Why was North Carolina allowed to move US 117 back to its old route?

[bugo]

North Carolina build a US 117 freeway.  The new freeway was signed US 117 while the old highway was signed as Alternate US 117.  Then along comes I-795 and US 117 was put back on the old road.  Isn't this a violation of AASHTO policies?  Or has NCDOT sent so fucking many requests to AASHTO over the last few years that this one slipped through?  AASHTO regulations clearly state that the US route must be the main road.  Hundreds of examples of other US highways exist that run along the interstate, but they were "grandfathered" in while US 117 was purposely moved in recent years.

[agentsteel53]

Ohio did a similar thing with US-40 and I-70 back when I-70 opened.  they had I-70 and US-40 separate, and everyone was taking the old road, so they purposely signed the freeway as US-40 (and resigned the old road as OH-440).  After a few years, the population learned to use the freeway, so they moved US-40 back and got rid of the OH-440 designation.

[Mapmikey]

This is not North Carolina's first occurrence of this:

US 29 used to be on I-85 around Charlotte and again around Salisbury.
US 70 used to be on I-85 around Salisbury and from Greensboro to Hillsborough
US 64 used to be on I-40 from Conover to east of Mocksville

3 of the 5 above were where the US route was there first.  But in 4 cases the old route was an A or Bus designation.  US 70's old route in Salisbury was only US 29 Bus.

Virginia kinda did this with US 13 and I-64 but I-64 was there first.

South Carolina did the same thing with US 29 and I-85 from Lyman to NC, with US 29 there first.

Mapmikey

[NE2]

They weren't allowed to, but rightly ignored the ASSHTOles.

[PurdueBill]

North Carolina build a US 117 freeway.  The new freeway was signed US 117 while the old highway was signed as Alternate US 117.  Then along comes I-795 and US 117 was put back on the old road.  Isn't this a violation of AASHTO policies?  Or has NCDOT sent so fucking many requests to AASHTO over the last few years that this one slipped through?  AASHTO regulations clearly state that the US route must be the main road.  Hundreds of examples of other US highways exist that run along the interstate, but they were "grandfathered" in while US 117 was purposely moved in recent years.

Is the rule that the US route must be the "main road", or that once the US route is moved to a "better" roadway, it can't be moved back?  If the latter, it's clear that moving a US route onto an expressway/freeway routing from its existing route is a bad idea if there is the possibility of the new road becoming an Interstate, if the old road is going to stay on the state books anyway.  Might as well keep both roads posted with the separate numbers all along, using a temporary state route number for the new road if need be.

[Alps]

Bill, I believe your interpretation is the right one. If I wanted to keep the old route state-maintained and get a designation for the new route (think PennDOT with US 220 here), then I'd make sure to call the freeway something else like "Bypass 220".

[vdeane]

Agreed.  Having an interstate and US route multiplex across the entire length of the interstate is pointless.  All routes should have at least some point where they aren't multiplexed with anything, and multiplexes at termini should be avoided too.

[roadman65]

Agreed.  Having an interstate and US route multiplex across the entire length of the interstate is pointless.  All routes should have at least some point where they aren't multiplexed with anything, and multiplexes at termini should be avoided too.

You know states do not have to listen to AASHTO.  Remember, US 41 that ends at US 1 is not official as they did not get permission to truncate it from Miami Beach to Miami and yet have end signs on EB 8th Street at Brickell Avenue and no US 41 signs along US 1 and the MacArthur Causeway to where it officially ends at Collins Avenue in Miami Beach. 

So basically a state can sign roads however they want spite what is on paper.  What can the Feds do anyway?  If so Pennsylvania would be in jail for the traffic lights on I-70 and I-676.

[NE2]

AASHTO isn't the feds.

[Henry]

Agreed.  Having an interstate and US route multiplex across the entire length of the interstate is pointless.  All routes should have at least some point where they aren't multiplexed with anything, and multiplexes at termini should be avoided too.

Good luck telling that to the Western states! Except in rare instances, the US routes are basically nonexistent out there. As for the subject in question, there's really nothing wrong with moving US 117 back to its old pre-freeway alignment, especially now that I-795 has taken over the freeway stretch.

[bob7374]

Agreed.  Having an interstate and US route multiplex across the entire length of the interstate is pointless.  All routes should have at least some point where they aren't multiplexed with anything, and multiplexes at termini should be avoided too.

Good luck telling that to the Western states! Except in rare instances, the US routes are basically nonexistent out there. As for the subject in question, there's really nothing wrong with moving US 117 back to its old pre-freeway alignment, especially now that I-795 has taken over the freeway stretch.

Especially since NCDOT had not modified most of the US 117 signs into Alternate US 117 ones along the once and returned to alignment. They could say to the public that they saved money and returned US 117 to its historic route, which many of the towns along its path preferred anyway.

[amroad17]

Because they could! 

[vdeane]

Maybe they threatened to sign it as I-117.