So i've Never realized why highways in the East Get Truncated? in the West they build on top of the original route so i understand, but in the east i don't Get it? Like US 21, in west Virginia and Ohio, I-77 didn't get built ontop of US 21's Original route, all the roads it was on is still here to this day, or US 25, I-75 was never built ontop the original route or infact ANY US Route in Michigan.
I Know they transfer the US Route onto the highway but US 40 in Ohio got transferred back onto its original route, but US 21/US 25/US 27 never did (if it was on the highway)
A lot of DOTs shed maintenance of former surface routings once a limited access bypass is built. A lot of them aren't interested in having Route duplication on what they maintain. That was much of the driving force of what got US 27 pushed out of Michigan (the long multiplex with I-69).
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 30, 2020, 05:29:32 PM
That was much of the driving force of what got US 27 pushed out of Michigan (the long multiplex with I-69).
That and to ease confusion with US-127 which ended at I-69 where US-27 split going on the same freeway US-127 was on.
I think it makes sense but I still think US-27 and US-127 should have switched routes in Cincinnati.
I-75 was built to replace US-2 north of St. Ignace in the U.P. but not sure if it was right on top of what use to be US-2.
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 30, 2020, 08:19:52 PM
I-75 was built to replace US-2 north of St. Ignace in the U.P. but not sure if it was right on top of what use to be US-2.
New routing. Old US-2 was routed on Mackinac Trail (now H-63).
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 30, 2020, 08:16:56 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 30, 2020, 05:29:32 PM
That was much of the driving force of what got US 27 pushed out of Michigan (the long multiplex with I-69).
That and to ease confusion with US-127 which ended at I-69 where US-27 split going on the same freeway US-127 was on.
I think it makes sense but I still think US-27 and US-127 should have switched routes in Cincinnati.
Yes, but if MDOT had retained all that surface highway mileage I bet US 27 would still be around. US 92 for example functionally has been replaced by I-4 but the surface mileage of the former was retained. To that end it makes no sense to renumber or dispose of US 92. There are many of segments like that on the East Coast which becomes less common the further west you go.
Then you have unusual truncations on my stomping grounds:
Hawaii 130, truncated by lava flows (Madame Pele also more recently trashed parts of some nearby county routes)
Alaska 10 (Cordova segment), effectively truncated by 2011 bridge washout which may never be repaired (some of the highway beyond that washout survives, but with no way to drive there)
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 30, 2020, 08:40:09 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 30, 2020, 08:16:56 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 30, 2020, 05:29:32 PM
That was much of the driving force of what got US 27 pushed out of Michigan (the long multiplex with I-69).
That and to ease confusion with US-127 which ended at I-69 where US-27 split going on the same freeway US-127 was on.
I think it makes sense but I still think US-27 and US-127 should have switched routes in Cincinnati.
Yes, but if MDOT had retained all that surface highway mileage I bet US 27 would still be around. US 92 for example functionally has been replaced by I-4 but the surface mileage of the former was retained. To that end it makes no sense to renumber or dispose of US 92. There are many of segments like that on the East Coast which becomes less common the further west you go.
Could you explain surface mileage, what i'm saying is why truncate the highway if thw surface road is still there and functioning for the public, yes it "technically" gets replaced BUT, its a good wa through towns,
for Ex, I Don't take I-77 down to Downtown Columbia, I US 21 because
1. US 21 is right off the road i am,
2. it directly goes through the town, unlike I-77,
3. Less Traffic
it still puzzles me that some US Routes were put onto Interstate Highways (Like US 40 on I-70) but then put back onto surface road, but other Routes (Like US 21) Wasn't
Quote from: AcE_Wolf_287 on March 30, 2020, 09:12:14 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 30, 2020, 08:40:09 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 30, 2020, 08:16:56 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 30, 2020, 05:29:32 PM
That was much of the driving force of what got US 27 pushed out of Michigan (the long multiplex with I-69).
That and to ease confusion with US-127 which ended at I-69 where US-27 split going on the same freeway US-127 was on.
I think it makes sense but I still think US-27 and US-127 should have switched routes in Cincinnati.
Yes, but if MDOT had retained all that surface highway mileage I bet US 27 would still be around. US 92 for example functionally has been replaced by I-4 but the surface mileage of the former was retained. To that end it makes no sense to renumber or dispose of US 92. There are many of segments like that on the East Coast which becomes less common the further west you go.
Could you explain surface mileage, what i'm saying is why truncate the highway if thw surface road is still there and functioning for the public, yes it "technically" gets replaced BUT, its a good wa through towns,
for Ex, I Don't take I-77 down to Downtown Columbia, I US 21 because
1. US 21 is right off the road i am,
2. it directly goes through the town, unlike I-77,
3. Less Traffic
it still puzzles me that some US Routes were put onto Interstate Highways (Like US 40 on I-70) but then put back onto surface road, but other Routes (Like US 21) Wasn't
Most State DOTs that relinquish older routes don't want to keep them on US Route and State Highway logs because they don't maintain them. Most local agencies don't want the responsibility of maintaining through signage for something like a Stats Highway or US Route. In many instances it is simpler and cheaper to multiplex routes onto freeways when possible.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 30, 2020, 09:21:10 PM
Quote from: AcE_Wolf_287 on March 30, 2020, 09:12:14 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 30, 2020, 08:40:09 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 30, 2020, 08:16:56 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 30, 2020, 05:29:32 PM
That was much of the driving force of what got US 27 pushed out of Michigan (the long multiplex with I-69).
That and to ease confusion with US-127 which ended at I-69 where US-27 split going on the same freeway US-127 was on.
I think it makes sense but I still think US-27 and US-127 should have switched routes in Cincinnati.
Yes, but if MDOT had retained all that surface highway mileage I bet US 27 would still be around. US 92 for example functionally has been replaced by I-4 but the surface mileage of the former was retained. To that end it makes no sense to renumber or dispose of US 92. There are many of segments like that on the East Coast which becomes less common the further west you go.
Could you explain surface mileage, what i'm saying is why truncate the highway if thw surface road is still there and functioning for the public, yes it "technically" gets replaced BUT, its a good wa through towns,
for Ex, I Don't take I-77 down to Downtown Columbia, I US 21 because
1. US 21 is right off the road i am,
2. it directly goes through the town, unlike I-77,
3. Less Traffic
it still puzzles me that some US Routes were put onto Interstate Highways (Like US 40 on I-70) but then put back onto surface road, but other Routes (Like US 21) Wasn't
Most State DOTs that relinquish older routes don't want to keep them on US Route and State Highway logs because they don't maintain them. Most local agencies don't want the responsibility of maintaining through signage for something like a Stats Highway or US Route. In many instances it is simpler and cheaper to multiplex routes onto freeways when possible.
Like, Overlapping them onto highways, i don't really care, its just when they completly truncate it out of the state even if the town located on them needs it, but i guess the department is trying to save money
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 30, 2020, 08:40:09 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 30, 2020, 08:16:56 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 30, 2020, 05:29:32 PM
That was much of the driving force of what got US 27 pushed out of Michigan (the long multiplex with I-69).
That and to ease confusion with US-127 which ended at I-69 where US-27 split going on the same freeway US-127 was on.
I think it makes sense but I still think US-27 and US-127 should have switched routes in Cincinnati.
Yes, but if MDOT had retained all that surface highway mileage I bet US 27 would still be around. US 92 for example functionally has been replaced by I-4 but the surface mileage of the former was retained. To that end it makes no sense to renumber or dispose of US 92. There are many of segments like that on the East Coast which becomes less common the further west you go.
Yup. I was just in US-92's neighborhood and there is US-192 as well.
Quote from: AcE_Wolf_287 on March 30, 2020, 09:12:14 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 30, 2020, 08:40:09 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 30, 2020, 08:16:56 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 30, 2020, 05:29:32 PM
That was much of the driving force of what got US 27 pushed out of Michigan (the long multiplex with I-69).
That and to ease confusion with US-127 which ended at I-69 where US-27 split going on the same freeway US-127 was on.
I think it makes sense but I still think US-27 and US-127 should have switched routes in Cincinnati.
Yes, but if MDOT had retained all that surface highway mileage I bet US 27 would still be around. US 92 for example functionally has been replaced by I-4 but the surface mileage of the former was retained. To that end it makes no sense to renumber or dispose of US 92. There are many of segments like that on the East Coast which becomes less common the further west you go.
Could you explain surface mileage, what i'm saying is why truncate the highway if thw surface road is still there and functioning for the public, yes it "technically" gets replaced BUT, its a good wa through towns,
for Ex, I Don't take I-77 down to Downtown Columbia, I US 21 because
1. US 21 is right off the road i am,
2. it directly goes through the town, unlike I-77,
3. Less Traffic
it still puzzles me that some US Routes were put onto Interstate Highways (Like US 40 on I-70) but then put back onto surface road, but other Routes (Like US 21) Wasn't
Usually they turn it over to local control so they don't have to maintain it anymore. It's no longer they through route but most of the time makes a good alternate route.
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 30, 2020, 09:56:17 PM
Quote from: AcE_Wolf_287 on March 30, 2020, 09:12:14 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 30, 2020, 08:40:09 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 30, 2020, 08:16:56 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 30, 2020, 05:29:32 PM
That was much of the driving force of what got US 27 pushed out of Michigan (the long multiplex with I-69).
That and to ease confusion with US-127 which ended at I-69 where US-27 split going on the same freeway US-127 was on.
I think it makes sense but I still think US-27 and US-127 should have switched routes in Cincinnati.
Yes, but if MDOT had retained all that surface highway mileage I bet US 27 would still be around. US 92 for example functionally has been replaced by I-4 but the surface mileage of the former was retained. To that end it makes no sense to renumber or dispose of US 92. There are many of segments like that on the East Coast which becomes less common the further west you go.
Could you explain surface mileage, what i'm saying is why truncate the highway if thw surface road is still there and functioning for the public, yes it "technically" gets replaced BUT, its a good wa through towns,
for Ex, I Don't take I-77 down to Downtown Columbia, I US 21 because
1. US 21 is right off the road i am,
2. it directly goes through the town, unlike I-77,
3. Less Traffic
it still puzzles me that some US Routes were put onto Interstate Highways (Like US 40 on I-70) but then put back onto surface road, but other Routes (Like US 21) Wasn't
Usually they turn it over to local control so they don't have to maintain it anymore. It's no longer they through route but most of the time makes a good alternate route.
See, if the US Highway was built ontop of, I would Understand truncating the highway, but i guess the state deptarment doesn't want to deal with the Highway anymore, but even then if they turn it into s state route, you might as well keep the US highway.
How about I-80 replacing US 40 west of SLC?
Quote from: AcE_Wolf_287 on March 30, 2020, 10:24:39 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 30, 2020, 09:56:17 PM
Quote from: AcE_Wolf_287 on March 30, 2020, 09:12:14 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 30, 2020, 08:40:09 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 30, 2020, 08:16:56 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 30, 2020, 05:29:32 PM
That was much of the driving force of what got US 27 pushed out of Michigan (the long multiplex with I-69).
That and to ease confusion with US-127 which ended at I-69 where US-27 split going on the same freeway US-127 was on.
I think it makes sense but I still think US-27 and US-127 should have switched routes in Cincinnati.
Yes, but if MDOT had retained all that surface highway mileage I bet US 27 would still be around. US 92 for example functionally has been replaced by I-4 but the surface mileage of the former was retained. To that end it makes no sense to renumber or dispose of US 92. There are many of segments like that on the East Coast which becomes less common the further west you go.
Could you explain surface mileage, what i'm saying is why truncate the highway if thw surface road is still there and functioning for the public, yes it "technically" gets replaced BUT, its a good wa through towns,
for Ex, I Don't take I-77 down to Downtown Columbia, I US 21 because
1. US 21 is right off the road i am,
2. it directly goes through the town, unlike I-77,
3. Less Traffic
it still puzzles me that some US Routes were put onto Interstate Highways (Like US 40 on I-70) but then put back onto surface road, but other Routes (Like US 21) Wasn't
Usually they turn it over to local control so they don't have to maintain it anymore. It's no longer they through route but most of the time makes a good alternate route.
See, if the US Highway was built ontop of, I would Understand truncating the highway, but i guess the state deptarment doesn't want to deal with the Highway anymore, but even then if they turn it into s state route, you might as well keep the US highway.
US routes have more guidelines you have to follow where a state highway is up to the state to decide on.
Ohio has SR-25 that replaced some of old US-25 between Cygnet and Toledo. Same in Michigan M-25 replaced some of old US-25 which was also replaced by M-3, M-85, I-94 and I-75.
Michigan also has M-27 and M-227 as well of course US-127 and I-75 that replaced some of old US-27. Also the business routes were all part of old US-27 and there is a road in Michigan simply called Old 27.
Some of US-24 was switched as well at one time being part of US-25. It runs on what use to be US-25 in Maumee for about 4 miles.
Quote from: catch22 on March 30, 2020, 08:28:27 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 30, 2020, 08:19:52 PM
I-75 was built to replace US-2 north of St. Ignace in the U.P. but not sure if it was right on top of what use to be US-2.
New routing. Old US-2 was routed on Mackinac Trail (now H-63).
And an older routing was on what is now M-129 and M-134.
Michigan is a good example of decommissioning US routes (and state routes like M-76) as they were functionally replaced* by the Interstates. Some portions were retained as state highways, such as M-27 in the northern LP. Often there were business routes established that took the "old road" through town. Some of those routes have been turned back to local control - sometimes because the city asked to take control so they could make changes.
The roads that were decommissioned are mostly local county roads now. They were needed as roads to provide access to the adjoining properties. But they seldom have any appreciable traffic volumes. Or those that do have some traffic are no more busy than other county roads that were never US or M routes.
Several old routings of US-10 and US-23 in were retained as state highways after I-75 took over, because they had traffic volumes that warranted it. Obviously something like Woodward Ave from Detroit to Pontiac. But also several other state highways exist from the Ohio border to the Saginaw Bay area.
* I say functionally replaced, because except for a few small portions, the Interstate is on a different route. There may not have been space to build the freeway on the existing right of way.
EDIT: Another thought: US highways (23, 27/127, 31, 131) that were upgraded to freeways, but kept their US number. The former non-freeway route is usually a local road now. A few are unsigned state highways - meaning the state retains maintenance costs.
I-69 replacing M-78 and M-21 east of Flint as well.
A good example of Old US-27 is between St. Johns and Lansing. Coming south out of St. Johns the business route turns east at Price Road but is still state maintained all the way to Lansing.
M-13 north of Bay City replaced an old stretch of US-23. This stretch has one of the most popular restaurant's in Michigan along it, it's called Turkey Roost and you won't miss it as the building is colored pink so you'll see it. Been there since 1955.
M-13 ends at US-23 and if there were no signs there you'd just dump into north US-23 as it's the same roadway much like US-127 use to dump into US-27 at I-69 near DeWitt but that is as a freeway, this is a four lane highway.
Indiana truncated a few US Highways. US 421 and US 35 were both truncated from US 12 in downtown Michigan City to US 20 on the south side of town as INDOT is pushing cities to take control of city streets.
US 33 was truncated to US 20 after the 20/31 bypass was completed as those routes became the preferred way to get from Elkhart to points west and north.
Once Michigan completed its swap of US 27 and 127 and eliminated 27 from Michigan, Indiana truncated it to Fort Wayne as the rest was just a concurrency with I-69.
Quote from: Verlanka on March 31, 2020, 05:55:42 AM
How about I-80 replacing US 40 west of SLC?
That was literally referenced in the OP.
Quote from: AcE_Wolf_287 on March 30, 2020, 04:03:56 PMin the West they build on top of the original route
But not all western highways are done this way. For example, CA 99 (former US 99) follows the predecessor route through Bakersfield, Fresno and Stockton while I-5 runs to the west of those cities, and in AZ, Route 66 takes a meandering path north of the straight-running I-40. True, lots of 2dis were built on the same alignment as the 2dus they replaced, but there are places where the old and new routes deviate from each other.
Regarding US 21, I'm not positive about Ohio, but in Virginia and West Virginia, all of the former route is state-maintained.
In Virginia, the route was concurrent with US 52 all the way to the state line and beyond into downtown Bluefield. US 52 has been routed onto I-77, but the old route is signed as VA 598 and WV 598.
In West Virginia, the route was concurrent with US 19 to Beckley. Until the New River Gorge bridge was finished and US 19 was routed on that highway, US 21 was signed on the completed portion of Corridor L, then along what is now WV 16 to US 60, then concurrent with US 60 to Charleston. The original truncation was on I-77 a few miles north of Charleston, at the WV 622 exit. North of Charleston, the segments that aren't co-signed with state primary routes (WV 622, WV 34) so the primary routes can end at the interstate are signed with standalone CR 21 markers (keeping in mind that WV's "county" routes are actually state-maintained secondary routes). At CR 21's northern end, the route is designated as WV 14, and as an unsigned extension of WV 31 across the river.
I know segments in Ohio are signed state highways, but I don't know if all of old US 21 is a signed state route, or if portions are under county/township maintenance.
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 31, 2020, 07:30:42 AM
Quote from: AcE_Wolf_287 on March 30, 2020, 10:24:39 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 30, 2020, 09:56:17 PM
Quote from: AcE_Wolf_287 on March 30, 2020, 09:12:14 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 30, 2020, 08:40:09 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 30, 2020, 08:16:56 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 30, 2020, 05:29:32 PM
That was much of the driving force of what got US 27 pushed out of Michigan (the long multiplex with I-69).
That and to ease confusion with US-127 which ended at I-69 where US-27 split going on the same freeway US-127 was on.
I think it makes sense but I still think US-27 and US-127 should have switched routes in Cincinnati.
Yes, but if MDOT had retained all that surface highway mileage I bet US 27 would still be around. US 92 for example functionally has been replaced by I-4 but the surface mileage of the former was retained. To that end it makes no sense to renumber or dispose of US 92. There are many of segments like that on the East Coast which becomes less common the further west you go.
Could you explain surface mileage, what i'm saying is why truncate the highway if thw surface road is still there and functioning for the public, yes it "technically" gets replaced BUT, its a good wa through towns,
for Ex, I Don't take I-77 down to Downtown Columbia, I US 21 because
1. US 21 is right off the road i am,
2. it directly goes through the town, unlike I-77,
3. Less Traffic
it still puzzles me that some US Routes were put onto Interstate Highways (Like US 40 on I-70) but then put back onto surface road, but other Routes (Like US 21) Wasn't
Usually they turn it over to local control so they don't have to maintain it anymore. It's no longer they through route but most of the time makes a good alternate route.
See, if the US Highway was built ontop of, I would Understand truncating the highway, but i guess the state deptarment doesn't want to deal with the Highway anymore, but even then if they turn it into s state route, you might as well keep the US highway.
US routes have more guidelines you have to follow where a state highway is up to the state to decide on.
I know the Interstates have documented standards to follow, but are you sure there are guidelines for US highways? Just from the US mileage I have witnessed myself, there is so much variability that I find that hard to believe. A lot of US Routes in West Virginia and Pennsylvania come to mind in terms of roadways that must not follow such regulations on account of their rapid descents, tight corners, etc. US 30 between Chambersburg and US 119 being a prime example.
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 31, 2020, 07:30:42 AM
Quote from: AcE_Wolf_287 on March 30, 2020, 10:24:39 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 30, 2020, 09:56:17 PM
Quote from: AcE_Wolf_287 on March 30, 2020, 09:12:14 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 30, 2020, 08:40:09 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 30, 2020, 08:16:56 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 30, 2020, 05:29:32 PM
That was much of the driving force of what got US 27 pushed out of Michigan (the long multiplex with I-69).
That and to ease confusion with US-127 which ended at I-69 where US-27 split going on the same freeway US-127 was on.
I think it makes sense but I still think US-27 and US-127 should have switched routes in Cincinnati.
Yes, but if MDOT had retained all that surface highway mileage I bet US 27 would still be around. US 92 for example functionally has been replaced by I-4 but the surface mileage of the former was retained. To that end it makes no sense to renumber or dispose of US 92. There are many of segments like that on the East Coast which becomes less common the further west you go.
Could you explain surface mileage, what i'm saying is why truncate the highway if thw surface road is still there and functioning for the public, yes it "technically" gets replaced BUT, its a good wa through towns,
for Ex, I Don't take I-77 down to Downtown Columbia, I US 21 because
1. US 21 is right off the road i am,
2. it directly goes through the town, unlike I-77,
3. Less Traffic
it still puzzles me that some US Routes were put onto Interstate Highways (Like US 40 on I-70) but then put back onto surface road, but other Routes (Like US 21) Wasn't
Usually they turn it over to local control so they don't have to maintain it anymore. It's no longer they through route but most of the time makes a good alternate route.
See, if the US Highway was built ontop of, I would Understand truncating the highway, but i guess the state deptarment doesn't want to deal with the Highway anymore, but even then if they turn it into s state route, you might as well keep the US highway.
US routes have more guidelines you have to follow where a state highway is up to the state to decide on.
It still should mean if the More Important US Highway routes can't be there on that road, then No Routes can be on that road
As far as I know there is no AASHTO guidance that dictates that particular body maintain a US Route. To that end there some cities that do maintain US Route signage that I'm aware of but most tend to do it on a very sub par level to the State DOTs.
The only one I don't get is US 16 in Wisconsin and Minnesota. It has a lengthy state route segment long enough to retain it being a US highway.
Quote from: dvferyance on March 31, 2020, 12:48:38 PM
The only one I don't get is US 16 in Wisconsin and Minnesota. It has a lengthy state route segment long enough to retain it being a US highway.
Minnesota and South Dakota wanted US 16 gone, and pushed Wisconsin to get on board.
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on March 31, 2020, 11:02:30 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 31, 2020, 07:30:42 AM
Quote from: AcE_Wolf_287 on March 30, 2020, 10:24:39 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 30, 2020, 09:56:17 PM
Quote from: AcE_Wolf_287 on March 30, 2020, 09:12:14 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 30, 2020, 08:40:09 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 30, 2020, 08:16:56 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 30, 2020, 05:29:32 PM
That was much of the driving force of what got US 27 pushed out of Michigan (the long multiplex with I-69).
That and to ease confusion with US-127 which ended at I-69 where US-27 split going on the same freeway US-127 was on.
I think it makes sense but I still think US-27 and US-127 should have switched routes in Cincinnati.
Yes, but if MDOT had retained all that surface highway mileage I bet US 27 would still be around. US 92 for example functionally has been replaced by I-4 but the surface mileage of the former was retained. To that end it makes no sense to renumber or dispose of US 92. There are many of segments like that on the East Coast which becomes less common the further west you go.
Could you explain surface mileage, what i'm saying is why truncate the highway if thw surface road is still there and functioning for the public, yes it "technically" gets replaced BUT, its a good wa through towns,
for Ex, I Don't take I-77 down to Downtown Columbia, I US 21 because
1. US 21 is right off the road i am,
2. it directly goes through the town, unlike I-77,
3. Less Traffic
it still puzzles me that some US Routes were put onto Interstate Highways (Like US 40 on I-70) but then put back onto surface road, but other Routes (Like US 21) Wasn't
Usually they turn it over to local control so they don't have to maintain it anymore. It's no longer they through route but most of the time makes a good alternate route.
See, if the US Highway was built ontop of, I would Understand truncating the highway, but i guess the state deptarment doesn't want to deal with the Highway anymore, but even then if they turn it into s state route, you might as well keep the US highway.
US routes have more guidelines you have to follow where a state highway is up to the state to decide on.
I know the Interstates have documented standards to follow, but are you sure there are guidelines for US highways? Just from the US mileage I have witnessed myself, there is so much variability that I find that hard to believe. A lot of US Routes in West Virginia and Pennsylvania come to mind in terms of roadways that must not follow such regulations on account of their rapid descents, tight corners, etc. US 30 between Chambersburg and US 119 being a prime example.
I was basically answering his question regarding leaving a route a US highway vs making it into a state highway. IMO, it doesn't make sense to have a intrastate US highway when it should be a state highway. However some examples exist of course like US-92 and US-192 in Florida which being on a peninsula makes it hard to extend either one out of Florida. Interstates are like that too but I don't think they have very many guidelines they go by but were suppose to be at least 300 miles or travel in more than one state. Michigan has a great example of twisting that rule around as US-223 enters Ohio all while multiplexed with US-23. So really US-223 should simply become M-223 and the part that goes to Ohio should be deleted from that highway.
Quote from: hbelkins on March 31, 2020, 10:53:04 AM
Regarding US 21, I'm not positive about Ohio, but in Virginia and West Virginia, all of the former route is state-maintained.
In Virginia, the route was concurrent with US 52 all the way to the state line and beyond into downtown Bluefield. US 52 has been routed onto I-77, but the old route is signed as VA 598 and WV 598.
In West Virginia, the route was concurrent with US 19 to Beckley. Until the New River Gorge bridge was finished and US 19 was routed on that highway, US 21 was signed on the completed portion of Corridor L, then along what is now WV 16 to US 60, then concurrent with US 60 to Charleston. The original truncation was on I-77 a few miles north of Charleston, at the WV 622 exit. North of Charleston, the segments that aren't co-signed with state primary routes (WV 622, WV 34) so the primary routes can end at the interstate are signed with standalone CR 21 markers (keeping in mind that WV's "county" routes are actually state-maintained secondary routes). At CR 21's northern end, the route is designated as WV 14, and as an unsigned extension of WV 31 across the river.
I know segments in Ohio are signed state highways, but I don't know if all of old US 21 is a signed state route, or if portions are under county/township maintenance.
It is weird that US 21 got truncated but US 11 is still alive and well. I think they should not have truncated US 21.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on December 06, 2020, 01:05:12 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on March 31, 2020, 10:53:04 AM
Regarding US 21, I'm not positive about Ohio, but in Virginia and West Virginia, all of the former route is state-maintained.
In Virginia, the route was concurrent with US 52 all the way to the state line and beyond into downtown Bluefield. US 52 has been routed onto I-77, but the old route is signed as VA 598 and WV 598.
In West Virginia, the route was concurrent with US 19 to Beckley. Until the New River Gorge bridge was finished and US 19 was routed on that highway, US 21 was signed on the completed portion of Corridor L, then along what is now WV 16 to US 60, then concurrent with US 60 to Charleston. The original truncation was on I-77 a few miles north of Charleston, at the WV 622 exit. North of Charleston, the segments that aren't co-signed with state primary routes (WV 622, WV 34) so the primary routes can end at the interstate are signed with standalone CR 21 markers (keeping in mind that WV's "county" routes are actually state-maintained secondary routes). At CR 21's northern end, the route is designated as WV 14, and as an unsigned extension of WV 31 across the river.
I know segments in Ohio are signed state highways, but I don't know if all of old US 21 is a signed state route, or if portions are under county/township maintenance.
It is weird that US 21 got truncated but US 11 is still alive and well. I think they should not have truncated US 21.
Frankly, Ohio didn't want US 21. Which is funny, because its over a 40-50 mile stretch from Byesville (south of Cambridge) to Dover/New Philadelphia that was relegated to county control. South of Byesville, we have Oh 821. (Including the 8 miles of US 250) North of Dover/New Philly we have Oh 21 (of course, I'm excluding the decertified section of US/Oh 21 in Cleveland).
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on March 31, 2020, 11:02:30 AM
I know the Interstates have documented standards to follow, but are you sure there are guidelines for US highways? Just from the US mileage I have witnessed myself, there is so much variability that I find that hard to believe. A lot of US Routes in West Virginia and Pennsylvania come to mind in terms of roadways that must not follow such regulations on account of their rapid descents, tight corners, etc. US 30 between Chambersburg and US 119 being a prime example.
There are actually US route standards that have gotten progressively more stringent over time. However, since new US routes are rarely commissioned, basically the only time they come into play is during realignments or reconstructions. If a US route not meeting current standards is left in place and simply maintained without any changes for years (i.e. there is no need to consult AASHTO), then there is never anything to require an upgrade.
For a west coast truncation, US-60, which originally went all the way to Los Angeles, was truncated in 1972 after I-10 was completed. Sections the old 60 that aren't part of I-10 is was the downgraded to CA-60. Now, US-60 ends at I-10 near Brenda AZ.
One I really can't understand is US 113 being truncated to DE 1.. Is 1 that important that it can't handle a 20 mile overlap? 113 is supposed to be an alternate route for 13 anyway. And why get rid of the US route before a state route?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 31, 2020, 12:40:29 PM
As far as I know there is no AASHTO guidance that dictates that particular body maintain a US Route. To that end there some cities that do maintain US Route signage that I'm aware of but most tend to do it on a very sub par level to the State DOTs.
And there are some, like in Vermont, where the state-maintained route ends at the city limits but the cities maintain
and sign the in-city routings (Bennington is particularly good about this!).
One truncation that does make sense is US 411. It was formerly co signed all the way up to Bristol, TN.
I never understood why US-41 and US-141 are the way they are in the U.P. of Michigan.
Starting where US-41 and 141 split about 20 miles north of Green Bay and US-141 runs straight toward Iron Mountain with a concurrency with US-8 and later with US-2 as US-2 dips into Wisconsin for about 15 miles along with US-141 they split in Crystal Falls and 141 runs straight north again running concurrent with M-28 for a few miles just so it can end again at US-41.
US-41 has a very long (almost 60 miles) concurrency with M-28 west of Marquette, that would be eliminated if they switched 141 making it end in Marquette. US-41 would then run in a more north-south fashion rather than making that backwards C arc.
Then US-141 would end at M-28 in Harvey but let me guess it's just so a major US highway can go through Marquette which is the largest city in the Upper Peninsula and that really isn't saying much as Marquette has a population of around 20,000.
US-101 from the East LA Interchange to San Ysidro was truncated once I-5 was signed to take over that section in Southern California.
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 25, 2021, 01:21:13 PM
I never understood why US-41 and US-141 are the way they are in the U.P. of Michigan.
Starting where US-41 and 141 split about 20 miles north of Green Bay and US-141 runs straight toward Iron Mountain with a concurrency with US-8 and later with US-2 as US-2 dips into Wisconsin for about 15 miles along with US-141 they split in Crystal Falls and 141 runs straight north again running concurrent with M-28 for a few miles just so it can end again at US-41.
US-41 has a very long (almost 60 miles) concurrency with M-28 west of Marquette, that would be eliminated if they switched 141 making it end in Marquette. US-41 would then run in a more north-south fashion rather than making that backwards C arc.
Then US-141 would end at M-28 in Harvey but let me guess it's just so a major US highway can go through Marquette which is the largest city in the Upper Peninsula and that really isn't saying much as Marquette has a population of around 20,000.
And then on the Wisconsin side many wonder why 141 goes farther south than Abrams. Although if 141 followed along County R to side of I-43 it would maybe justify a bit more having that designation and providing an alternative to the freeway more identifiable.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on December 06, 2020, 01:05:12 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on March 31, 2020, 10:53:04 AM
Regarding US 21, I'm not positive about Ohio, but in Virginia and West Virginia, all of the former route is state-maintained.
In Virginia, the route was concurrent with US 52 all the way to the state line and beyond into downtown Bluefield. US 52 has been routed onto I-77, but the old route is signed as VA 598 and WV 598.
In West Virginia, the route was concurrent with US 19 to Beckley. Until the New River Gorge bridge was finished and US 19 was routed on that highway, US 21 was signed on the completed portion of Corridor L, then along what is now WV 16 to US 60, then concurrent with US 60 to Charleston. The original truncation was on I-77 a few miles north of Charleston, at the WV 622 exit. North of Charleston, the segments that aren't co-signed with state primary routes (WV 622, WV 34) so the primary routes can end at the interstate are signed with standalone CR 21 markers (keeping in mind that WV's "county" routes are actually state-maintained secondary routes). At CR 21's northern end, the route is designated as WV 14, and as an unsigned extension of WV 31 across the river.
I know segments in Ohio are signed state highways, but I don't know if all of old US 21 is a signed state route, or if portions are under county/township maintenance.
It is weird that US 21 got truncated but US 11 is still alive and well. I think they should not have truncated US 21.
as someone whos a big fan of US 21, they should've atleast kept it up to Parkersburg, before its complete removal out of ohio, & WV, it was only 700 miles long which is short for a Main N-S US Route (US 1, US 11, US 31, US 41 etc...)
Quote from: 18 wheel warrior on December 07, 2020, 02:18:12 PM
For a west coast truncation, US-60, which originally went all the way to Los Angeles, was truncated in 1972 after I-10 was completed. Sections the old 60 that aren't part of I-10 is was the downgraded to CA-60. Now, US-60 ends at I-10 near Brenda AZ.
All of US 60 from Globe AZ to LA was co-signed with US 70 until 70 was truncated at Globe in 1974.
I believe the only reason that US 60 between Tempe and Brenda is still US 60 is because of Grand Ave being the main highway between Phoenix and Wickenburg. West of Wickenburg, it's pretty much a local road. Once I-11 is built, I can see US 60 ending at I-10 in Tempe, with the concurrencies with I-10 and I-17 disappearing. The I-17-to-Brenda section would then be AZ 60.
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on August 24, 2021, 09:24:54 PM
Quote from: 18 wheel warrior on December 07, 2020, 02:18:12 PM
For a west coast truncation, US-60, which originally went all the way to Los Angeles, was truncated in 1972 after I-10 was completed. Sections the old 60 that aren't part of I-10 is was the downgraded to CA-60. Now, US-60 ends at I-10 near Brenda AZ.
All of US 60 from Globe AZ to LA was co-signed with US 70 until 70 was truncated at Globe in 1974.
I believe the only reason that US 60 between Tempe and Brenda is still US 60 is because of Grand Ave being the main highway between Phoenix and Wickenburg. West of Wickenburg, it's pretty much a local road. Once I-11 is built, I can see US 60 ending at I-10 in Tempe, with the concurrencies with I-10 and I-17 disappearing. The I-17-to-Brenda section would then be AZ 60.
US 60 suddenly becomes a really important detour if something happens on I-10 between Vicksburg and Tonopah. It would be stupid replace it with something like AZ 74 (ironically the original designation) given it is still a quality highway will still get you to/from Phoenix.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2021, 09:39:21 PM
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on August 24, 2021, 09:24:54 PM
Quote from: 18 wheel warrior on December 07, 2020, 02:18:12 PM
For a west coast truncation, US-60, which originally went all the way to Los Angeles, was truncated in 1972 after I-10 was completed. Sections the old 60 that aren't part of I-10 is was the downgraded to CA-60. Now, US-60 ends at I-10 near Brenda AZ.
All of US 60 from Globe AZ to LA was co-signed with US 70 until 70 was truncated at Globe in 1974.
I believe the only reason that US 60 between Tempe and Brenda is still US 60 is because of Grand Ave being the main highway between Phoenix and Wickenburg. West of Wickenburg, it's pretty much a local road. Once I-11 is built, I can see US 60 ending at I-10 in Tempe, with the concurrencies with I-10 and I-17 disappearing. The I-17-to-Brenda section would then be AZ 60.
US 60 suddenly becomes a really important detour if something happens on I-10 between Vicksburg and Tonopah. It would be stupid replace it with something like AZ 74 (ironically the original designation) given it is still a quality highway will still get you to/from Phoenix.
That's certainly a good point, but I'm not advocating that it be completely decertified. I'm saying that it's no longer necessary for US 60 west of Tempe to be a US highway, once it's no longer required as part of a Phoenix-to-Las Vegas route, and that would only be the I-17-to-Wickenburg segment (Grand Ave./Thomas Rd.) anyway.
Whether the road west of Wickenburg is called AZ 60, AZ 74, or it remains US 60 won't diminish the purpose of that section of highway. ADOT still would be maintaining it.
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on August 24, 2021, 11:31:01 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2021, 09:39:21 PM
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on August 24, 2021, 09:24:54 PM
Quote from: 18 wheel warrior on December 07, 2020, 02:18:12 PM
For a west coast truncation, US-60, which originally went all the way to Los Angeles, was truncated in 1972 after I-10 was completed. Sections the old 60 that aren't part of I-10 is was the downgraded to CA-60. Now, US-60 ends at I-10 near Brenda AZ.
All of US 60 from Globe AZ to LA was co-signed with US 70 until 70 was truncated at Globe in 1974.
I believe the only reason that US 60 between Tempe and Brenda is still US 60 is because of Grand Ave being the main highway between Phoenix and Wickenburg. West of Wickenburg, it's pretty much a local road. Once I-11 is built, I can see US 60 ending at I-10 in Tempe, with the concurrencies with I-10 and I-17 disappearing. The I-17-to-Brenda section would then be AZ 60.
US 60 suddenly becomes a really important detour if something happens on I-10 between Vicksburg and Tonopah. It would be stupid replace it with something like AZ 74 (ironically the original designation) given it is still a quality highway will still get you to/from Phoenix.
That's certainly a good point, but I'm not advocating that it be completely decertified. I'm saying that it's no longer necessary for US 60 west of Tempe to be a US highway, once it's no longer required as part of a Phoenix-to-Las Vegas route, and that would only be the I-17-to-Wickenburg segment (Grand Ave./Thomas Rd.) anyway.
Whether the road west of Wickenburg is called AZ 60, AZ 74, or it remains US 60 won't diminish the purpose of that section of highway. ADOT still would be maintaining it.
But how is that any different than when US 89 and US 89A became AZ 89 and AZ 89A south of Flagstaff? Those corridors (arguably only AZ 89) were the logical alternate to I-17 if there was a problem before AZ 87 the was expanded to an expressway to Payson. I'd just hate to see some of that duplication get lost with US 60 given I've experienced having to use the corridor myself as a necessary I-10 alternate.
Taking it one step further stepping into fictional territory I would extend US 60 all the way to San Gorgonio Pass via CA 62. When I-10 in California was having wash out issues around Desert Center CA 62 was the obvious alternate. But, CA 62 was hardly advertised as a detour for reasons unknown. My theory was that a state highway didn't carry the same confidence level in the eyes of general public than a US Route or Interstate would.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2021, 11:38:53 PM
My theory was that a state highway didn't carry the same confidence level in the eyes of general public than a US Route or Interstate would.
Not sure how things are out west, but here in the Midwest, IN 63 pretty much replaced parallel US 41 for through travel, and OH 32 replaced US 50, as the state routes are both 4 lane, while the US route is 2 lane.
Quote from: SkyPesos on August 24, 2021, 11:48:53 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2021, 11:38:53 PM
My theory was that a state highway didn't carry the same confidence level in the eyes of general public than a US Route or Interstate would.
Not sure how things are out west, but here in the Midwest, IN 63 pretty much replaced parallel US 41 for through travel, and OH 32 replaced US 50, as the state routes are both 4 lane, while the US route is 2 lane.
With Arizona AZ 87 and AZ 260 largely replaced the utility of US 60 between Mesa-Show Low. The AZ 87-AZ 260 has had lots of four lane expansions whereas US 60 becomes a two lane highway at Superior. Essentially phenomenon exists out west as well.
US 60 and I-10 from Phoenix west to the vicinity of Quartzsite have a mountain range separating them, the former isn't exactly a frontage road. There are no frontage facilities available on I-10 from Quartzsite east to Tonopah. So if there is a problem out in that open desert on I-10 you're pretty much boned unless you head for US 60.
Quote from: AcE_Wolf_287 on March 30, 2020, 04:03:56 PM
So i've Never realized why highways in the East Get Truncated? in the West they build on top of the original route so i understand, but in the east i don't Get it? Like US 21, in west Virginia and Ohio, I-77 didn't get built ontop of US 21's Original route, all the roads it was on is still here to this day, or US 25, I-75 was never built ontop the original route or infact ANY US Route in Michigan.
I Know they transfer the US Route onto the highway but US 40 in Ohio got transferred back onto its original route, but US 21/US 25/US 27 never did (if it was on the highway)
Yes it was, I-75 was built over US-23. A bypass of Saginaw was built in the early 50's before I-75 was built and I-75 was built over that bypass. In addition when the Mackinac Bridge opened US-23, US-27 and US-31 were all extended to the foot of the bridge I-75 took over that highway too.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2021, 11:38:53 PM
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on August 24, 2021, 11:31:01 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2021, 09:39:21 PM
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on August 24, 2021, 09:24:54 PM
Quote from: 18 wheel warrior on December 07, 2020, 02:18:12 PM
For a west coast truncation, US-60, which originally went all the way to Los Angeles, was truncated in 1972 after I-10 was completed. Sections the old 60 that aren't part of I-10 is was the downgraded to CA-60. Now, US-60 ends at I-10 near Brenda AZ.
All of US 60 from Globe AZ to LA was co-signed with US 70 until 70 was truncated at Globe in 1974.
I believe the only reason that US 60 between Tempe and Brenda is still US 60 is because of Grand Ave being the main highway between Phoenix and Wickenburg. West of Wickenburg, it's pretty much a local road. Once I-11 is built, I can see US 60 ending at I-10 in Tempe, with the concurrencies with I-10 and I-17 disappearing. The I-17-to-Brenda section would then be AZ 60.
US 60 suddenly becomes a really important detour if something happens on I-10 between Vicksburg and Tonopah. It would be stupid replace it with something like AZ 74 (ironically the original designation) given it is still a quality highway will still get you to/from Phoenix.
That's certainly a good point, but I'm not advocating that it be completely decertified. I'm saying that it's no longer necessary for US 60 west of Tempe to be a US highway, once it's no longer required as part of a Phoenix-to-Las Vegas route, and that would only be the I-17-to-Wickenburg segment (Grand Ave./Thomas Rd.) anyway.
Whether the road west of Wickenburg is called AZ 60, AZ 74, or it remains US 60 won't diminish the purpose of that section of highway. ADOT still would be maintaining it.
But how is that any different than when US 89 and US 89A became AZ 89 and AZ 89A south of Flagstaff? Those corridors (arguably only AZ 89) were the logical alternate to I-17 if there was a problem before AZ 87 the was expanded to an expressway to Payson. I'd just hate to see some of that duplication get lost with US 60 given I've experienced having to use the corridor myself as a necessary I-10 alternate.
Taking it one step further stepping into fictional territory I would extend US 60 all the way to San Gorgonio Pass via CA 62. When I-10 in California was having wash out issues around Desert Center CA 62 was the obvious alternate. But, CA 62 was hardly advertised as a detour for reasons unknown. My theory was that a state highway didn't carry the same confidence level in the eyes of general public than a US Route or Interstate would.
When the I-10 washouts made the news up here in northern CA, the local TV newscast I normally watch (CBS affiliate) cited a detour via CA 86 and I-8 for Phoenix-bound drivers. But as per TV newscasts, there was a notable lack of detail (like CA 78 for those heading to the Blythe area), just a brief description of the suggested alternate. Given the relative desolation of CA 62 past 29 Palms, it would probably be considered, despite the additional mileage, more reasonable for the average driver to stay on a mostly divided highway than brave the open desert, hence the broadcast suggestion.
Quote from: sparker on August 25, 2021, 05:51:13 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2021, 11:38:53 PM
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on August 24, 2021, 11:31:01 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2021, 09:39:21 PM
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on August 24, 2021, 09:24:54 PM
Quote from: 18 wheel warrior on December 07, 2020, 02:18:12 PM
For a west coast truncation, US-60, which originally went all the way to Los Angeles, was truncated in 1972 after I-10 was completed. Sections the old 60 that aren't part of I-10 is was the downgraded to CA-60. Now, US-60 ends at I-10 near Brenda AZ.
All of US 60 from Globe AZ to LA was co-signed with US 70 until 70 was truncated at Globe in 1974.
I believe the only reason that US 60 between Tempe and Brenda is still US 60 is because of Grand Ave being the main highway between Phoenix and Wickenburg. West of Wickenburg, it's pretty much a local road. Once I-11 is built, I can see US 60 ending at I-10 in Tempe, with the concurrencies with I-10 and I-17 disappearing. The I-17-to-Brenda section would then be AZ 60.
US 60 suddenly becomes a really important detour if something happens on I-10 between Vicksburg and Tonopah. It would be stupid replace it with something like AZ 74 (ironically the original designation) given it is still a quality highway will still get you to/from Phoenix.
That's certainly a good point, but I'm not advocating that it be completely decertified. I'm saying that it's no longer necessary for US 60 west of Tempe to be a US highway, once it's no longer required as part of a Phoenix-to-Las Vegas route, and that would only be the I-17-to-Wickenburg segment (Grand Ave./Thomas Rd.) anyway.
Whether the road west of Wickenburg is called AZ 60, AZ 74, or it remains US 60 won't diminish the purpose of that section of highway. ADOT still would be maintaining it.
But how is that any different than when US 89 and US 89A became AZ 89 and AZ 89A south of Flagstaff? Those corridors (arguably only AZ 89) were the logical alternate to I-17 if there was a problem before AZ 87 the was expanded to an expressway to Payson. I'd just hate to see some of that duplication get lost with US 60 given I've experienced having to use the corridor myself as a necessary I-10 alternate.
Taking it one step further stepping into fictional territory I would extend US 60 all the way to San Gorgonio Pass via CA 62. When I-10 in California was having wash out issues around Desert Center CA 62 was the obvious alternate. But, CA 62 was hardly advertised as a detour for reasons unknown. My theory was that a state highway didn't carry the same confidence level in the eyes of general public than a US Route or Interstate would.
When the I-10 washouts made the news up here in northern CA, the local TV newscast I normally watch (CBS affiliate) cited a detour via CA 86 and I-8 for Phoenix-bound drivers. But as per TV newscasts, there was a notable lack of detail (like CA 78 for those heading to the Blythe area), just a brief description of the suggested alternate. Given the relative desolation of CA 62 past 29 Palms, it would probably be considered, despite the additional mileage, more reasonable for the average driver to stay on a mostly divided highway than brave the open desert, hence the broadcast suggestion.
Consider for a moment though how much traffic CA 62 gets between CA 177 and US 95. Yes the corridor is lightly traveled from Amboy Road east to CA 177 but there certainly was nothing physically challenging about (relatively straight and signed at 65 MPH). The biggest hazard by far would be the 100 miles of no services, but isn't too far ahead of what one would experience on I-10.
Quote from: AcE_Wolf_287 on August 24, 2021, 08:34:49 PM
as someone whos a big fan of US 21, they should've atleast kept it up to Parkersburg, before its complete removal out of ohio, & WV, it was only 700 miles long which is short for a Main N-S US Route (US 1, US 11, US 31, US 41 etc...)
Why? All of the route between Wytheville and Charleston was multiplexed with other routes, and north of Charleston, I-77's alignment is far superior. Having US 21 that whole distance would have just been unnecessary clutter.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2021, 11:38:53 PM
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on August 24, 2021, 11:31:01 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2021, 09:39:21 PM
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on August 24, 2021, 09:24:54 PM
Quote from: 18 wheel warrior on December 07, 2020, 02:18:12 PM
For a west coast truncation, US-60, which originally went all the way to Los Angeles, was truncated in 1972 after I-10 was completed. Sections the old 60 that aren't part of I-10 is was the downgraded to CA-60. Now, US-60 ends at I-10 near Brenda AZ.
All of US 60 from Globe AZ to LA was co-signed with US 70 until 70 was truncated at Globe in 1974.
I believe the only reason that US 60 between Tempe and Brenda is still US 60 is because of Grand Ave being the main highway between Phoenix and Wickenburg. West of Wickenburg, it's pretty much a local road. Once I-11 is built, I can see US 60 ending at I-10 in Tempe, with the concurrencies with I-10 and I-17 disappearing. The I-17-to-Brenda section would then be AZ 60.
US 60 suddenly becomes a really important detour if something happens on I-10 between Vicksburg and Tonopah. It would be stupid replace it with something like AZ 74 (ironically the original designation) given it is still a quality highway will still get you to/from Phoenix.
That's certainly a good point, but I'm not advocating that it be completely decertified. I'm saying that it's no longer necessary for US 60 west of Tempe to be a US highway, once it's no longer required as part of a Phoenix-to-Las Vegas route, and that would only be the I-17-to-Wickenburg segment (Grand Ave./Thomas Rd.) anyway.
Whether the road west of Wickenburg is called AZ 60, AZ 74, or it remains US 60 won't diminish the purpose of that section of highway. ADOT still would be maintaining it.
But how is that any different than when US 89 and US 89A became AZ 89 and AZ 89A south of Flagstaff? Those corridors (arguably only AZ 89) were the logical alternate to I-17 if there was a problem before AZ 87 the was expanded to an expressway to Payson. I'd just hate to see some of that duplication get lost with US 60 given I've experienced having to use the corridor myself as a necessary I-10 alternate.
It isn't, and that's my point. Really, Arizona should do what California did in 1964, and decertify most, if not all of its US highways, changing them to identically-numbered state highways if possible. There's little need for them anymore. Interstates now handle traffic between the states and to the Mexican border for the most part, and have for decades. US 93 (for now) and US 191 can be considered exceptions, but I can't think of any others.
QuoteTaking it one step further stepping into fictional territory I would extend US 60 all the way to San Gorgonio Pass via CA 62. When I-10 in California was having wash out issues around Desert Center CA 62 was the obvious alternate. But, CA 62 was hardly advertised as a detour for reasons unknown. My theory was that a state highway didn't carry the same confidence level in the eyes of general public than a US Route or Interstate would.
California AFAIK has no intention of adding any new US highways.
The only reason US 95 needs to be axed in AZ is if it's going to be re-routed to Mexicali :sleep:.
Quote from: Bitmapped on August 25, 2021, 10:19:43 PM
Quote from: AcE_Wolf_287 on August 24, 2021, 08:34:49 PM
as someone whos a big fan of US 21, they should've atleast kept it up to Parkersburg, before its complete removal out of ohio, & WV, it was only 700 miles long which is short for a Main N-S US Route (US 1, US 11, US 31, US 41 etc...)
Why? All of the route between Wytheville and Charleston was multiplexed with other routes, and north of Charleston, I-77's alignment is far superior. Having US 21 that whole distance would have just been unnecessary clutter.
US 5. It follows I-91 it's entire length.
Quote from: kenarmy on August 25, 2021, 10:46:30 PM
The only reason US 95 needs to be axed in AZ is if it's going to be re-routed to Mexicali :sleep:.
Unless there is a Federal law that mandates that all border crossings be US or Interstate highways, there is no need for US 95 in Arizona whatsoever. The whole route from the border to Bullhead City should be AZ 95. The intersection of US 95 and AZ 95 is just plain idiotic.
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 30, 2020, 08:16:56 PM
I think it makes sense but I still think US-27 and US-127 should have switched routes in Cincinnati.
This is getting into fantasy highways territory, but if this happened, the new US 127 could extend north of Fort Wayne via IN 3, US 6, IN 9 and M-66 to end at US 31 at Charlevoix. If this is too far north, you could end it at any of the US routes or Interstates M-66 meets along the way.
Truncate US 61 to Dubuque.
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on August 25, 2021, 11:48:46 PM
Quote from: kenarmy on August 25, 2021, 10:46:30 PM
The only reason US 95 needs to be axed in AZ is if it's going to be re-routed to Mexicali :sleep:.
Unless there is a Federal law that mandates that all border crossings be US or Interstate highways, there is no need for US 95 in Arizona whatsoever. The whole route from the border to Bullhead City should be AZ 95. The intersection of US 95 and AZ 95 is just plain idiotic.
So you'd rather have a single route number for Bullhead City to Yuma than a transcontinental route that connects Las Vegas to Yuma :hmmm:
Quote from: kenarmy on August 26, 2021, 12:39:05 AM
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on August 25, 2021, 11:48:46 PM
Quote from: kenarmy on August 25, 2021, 10:46:30 PM
The only reason US 95 needs to be axed in AZ is if it's going to be re-routed to Mexicali :sleep:.
Unless there is a Federal law that mandates that all border crossings be US or Interstate highways, there is no need for US 95 in Arizona whatsoever. The whole route from the border to Bullhead City should be AZ 95. The intersection of US 95 and AZ 95 is just plain idiotic.
So you'd rather have a single route number for Bullhead City to Yuma than a transcontinental route that connects Las Vegas to Yuma :hmmm:
There is no single route that connects between those cities. US 95 and AZ 95 are separate highways, and I doubt anyone in Yuma will travel US 95 via I-10 into California and Nevada, turning onto NV 163 into Laughlin before going over the bridge where it becomes AZ 95.
Besides, there is a gap within AZ 95 where travel into California via I-40 is required. That's something else that needs to be fixed. There are Mohave County roads that bridge the gap within Arizona, but that really doesn't count as of right now. It's easily fixed.
US 95 is all but an irrelevancy in Arizona, save for Yuma to the border.
I think the better move would be to just reroute US 95 onto AZ 95 and CA 62 between Quartzsite and Vidal Jct.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on August 26, 2021, 12:15:55 AM
Truncate US 61 to Dubuque.
Too long. Cut it down so it goes from the Northgate of LSU* to Graceland.#
* - before anyone says anything, US 61 was never routed near the LSU campus in Baton Rouge.
# - Yeah, I know its US 51 that goes by Graceland and not US 61.
I think that's the most confusing highway I have ever seen. US-95 just dumps into AZ-95 and US-95 takes a jog along I-10. To me if I was coming up to that junction I'd figure that US-95 ended there and AZ-95 was the route I was suppose to be on going north on US-95. I mean seriously you are going to give a different highway the same number but have that different highway meet up with the other highway with the same number. People are going to think it's suppose to be the same route.
Quote from: Flint1979 on August 26, 2021, 08:09:21 AM
I think that's the most confusing highway I have ever seen. US-95 just dumps into AZ-95 and US-95 takes a jog along I-10. To me if I was coming up to that junction I'd figure that US-95 ended there and AZ-95 was the route I was suppose to be on going north on US-95. I mean seriously you are going to give a different highway the same number but have that different highway meet up with the other highway with the same number. People are going to think it's suppose to be the same route.
The weird part was that early US 95 in California and AZ 95 came to be around the same time. I'm convinced Arizona was looking for US 95 to enter the state somewhere around Parker which is why they designated the state route as such (I haven't searched the AASHO database for this yet). US 95 did take over AZ 95's alignment south of Quartzsite when it was extended into Arizona. For whatever reason Arizona isn't big on renumberings and never changed the designation north of Quartzsite (which has since been extended).
Quote from: roadman65 on August 25, 2021, 11:01:29 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on August 25, 2021, 10:19:43 PM
Quote from: AcE_Wolf_287 on August 24, 2021, 08:34:49 PM
as someone whos a big fan of US 21, they should've atleast kept it up to Parkersburg, before its complete removal out of ohio, & WV, it was only 700 miles long which is short for a Main N-S US Route (US 1, US 11, US 31, US 41 etc...)
Why? All of the route between Wytheville and Charleston was multiplexed with other routes, and north of Charleston, I-77's alignment is far superior. Having US 21 that whole distance would have just been unnecessary clutter.
US 5. It follows I-91 it's entire length.
Living up here and seeing it regularly, I would argue that US 5 does not need to be a US route. It could easily be a state route. It's really not that important outside the urban areas of Hartford and Springfield.
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on August 25, 2021, 11:48:46 PM
Quote from: kenarmy on August 25, 2021, 10:46:30 PM
The only reason US 95 needs to be axed in AZ is if it's going to be re-routed to Mexicali :sleep:.
Unless there is a Federal law that mandates that all border crossings be US or Interstate highways, there is no need for US 95 in Arizona whatsoever. The whole route from the border to Bullhead City should be AZ 95. The intersection of US 95 and AZ 95 is just plain idiotic.
I'm certain there is no such federal law. There are a lot of instances where a state route provides access to a border crossing on the Canadian border; in Maine, at least, there are a number of rural crossings on roads that I don't think qualify as state routes (though I've never paid attention to their hierarchy of route numbering, so I might be wrong on that).
There's at least one local road crossing still open that I know of in Vermont. There are a number of state route crossings (including at least 2 that are locally maintained).
Have you ever heard of a route getting truncated so that it ends in a concurrency? It happened to DE-2 up here. Previously, it ran all the way to the Maryland border as a solo route at Elkton but it got cut back all the way to the DE-273/72 intersection in Newark even though that makes it end as part of a concurrency.
I hate states that use the same number of a US highway for a state highway especially in the same part of the state. Michigan has a few that are used as a state highway that is also a US highway number in the state but for the most part they aren't near each other. US-24 and M-24 end near each other but they use to connect to each other in Pontiac and it was US-10 not US-24 that went the rest of the way to where US-24 currently ends at I-75, US-24 was extended to end there after US-10 was truncated to end at I-75 just outside of Bay City.
The other one's that are both a US highway and state highway in Michigan are US-8 and M-8 which are nowhere near each other, US-10 and M-10 (M-10 use to be part of US-10 so it got it's number but I'm surprised it wasn't just renumbered as M-4), US-45 and M-45 are nowhere near each other. US-127, US-131, US-141 and US-223 all do not have duplicate state routes.
Quote from: mrcmc888 on August 26, 2021, 01:36:16 PM
Have you ever heard of a route getting truncated so that it ends in a concurrency? It happened to DE-2 up here. Previously, it ran all the way to the Maryland border as a solo route at Elkton but it got cut back all the way to the DE-273/72 intersection in Newark even though that makes it end as part of a concurrency.
US 360 ends while concurrent with US 58 Business. It wasn't truncated, but rather rerouted, to do so.
I think this happened with VA 5 in Richmond, where it used to end on Broad Street, but now officially ends while concurrent with US 60 on Main Street (though with the construction in that part of the city lately, it may end up being truncated to end at Main and Williamsburg).
In my opinion, US 6 should be shortened, to just the NE states. Famous for Cape Cod, but not really known for cross country travel, other than CO section, now I-70.
In IL/IN, it meanders, joins I-80-94 for a while, as if it is so important. :rolleyes: Kind of outdated, I think. Could easily be IL-206/306, since there is a IL-6 in Peoria area.
Just 2 cents.
Quote from: US20IL64 on September 08, 2021, 03:18:07 AM
In my opinion, US 6 should be shortened, to just the NE states. Famous for Cape Cod, but not really known for cross country travel, other than CO section, now I-70.
In IL/IN, it meanders, joins I-80-94 for a while, as if it is so important. :rolleyes: Kind of outdated, I think. Could easily be IL-206/306, since there is a IL-6 in Peoria area.
Just 2 cents.
A US highway doesn't need to be known for cross country travel to exist all the was across the country. If that's the standard there wouldn't really by any US highways crossing the country since the advent of the interstates.
US 6 only joins I-80/94 for 15 miles in Indiana and 2 in Illinois.
Quote from: cabiness42 on September 08, 2021, 07:14:39 AM
Quote from: US20IL64 on September 08, 2021, 03:18:07 AM
In my opinion, US 6 should be shortened, to just the NE states. Famous for Cape Cod, but not really known for cross country travel, other than CO section, now I-70.
In IL/IN, it meanders, joins I-80-94 for a while, as if it is so important. :rolleyes: Kind of outdated, I think. Could easily be IL-206/306, since there is a IL-6 in Peoria area.
Just 2 cents.
A US highway doesn't need to be known for cross country travel to exist all the was across the country. If that's the standard there wouldn't really by any US highways crossing the country since the advent of the interstates.
US 6 only joins I-80/94 for 15 miles in Indiana and 2 in Illinois.
US 6 isn't exactly a highway without a purpose in California, Nevada and Utah. Even in Colorado it jumps off I-70 in the Rockies frequently enough to justify it's existence.
Quote from: Flint1979 on August 26, 2021, 02:41:30 PM
I hate states that use the same number of a US highway for a state highway especially in the same part of the state. Michigan has a few that are used as a state highway that is also a US highway number in the state but for the most part they aren't near each other. US-24 and M-24 end near each other but they use to connect to each other in Pontiac and it was US-10 not US-24 that went the rest of the way to where US-24 currently ends at I-75, US-24 was extended to end there after US-10 was truncated to end at I-75 just outside of Bay City.
The other one's that are both a US highway and state highway in Michigan are US-8 and M-8 which are nowhere near each other, US-10 and M-10 (M-10 use to be part of US-10 so it got it's number but I'm surprised it wasn't just renumbered as M-4), US-45 and M-45 are nowhere near each other. US-127, US-131, US-141 and US-223 all do not have duplicate state routes.
Michigan used to be big on doing this deliberately with adjacent US and state routes. I think US-24/M-24 is the only remaining remnant of that practice.
The Detroit Industrial Expressway between Detroit and the Willow Run Bomber plant (now part of I-94) was originally numbered M-112 because it ran parallel to nearby US-112 (Michigan Avenue). M-24 got that number because its southern terminus was at the same intersection as US-24's northern terminus. Same with former M-131 and US-131. M-29 was split into two disconnected segments when US-25 was extended from Port Huron north to Port Austin, and the northern segment was redesignated M-25 instead of a completely different number. I believe an earlier iteration of M-10 in Flint was given that number because it ran close to (maybe even intersected) US-10. Even more recently, the Haggerty Connector extending north from the I-96/I-275/I-696 interchange originally was going to be given the route number of M-275.
With US-10's truncation to Bay City, I think it was less disruptive to renumber 5.5 miles of Northwestern Highway as M-10 than it would have been to renumber 18.5 miles of the Lodge Freeway as M-4.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 08, 2021, 08:47:20 AM
Quote from: cabiness42 on September 08, 2021, 07:14:39 AM
Quote from: US20IL64 on September 08, 2021, 03:18:07 AM
In my opinion, US 6 should be shortened, to just the NE states. Famous for Cape Cod, but not really known for cross country travel, other than CO section, now I-70.
In IL/IN, it meanders, joins I-80-94 for a while, as if it is so important. :rolleyes: Kind of outdated, I think. Could easily be IL-206/306, since there is a IL-6 in Peoria area.
Just 2 cents.
A US highway doesn't need to be known for cross country travel to exist all the was across the country. If that's the standard there wouldn't really by any US highways crossing the country since the advent of the interstates.
US 6 only joins I-80/94 for 15 miles in Indiana and 2 in Illinois.
US 6 isn't exactly a highway without a purpose in California, Nevada and Utah. Even in Colorado it jumps off I-70 in the Rockies frequently enough to justify it's existence.
Wanted to see what others thought, but can see how in West it is important. Just that here in IL, kind of more known as 159th st.
My wish was granted when US-54 was truncated in IL back in '71 at least :biggrin:
Quote from: US20IL64 on September 08, 2021, 06:43:55 PM
Wanted to see what others thought, but can see how in West it is important. Just that here in IL, kind of more known as 159th st.
My wish was granted when US-54 was truncated in IL back in '71 at least :biggrin:
I think US 54 should've just been cut back to where IL 54 ends now in Onarga. If it just haddd to be cut.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 08, 2021, 08:47:20 AM
Quote from: cabiness42 on September 08, 2021, 07:14:39 AM
Quote from: US20IL64 on September 08, 2021, 03:18:07 AM
In my opinion, US 6 should be shortened, to just the NE states. Famous for Cape Cod, but not really known for cross country travel, other than CO section, now I-70.
In IL/IN, it meanders, joins I-80-94 for a while, as if it is so important. :rolleyes: Kind of outdated, I think. Could easily be IL-206/306, since there is a IL-6 in Peoria area.
Just 2 cents.
A US highway doesn't need to be known for cross country travel to exist all the was across the country. If that's the standard there wouldn't really by any US highways crossing the country since the advent of the interstates.
US 6 only joins I-80/94 for 15 miles in Indiana and 2 in Illinois.
US 6 isn't exactly a highway without a purpose in California, Nevada and Utah. Even in Colorado it jumps off I-70 in the Rockies frequently enough to justify it's existence.
I honestly think that it should have been rerouted instead of truncated in California, going through Yosemite and into the Inland Empire which is woefully underserved by national highways.
Quote from: mrcmc888 on September 09, 2021, 08:20:19 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 08, 2021, 08:47:20 AM
Quote from: cabiness42 on September 08, 2021, 07:14:39 AM
Quote from: US20IL64 on September 08, 2021, 03:18:07 AM
In my opinion, US 6 should be shortened, to just the NE states. Famous for Cape Cod, but not really known for cross country travel, other than CO section, now I-70.
In IL/IN, it meanders, joins I-80-94 for a while, as if it is so important. :rolleyes: Kind of outdated, I think. Could easily be IL-206/306, since there is a IL-6 in Peoria area.
Just 2 cents.
A US highway doesn't need to be known for cross country travel to exist all the was across the country. If that's the standard there wouldn't really by any US highways crossing the country since the advent of the interstates.
US 6 only joins I-80/94 for 15 miles in Indiana and 2 in Illinois.
US 6 isn't exactly a highway without a purpose in California, Nevada and Utah. Even in Colorado it jumps off I-70 in the Rockies frequently enough to justify it's existence.
I honestly think that it should have been rerouted instead of truncated in California, going through Yosemite and into the Inland Empire which is woefully underserved by national highways.
Apparently that idea was floated (Yosemite) when US 6 was being extended. I noticed it was referenced in the AASHO database.
Quote from: kenarmy on September 08, 2021, 08:05:01 PM
Quote from: US20IL64 on September 08, 2021, 06:43:55 PM
Wanted to see what others thought, but can see how in West it is important. Just that here in IL, kind of more known as 159th st.
My wish was granted when US-54 was truncated in IL back in '71 at least :biggrin:
I think US 54 should've just been cut back to where IL 54 ends now in Onarga. If it just haddd to be cut.
What was the Real reason for them Truncating US 54 in the first place?
Quote from: AcE_Wolf_287 on September 20, 2021, 11:57:03 AM
Quote from: kenarmy on September 08, 2021, 08:05:01 PM
Quote from: US20IL64 on September 08, 2021, 06:43:55 PM
Wanted to see what others thought, but can see how in West it is important. Just that here in IL, kind of more known as 159th st.
My wish was granted when US-54 was truncated in IL back in '71 at least :biggrin:
I think US 54 should've just been cut back to where IL 54 ends now in Onarga. If it just haddd to be cut.
What was the Real reason for them Truncating US 54 in the first place?
It made prefect sense to truncate it between Onarga and Chicago. Even before I-57 came in it was just a long duplex with US 45 and never ran again on it's own. However the Springfield to Onarga segment is a mystery.
Quote from: dvferyance on September 20, 2021, 12:26:25 PM
Quote from: AcE_Wolf_287 on September 20, 2021, 11:57:03 AM
Quote from: kenarmy on September 08, 2021, 08:05:01 PM
Quote from: US20IL64 on September 08, 2021, 06:43:55 PM
Wanted to see what others thought, but can see how in West it is important. Just that here in IL, kind of more known as 159th st.
My wish was granted when US-54 was truncated in IL back in '71 at least :biggrin:
I think US 54 should've just been cut back to where IL 54 ends now in Onarga. If it just haddd to be cut.
What was the Real reason for them Truncating US 54 in the first place?
It made prefect sense to truncate it between Onarga and Chicago. Even before I-57 came in it was just a long duplex with US 45 and never ran again on it's own. However the Springfield to Onarga segment is a mystery.
ah ok, i always thought the segment between onarga & chicago possibly got replaced by I-57
Quote from: dvferyance on September 20, 2021, 12:26:25 PM
Quote from: AcE_Wolf_287 on September 20, 2021, 11:57:03 AM
Quote from: kenarmy on September 08, 2021, 08:05:01 PM
Quote from: US20IL64 on September 08, 2021, 06:43:55 PM
Wanted to see what others thought, but can see how in West it is important. Just that here in IL, kind of more known as 159th st.
My wish was granted when US-54 was truncated in IL back in '71 at least :biggrin:
I think US 54 should've just been cut back to where IL 54 ends now in Onarga. If it just haddd to be cut.
What was the Real reason for them Truncating US 54 in the first place?
It made prefect sense to truncate it between Onarga and Chicago. Even before I-57 came in it was just a long duplex with US 45 and never ran again on it's own. However the Springfield to Onarga segment is a mystery.
I'm assuming they just didn't want to deal with signing in the concurrency.
In the AASHTO database, the reason given was duplication with I-57 and US-45. Also, to hand over northernmost part to cities. IL-54 created to supplant it near Springfield.
I grew up near IL-50, and liked seeing it extended to Kankakee. :cool:
Anyway, IL hasn't done many major changes since 1971.
Personally, I Feel like once I-69/I-69W/I-69C/I-69/I-369 are all completed in TX, im assuming US 59 is getting Truncated back to Texarkana, US 77 Truncated back to Victoria, and US 281 Probably to San Antonio
If US 59 is cut back, it will likely end at US 270 in Heavener, OK. Arkansas has never really wanted it. It could also replace US 259 south of Page, which has been officially suggested but never acted upon.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 20, 2021, 01:00:35 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on September 20, 2021, 12:26:25 PM
Quote from: AcE_Wolf_287 on September 20, 2021, 11:57:03 AM
Quote from: kenarmy on September 08, 2021, 08:05:01 PM
Quote from: US20IL64 on September 08, 2021, 06:43:55 PM
Wanted to see what others thought, but can see how in West it is important. Just that here in IL, kind of more known as 159th st.
My wish was granted when US-54 was truncated in IL back in '71 at least :biggrin:
I think US 54 should've just been cut back to where IL 54 ends now in Onarga. If it just haddd to be cut.
What was the Real reason for them Truncating US 54 in the first place?
It made prefect sense to truncate it between Onarga and Chicago. Even before I-57 came in it was just a long duplex with US 45 and never ran again on it's own. However the Springfield to Onarga segment is a mystery.
I'm assuming they just didn't want to deal with signing in the concurrency.
Along those lines, they would have needed to sign Interstate 72 as a triplex between Pittsfield and Springfield, and maybe the Interstate 72/ US 36/ US54 combination would have been too much for IDOT. Maybe it wouldn't be too much for WisDOT, but I think it would be too much for IDOT. The separation between IL-54 and US54 rides the line on what I'd consider a minimum distance between similarly numbered routes. When the distance between routes with the same number isn't far enough apart, things can get confusing.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on January 03, 2022, 12:53:02 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 20, 2021, 01:00:35 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on September 20, 2021, 12:26:25 PM
Quote from: AcE_Wolf_287 on September 20, 2021, 11:57:03 AM
Quote from: kenarmy on September 08, 2021, 08:05:01 PM
Quote from: US20IL64 on September 08, 2021, 06:43:55 PM
Wanted to see what others thought, but can see how in West it is important. Just that here in IL, kind of more known as 159th st.
My wish was granted when US-54 was truncated in IL back in '71 at least :biggrin:
I think US 54 should've just been cut back to where IL 54 ends now in Onarga. If it just haddd to be cut.
What was the Real reason for them Truncating US 54 in the first place?
It made prefect sense to truncate it between Onarga and Chicago. Even before I-57 came in it was just a long duplex with US 45 and never ran again on it's own. However the Springfield to Onarga segment is a mystery.
I'm assuming they just didn't want to deal with signing in the concurrency.
Along those lines, they would have needed to sign Interstate 72 as a triplex between Pittsfield and Springfield, and maybe the Interstate 72/ US 36/ US54 combination would have been too much for IDOT. Maybe it wouldn't be too much for WisDOT, but I think it would be too much for IDOT. The separation between IL-54 and US54 rides the line on what I'd consider a minimum distance between similarly numbered routes. When the distance between routes with the same number isn't far enough apart, things can get confusing.
I would guess that it is simply easier dealing with any confusion resulting from this rather than dealing with people who would complain that their address changed.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on January 03, 2022, 12:53:02 PM
Along those lines, they would have needed to sign Interstate 72 as a triplex between Pittsfield and Springfield, and maybe the Interstate 72/ US 36/ US54 combination would have been too much for IDOT. Maybe it wouldn't be too much for WisDOT, but I think it would be too much for IDOT. The separation between IL-54 and US54 rides the line on what I'd consider a minimum distance between similarly numbered routes. When the distance between routes with the same number isn't far enough apart, things can get confusing.
For the concurrency in Springfield, "I-55/I-72/US 36/US 54/US 66" sure would be a mouthful...
On a separate note, were US 54 and US 66 signed E-W or N-S in Illinois, when both routes went to Chicago?
Quote from: SkyPesos on January 11, 2022, 11:07:59 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on January 03, 2022, 12:53:02 PM
Along those lines, they would have needed to sign Interstate 72 as a triplex between Pittsfield and Springfield, and maybe the Interstate 72/ US 36/ US54 combination would have been too much for IDOT. Maybe it wouldn't be too much for WisDOT, but I think it would be too much for IDOT. The separation between IL-54 and US54 rides the line on what I'd consider a minimum distance between similarly numbered routes. When the distance between routes with the same number isn't far enough apart, things can get confusing.
For the concurrency in Springfield, "I-55/I-72/US 36/US 54/US 66" sure would be a mouthful...
On a separate note, were US 54 and US 66 signed E-W or N-S in Illinois, when both routes went to Chicago?
US 66 was initially signed neither way - it was signed as "Chicago" or "St. Louis". I'm pretty sure it was signed north-south before it was decommissioned.
The portion of US 66 in Cook County and Chicago city was E/W. Past Joliet was the city directional signs.
Wis 124 was extended onto the then-new North Crossing in 1994 before they created Wis 312 and Wis 124 was shorted to where it ends now with US 53 in 2005 near where its originality ended.
Quote from: bugo on December 15, 2021, 09:09:25 AM
If US 59 is cut back, it will likely end at US 270 in Heavener, OK. Arkansas has never really wanted it. It could also replace US 259 south of Page, which has been officially suggested but never acted upon.
US-59 in Arkansas is concurrent with other US highways in its entirety, so it should be rerouted over and replace US-259. Although doing so still leaves US-96 with it's nonstandard numbering.
If the northern end of the New Bern bypass gets built then NC 43 could end in Vanceboro. No offense, but could be better. Or it would be on the freeway and end at US-70. I don't see a reason why to keep it on the arterial when you have a new freeway being built that's just right next door. If 43 does actually end in Vanceboro, then mileage signs would have to be changed. New Bern will be greened out.
https://web.archive.org/web/20150130041524/http://www.ncdot.gov/download/projects/publichearings/R2301a_1_comp.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20170131133032/https://www.ncdot.gov/download/projects/publichearings/R2301a_2_comp.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20170215105704/https://www.ncdot.gov/download/projects/publichearings/R2301a_3_comp.pdf This is where the northern end starts
https://web.archive.org/web/20170202122821/https://www.ncdot.gov/download/projects/publichearings/R2301a_4_comp.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20170203060722/https://www.ncdot.gov/download/projects/publichearings/R2301a_5_comp.pdf