstate or US routes, but would preserve the heavy hitters such as CT 2, CT 8, CT 9, CT 10, and CT 34.  My ideas are contained in this thread:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18689.0

Interstates I've clinched: 97, 290 (MA), 291 (CT), 291 (MA), 293, 295 (DE-NJ-PA), 295 (RI-MA), 384, 391, 395 (CT-MA), 395 (MD), 495 (DE), 610 (LA), 684, 691, 695 (MD), 695 (NY), 795 (MD)

jeffandnicole

Quote from: Duke87 on February 02, 2018, 06:15:55 PM
So... what was different then, that made renumberings in the olden days possible when they aren't now? Were they less expensive to implement (in relative terms)? Did states generally have more room in their budgets such that the cost was less of a big deal? Were people less averse to change?

One of the top reasons in my view: Social Media.  In the past, the most people could do was attend public hearings (rarely done) or write letters to the editor of their local paper.  Today, people can scream and holler on social media and create a firestorm to get their way.  They can easily form and organize groups to make loud protests. Heck, thousands of people from other states or countries can write in saying they don't want it done, even though it won't affect them whatsoever.

NJ kept plans quiet when they wanted to renumber I-95 to I-295 around Trenton.  So much so that public hearings on reconstructing the I-95 bridge from NJ to PA never once mentioned the upcoming renumbering, even though the renumbering will be taking place well before the bridge is reconstructed.  The less people know, the better, especially when it comes to some things (whether that's proper or not is another story...).

Flint1979

Michigan's is fine the way it is and doesn't follow any special pattern.

ftballfan

Quote from: Flint1979 on February 10, 2018, 09:28:13 PM
Michigan's is fine the way it is and doesn't follow any special pattern.

If anything, Michigan has too few state highways for a state of its size

Flint1979

Quote from: ftballfan on February 12, 2018, 09:37:17 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 10, 2018, 09:28:13 PM
Michigan's is fine the way it is and doesn't follow any special pattern.

If anything, Michigan has too few state highways for a state of its size
I believe we have right around 6,000 miles of state highway and comparable in area to Georgia and Iowa.

hotdogPi

Quote from: Flint1979 on February 12, 2018, 10:44:51 AM
Quote from: ftballfan on February 12, 2018, 09:37:17 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 10, 2018, 09:28:13 PM
Michigan's is fine the way it is and doesn't follow any special pattern.

If anything, Michigan has too few state highways for a state of its size
I believe we have right around 6,000 miles of state highway and comparable in area to Georgia and Iowa.

And comparable to population in Georgia, but definitely not Iowa.
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.

cl94

Quote from: Flint1979 on February 12, 2018, 10:44:51 AM
Quote from: ftballfan on February 12, 2018, 09:37:17 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 10, 2018, 09:28:13 PM
Michigan's is fine the way it is and doesn't follow any special pattern.

If anything, Michigan has too few state highways for a state of its size
I believe we have right around 6,000 miles of state highway and comparable in area to Georgia and Iowa.

6,000 miles is still ridiculously small. New York has over 14,000 miles of state highways and parkways on about 15% less land area. Granted, NY doesn't have nearly as many US highways as most other states, but that doesn't make up all the difference. Excluding overlaps, Georgia's state highway system is roughly 11,000 miles.
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

jeffandnicole

Quote from: cl94 on February 12, 2018, 11:15:19 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 12, 2018, 10:44:51 AM
Quote from: ftballfan on February 12, 2018, 09:37:17 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 10, 2018, 09:28:13 PM
Michigan's is fine the way it is and doesn't follow any special pattern.

If anything, Michigan has too few state highways for a state of its size
I believe we have right around 6,000 miles of state highway and comparable in area to Georgia and Iowa.

6,000 miles is still ridiculously small. New York has over 14,000 miles of state highways and parkways on about 15% less land area. Granted, NY doesn't have nearly as many US highways as most other states, but that doesn't make up all the difference. Excluding overlaps, Georgia's state highway system is roughly 11,000 miles.

It depends on how the state divides up the jurisdiction of the roadways.  In some states, every inch of pavement is state road.  In other states, the majority of roadway is county or municipal jurisdiction.  A very, very quick look on Google seems to support this - 73% of the roadway miles in Michigan are county maintained.

This is also how surveys and comparisons get screwed up - "researchers" will look around at the various states, find the amount of mileage in each state, and run various comparisons.  However, they're rarely looking at apples-applies comparisons.  They'll find a general State Mileage number, not understanding all the various jurisdictions, and use that.

Flint1979

Quote from: 1 on February 12, 2018, 10:46:50 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 12, 2018, 10:44:51 AM
Quote from: ftballfan on February 12, 2018, 09:37:17 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 10, 2018, 09:28:13 PM
Michigan's is fine the way it is and doesn't follow any special pattern.

If anything, Michigan has too few state highways for a state of its size
I believe we have right around 6,000 miles of state highway and comparable in area to Georgia and Iowa.

And comparable to population in Georgia, but definitely not Iowa.
That's true. Iowa's population doesn't even top Metro Detroit's population.



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.