AARoads Forum

I know that the answer likely changes depending on the circumstance, but I thought this could be an interesting discussion.

As it is handled in Georgia, US routes should serve a purpose like frontage roads. They back up the road in case of construction, and they serve smaller roads that don't meet the interstate proper.

Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 21, 2021, 10:50:15 AM
I know that the answer likely changes depending on the circumstance... .

It definitely does.  The choice of what to do is highly contingent upon the geography and the layout of existing corridors.  This will be another one of those polls where I don't answer because there is nothing close to an overarching philosophy that I can agree upon...as long as you don't do what Illinois did with I-39, putting the US route as a duplex with the interstate and then inventing a stupid state route number for the surface road.  Two highways having three numbers is unnecessarily convoluted. Why not two numbers for two routes?

I voted the first option, as a parallel route helps out for emergency detours, and it keeps the US route on the old route, avoiding potential renaming confusion. Keeps a little bit of relevance to the small towns the interstate bypasses, too.

In urban areas, it should follow the frontage roads if there is no other parallel option (Katy Freeway, I'm looking at you)

It Honestly Depends, If the Highway has been completely built on (Like I-80 on US 40 in Nevada) or (I-15 on US 91 in Parts of Utah) then the highway should either be decommissioned or put onto the highway but unsigned (US 85 in New Mexico) but if the old road is still very much there (US 21 in Ohio, & West Virginia) or (US 25 in Ohio & Michigan) there should be no need for it to be removed as they're still important side roads

This isn't an option in much of the West. Often, the interstate was built on top of the existing route; there is no parallel route to consider. I'd love for there to be a parallel road through Cabazon Pass because an accident on I-10 could mean a detour of several hours. Same is true for accidents between Chiriaco Summit and Desert Center on I-10. It wouldn't be tough to list a dozen similar highway situations west of the 100th meridian.

I agree with the poster regarding Illinois. Trash IL 251.

US 99 and US 10 would have been hard to retain as standalone highways in WA. We'd have to have long overlaps like I-84/US 30 in OR, which is not ideal for system legibility.

Quote from: Bruce on September 21, 2021, 02:39:12 PM
US 99 and US 10 would have been hard to retain as standalone highways in WA. We'd have to have long overlaps like I-84/US 30 in OR, which is not ideal for system legibility.

In California US 99 could have been retained from Wheeler Ridge to Red Bluff fairly easy.  In fact CA 99 more or less acts as the alternate to I-5 even now.  It would have been even better if former US 99 in Piru Gorge was retained as an alternative to I-5 rather than being converted to a reservoir.  I don't think planners in California really accounted for the fact that the surface highways still had a substantial use when the freeways back up.  This phenomenon is apparent with The Old Road (Old US 99), Sierra Highway (Old US 6) and Cajon Boulevard (Old US 66-91-395).

US 30 got some special treatment in the west considering how long it's concurrent. If it was US 10 or US 40, it would've been truncated to Pine Bluffs, WY.

Where's the option for "Truncate the US route and turn back to local control"?  E.g. US-12 (original) and US-16 in Michigan.

Where is the North-Carolina-style choice? Build a freeway and move the US route onto it, then 40 years later, change the number to interstate and move the US route back.

As you said in your OP it can be tough to have a blanket option because what's good for one state may not be good for another. In Minnesota, the parallel county roads are as good of quality as any state highway, so I have no problem with turning parallel US routes back to counties (although I would have favored ghosting US 61 over decommissioning it). In states where county road standards are generally much more lax, those parallel US routes should stay separate.

It depends. I'm fine with some paralleling but things like US 5 and US 11 are just ridiculous.

I voted for the second option. US routes are supposed to serve a specific purpose, and that purpose is to serve specific interstate (as opposed to Interstate) corridors as the primary through route.

There is no reason for US 25 to exist in Kentucky north of Corbin. There really isn't a reason for US 25W to exist in either Kentucky or Tennessee. In fact, I'd argue that the continued existence of US 25 north of its intersection with I-26 in North Carolina is questionable. There is no reason for a interstate route with a high-tiered number to run between Knoxville and Cincinnati; that purpose is now served by I-75. If a state-maintained, numbered route is necessary to parallel the Interstate corridor for emergency detours, then let Tennessee revert its section of 25W from Knoxville to the state line to TN 9 (its hidden state route number) and let the US 25W/25 corridor from Jellico to Florence (intersection with US 42/127) become KY 25.

(I realize this messes with US 25E, which is a major corridor, so to justify keeping US 25 north of the Eastern Continental Divide where it intersects I-26 south of Asheville, I'd renumber US 25E from Newport, Tenn., to Corbin as US 25, to terminate at I-75 Exit 29. Sure, there would be an intersection of US 25 and KY 25, but if Montana and Virginia can manage to have same-numbered state and US routes intersect, no reason Kentucky couldn't.

US 11 is a travesty. Other than the E-W split between Knoxville and Bristol, the segment in Pennsylvania between Harrisburg and Scranton/Wilkes-Barr, and the portion northeast of Watertown, it has no independent utility. It serves the same communities as the through routes of I-59, I-75, and I-81. There is no reason most of it cannot or should not be a state-numbered route.

Incidental overlaps or parallels (the various I-64/US 60 overlaps, for example) should be looked at on an individual basis. There's really no avoiding the short concurrency in south Charleston (as opposed to South Charleston), but why does US 60 diverge from I-64 to run through Covington? Why should that not be Business or Alternate 60 and keep 60 on the Interstate? It's obvious that through traffic from White Sulphur Springs to Lexington is going to use the freeway, so let the two routes run concurrently there and then US 60 has independent utility from there on. (Other than the 55 mph speed limit and the Blue Ridge crossing between Buena Vista and Amherst, it's not that bad of an alternate to 64 and 81 to the Richmond area.)

For very long overlaps (think I-70/US 40 in Missouri and Kansas), perhaps truncate the route at the end of its longest independent segment and let the other independent segments (such as US 40 in Colorado and Utah) become a 3dUS child of its original parent.

If I ran AASHTO, I'd get ruthless about decommissioning US highways that didn't serve high-traffic long-distance corridors. Who is going to start out in Indianapolis and use US 421 all the way to Lexington, Bristol, Winston-Salem, Greensboro, or Wiimington? US 421 does not need to be a United States Numbered Route in Kentucky, Virginia, or Tennessee.

  The second option doesn't do anything for me. Splitting up a cross-country route into 9 different state routes doesn't create any more ease. A US highway being secondary to an interstate ≠ reason enough to be downgraded imo. And most people don't know or care about the hierarchy of the routes anyway.  I would only use the third option if the new state route is *very* short and is far away.

Quote from: paulthemapguy on September 21, 2021, 10:54:22 AM
as long as you don't do what Illinois did with I-39, putting the US route as a duplex with the interstate and then inventing a stupid state route number for the surface road.  Two highways having three numbers is unnecessarily convoluted. Why not two numbers for two routes?

You think that's bad? Check out what Utah did with I-70 and US 89 between Sevier and Salina. Old 89 between Sevier and Elsinore was dropped from state maintenance, which is fine... but that only represented about 1/4 of the parallel old highway. The rest of it is now parts of SR 258, SR 118, SR 120 (which may or may not be concurrent with 118), SR 118 again, and SR 24. That's just messy. I don't understand why 89 couldn't have been retained for all those.

My general preference would be this: if after interstate construction you still have a parallel old road that is state numbered, keep the US route there. If you're dumping the old road to counties/cities and your state doesn't allow for state numbers on non-state-maintained roads, move the US route to the freeway. You don't even have to sign the concurrencies. But there's no reason to decommission completely - keep the US route around for any independent state-maintained segments that might still exist.

One option not included in the poll, which I generally followed in my fictional US highway redo, is to (where feasible) relocate the US route onto another corridor that has utility independent of the Interstate.

Quote from: froggie on September 22, 2021, 08:58:29 AM
One option not included in the poll, which I generally followed in my fictional US highway redo, is to (where feasible) relocate the US route onto another corridor that has utility independent of the Interstate.

So something like rerouting US 90 from I-10's corridor onto US 90 ALT? I like that.

I am happy to see my favored solution is winning a solid 70% of the vote right now.

I'm one of those people who believes that a route designation should reflect the funding (i.e. Interstate/US/State Primary routes should be state or federally funded, with lower classifications being locally funded), and also, that a route designation should reflect the best route to use between points along the route.

The poll option that is the most consistent with those 2 principles is to have the routes overlap on the Interstate. The other option is to have the US route end at the Interstate if the US route doesn't continue past the overlap.

I could see the need to retain contiguous US routing when everyone was using paper maps. In the current era of online/onboard navigation, there is no longer any need for that kind of continuity, IMO.

Quote from: DenverBrian on September 25, 2021, 01:10:56 AM
I could see the need to retain contiguous US routing when everyone was using paper maps. In the current era of online/onboard navigation, there is no longer any need for that kind of continuity, IMO.

So are you suggesting that each US route should be able to have multiple gaps and segments, like some of Indiana's state routes?

I like the idea of keeping a US route along the original road, even if it's close and parallel.  This only applies if there is a significant stretch beyond each end of the parallel section.  If the independent alignment ends where the road approaches the Interstate, then it runs 50 miles parallel and ends, I might prefer changing that part to a state route.

I don't like the idea of putting a US route on frontage roads.  If the Interstate covers up the old route, put both on the freeway and leave the frontage roads as frontage roads.  The examples of numbered frontage roads around me are due to toll roads.  Texas 121 runs along frontage roads while the freeway is an unnumbered toll road.  US 183 is on frontage roads surrounding the Texas 130 toll road.  Parts of Beltway 8 are like that.  There's some utility is marking the untolled parallel route with a certain number, but for the most part I think it's unnecessarily confusing and there's no reason to do it if tolls aren't involved (or some other special circumstance).

In most situations I would choose the first one, but in places where keeping the existing road is not logical (i.e. if the Interstate needs to utilize the previously existing roadway as one of its carriageways), then the fourth option is best.

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on September 21, 2021, 08:09:49 PM
It depends. I'm fine with some paralleling but things like US 5 and US 11 are just ridiculous.

Why are they ridiculous though? They serve a purpose. While I can't speak for US 11 as much, US 5 has plenty of independent utility along the I-91 corridor. To a point the traveling public in the area knows 5 and 91 parallel each other and as such if they want to avoid parts of 91 then 5 is a useful back road that will get them to the same place. 5, the road itself, isn't going anywhere, so why change a number right?

Quote from: SectorZ on September 25, 2021, 08:29:43 AM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on September 21, 2021, 08:09:49 PM
It depends. I'm fine with some paralleling but things like US 5 and US 11 are just ridiculous.

US 5 has plenty of independent utility along the I-91 corridor.

South of Springfield Mass, perhaps.  It's a useless US route this side of the Mohawk Trail.

Quote from: froggie on September 25, 2021, 08:32:05 AM

Quote from: SectorZ on September 25, 2021, 08:29:43 AM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on September 21, 2021, 08:09:49 PM
It depends. I'm fine with some paralleling but things like US 5 and US 11 are just ridiculous.

US 5 has plenty of independent utility along the I-91 corridor.

South of Springfield Mass, perhaps.  It's a useless US route this side of the Mohawk Trail.

Not sure why.  It's I-91's business route.

Quote from: paulthemapguy on September 21, 2021, 10:54:22 AM

Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 21, 2021, 10:50:15 AM
I know that the answer likely changes depending on the circumstance... .

It definitely does.  The choice of what to do is highly contingent upon the geography and the layout of existing corridors.  This will be another one of those polls where I don't answer because there is nothing close to an overarching philosophy that I can agree upon...as long as you don't do what Illinois did with I-39, putting the US route as a duplex with the interstate and then inventing a stupid state route number for the surface road.  Two highways having three numbers is unnecessarily convoluted. Why not two numbers for two routes?

I get it and don't necessarily disagree. However, I also put US Routes on a higher place of importance than a state route. If the former route becomes a 3di of the old highway, such as the case with IL 251, when the US route gets moved onto a freeway, I have no problem with it. Also, keep in mind that the freeway was 51 long before 39 in both Illinois and Wisconsin.

Quote from: hobsini2 on September 25, 2021, 10:38:52 PM

Quote from: paulthemapguy on September 21, 2021, 10:54:22 AM

Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 21, 2021, 10:50:15 AM
I know that the answer likely changes depending on the circumstance... .

It definitely does.  The choice of what to do is highly contingent upon the geography and the layout of existing corridors.  This will be another one of those polls where I don't answer because there is nothing close to an overarching philosophy that I can agree upon...as long as you don't do what Illinois did with I-39, putting the US route as a duplex with the interstate and then inventing a stupid state route number for the surface road.  Two highways having three numbers is unnecessarily convoluted. Why not two numbers for two routes?

I get it and don't necessarily disagree. However, I also put US Routes on a higher place of importance than a state route. If the former route becomes a 3di of the old highway, such as the case with IL 251, when the US route gets moved onto a freeway, I have no problem with it. Also, keep in mind that the freeway was 51 long before 39 in both Illinois and Wisconsin.

Agreed, much of the benefit of US routes (both realized, and potential) is that they can confer some level of recognition for out of state drivers.
In my ideal world, US routes would be almost entirely distinct from the Interstate system, and state routes would be distinct from both. Most travel could be accomplished with only US and Interstate routes, leaving state routes to fairly local travel that is overwhelmingly done by state residents.

Quote from: HighwayStar on September 26, 2021, 12:16:14 PM

Agreed, much of the benefit of US routes (both realized, and potential) is that they can confer some level of recognition for out of state drivers.

As a kid in the 60s, when we took family vacations to the Outer Banks, I thought it was really neat that the same route that we saw in Winston-Salem and Greensboro (US 421) ran within 30 miles of where I lived. However, if I was going to set out to travel to North Carolina today, unless I was traveling the long way for scenic purposes, or to clinch a route, there's no way I would head to the nearest access point for US 421 and then use it the rest of the way.  In fact, even if I planned to use 421 for a significant portion of my trip, I wouldn't even access it until I got to Mountain City, Tenn.

Quote from: SkyPesos on September 25, 2021, 01:35:05 AM

Quote from: DenverBrian on September 25, 2021, 01:10:56 AM
I could see the need to retain contiguous US routing when everyone was using paper maps. In the current era of online/onboard navigation, there is no longer any need for that kind of continuity, IMO.

So are you suggesting that each US route should be able to have multiple gaps and segments, like some of Indiana's state routes?

Since many US routes already have multiple gaps and segments...yes.

Quote from: DenverBrian on September 27, 2021, 07:08:20 PM

Quote from: SkyPesos on September 25, 2021, 01:35:05 AM

Quote from: DenverBrian on September 25, 2021, 01:10:56 AM
I could see the need to retain contiguous US routing when everyone was using paper maps. In the current era of online/onboard navigation, there is no longer any need for that kind of continuity, IMO.

So are you suggesting that each US route should be able to have multiple gaps and segments, like some of Indiana's state routes?

Since many US routes already have multiple gaps and segments...yes.

Besides US 2 and the ones through Yellowstone, I can't think of any more.

I voted for option 3 even though I prefer the US highway shield to the Interstate shield. It's more logical to reduce unnecessary duplexes and fewer people will travel the US route as it was before Interstate came along

Quote from: SkyPesos on September 27, 2021, 07:24:27 PM

Quote from: DenverBrian on September 27, 2021, 07:08:20 PM

Quote from: SkyPesos on September 25, 2021, 01:35:05 AM

Quote from: DenverBrian on September 25, 2021, 01:10:56 AM
I could see the need to retain contiguous US routing when everyone was using paper maps. In the current era of online/onboard navigation, there is no longer any need for that kind of continuity, IMO.

So are you suggesting that each US route should be able to have multiple gaps and segments, like some of Indiana's state routes?

Since many US routes already have multiple gaps and segments...yes.

Besides US 2 and the ones through Yellowstone, I can't think of any more.

9, 10, and 422.

Quote from: 1 on September 27, 2021, 07:31:54 PM

Quote from: SkyPesos on September 27, 2021, 07:24:27 PM

Quote from: DenverBrian on September 27, 2021, 07:08:20 PM

Quote from: SkyPesos on September 25, 2021, 01:35:05 AM

Quote from: DenverBrian on September 25, 2021, 01:10:56 AM
I could see the need to retain contiguous US routing when everyone was using paper maps. In the current era of online/onboard navigation, there is no longer any need for that kind of continuity, IMO.

So are you suggesting that each US route should be able to have multiple gaps and segments, like some of Indiana’s state routes?

Since many US routes already have multiple gaps and segments...yes.

Besides US 2 and the ones through Yellowstone, I can't think of any more.

9, 10, and 422.

So then that's 4 plus the ones through Yellowstone (I think it's US 20, 89, 191 and 287 from the best of my memory, correct me if it's wrong) with a single gap. I think it could count as "many", but "multiple gaps" is an exaggeration, as the ones named here only have a single gap.

I'll say 10 is debatable, since they make an effort to post the Badger as the continuation of US 10, and WI posts an EAST US 10 marker going down the ship ramp.

Quote from: SkyPesos on September 27, 2021, 07:47:31 PM

Quote from: 1 on September 27, 2021, 07:31:54 PM

Quote from: SkyPesos on September 27, 2021, 07:24:27 PM

Quote from: DenverBrian on September 27, 2021, 07:08:20 PM

Quote from: SkyPesos on September 25, 2021, 01:35:05 AM

Quote from: DenverBrian on September 25, 2021, 01:10:56 AM
I could see the need to retain contiguous US routing when everyone was using paper maps. In the current era of online/onboard navigation, there is no longer any need for that kind of continuity, IMO.

So are you suggesting that each US route should be able to have multiple gaps and segments, like some of Indiana's state routes?

Since many US routes already have multiple gaps and segments...yes.

Besides US 2 and the ones through Yellowstone, I can't think of any more.

9, 10, and 422.

So then that's 4 plus the ones through Yellowstone (I think it's US 20, 89, 191 and 287 from the best of my memory, correct me if it's wrong) with a single gap. I think it could count as "many", but "multiple gaps" is an exaggeration, as the ones named here only have a single gap.

That is correct for Yellowstone. 14, 16, and 212 all end at the boundary.

US 6 in Colorado also has an official gap where the road is locally maintained in Rifle. And US 85 makes an impossible jump from a bridge to I-25 without an interchange south of Colorado Springs, so that probably counts as a gap as well.

And US 36 as it goes through the Denver metro.

I didn't realize that some people are so deeply invested in the idea that US highways are/must be contiguous.

I generally like seeing some original routings for US Highways, especially in urban area. I'd definitely change some up though, like 69 and 169 in KC. I'd keep 69 on the Overland Parkway and on 18th Street Expressway, but its other meanders are just weird and follow a route that nobody would actually use. After 18th Street I'd probably keep it on the interstate until it splits off 35 in Liberty. I
d put 169 back on Metcalf, I thought that was a useful routing, but then put it back on I 35 when it meets Metcalf and keeps it on Interstates until it goes its own way downtown.

Quote from: DenverBrian on October 01, 2021, 09:49:55 AM
And US 36 as it goes through the Denver metro.

I didn't realize that some people are so deeply invested in the idea that US highways are/must be contiguous.

Frankly it makes sense. Gaps serve no purpose, and nothing good comes of them. Routes should be continuous so as to minimize confusion.

Quote from: HighwayStar on October 01, 2021, 11:35:47 AM

Quote from: DenverBrian on October 01, 2021, 09:49:55 AM
And US 36 as it goes through the Denver metro.

I didn't realize that some people are so deeply invested in the idea that US highways are/must be contiguous.

Frankly it makes sense. Gaps serve no purpose, and nothing good comes of them. Routes should be continuous so as to minimize confusion.

Meh. No one's looking at paper maps anymore. Nav systems take care of this easily.

Quote from: DenverBrian on October 01, 2021, 02:55:28 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on October 01, 2021, 11:35:47 AM

Quote from: DenverBrian on October 01, 2021, 09:49:55 AM
And US 36 as it goes through the Denver metro.

I didn't realize that some people are so deeply invested in the idea that US highways are/must be contiguous.

Frankly it makes sense. Gaps serve no purpose, and nothing good comes of them. Routes should be continuous so as to minimize confusion.

Meh. No one's looking at paper maps anymore. Nav systems take care of this easily.

Not everyone uses nav systems or wants to.  I for one do not intend to turn over navigation to a computer that doesn't care about the things that I care about in driving and being a roadgeek.  Plus GPS seems to turn people's brains to mush when they rely on it too much.  It's amazing how many people think I have a superpower just because I actually make sure I know where I'm going with maps/street view before I go places.

Quote from: vdeane on October 01, 2021, 03:03:58 PM

Quote from: DenverBrian on October 01, 2021, 02:55:28 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on October 01, 2021, 11:35:47 AM

Quote from: DenverBrian on October 01, 2021, 09:49:55 AM
And US 36 as it goes through the Denver metro.

I didn't realize that some people are so deeply invested in the idea that US highways are/must be contiguous.

Frankly it makes sense. Gaps serve no purpose, and nothing good comes of them. Routes should be continuous so as to minimize confusion.

Meh. No one's looking at paper maps anymore. Nav systems take care of this easily.

Not everyone uses nav systems or wants to.  I for one do not intend to turn over navigation to a computer that doesn't care about the things that I care about in driving and being a roadgeek.  Plus GPS seems to turn people's brains to mush when they rely on it too much.  It's amazing how many people think I have a superpower just because I actually make sure I know where I'm going with maps/street view before I go places.

Agreed. Moreover, nav systems are fallible, and distract the driver from the road which is what they should be paying attention to.

What is less distracting, "Follow US 10 for 25 miles" or..

"Follow US 10 for 1 Mile" "Turn Right onto Deviancy Street" "Using the Left Lane, Turn onto Gerald Avenue"  "In 1000 feet, make a legal U turn" "Turn right to continue on US 10"

I will also point out that navigation should be a part of drivers ed, and those that cannot pass that section should have to ride a bus.

Quote from: ran4sh on September 24, 2021, 11:59:43 PM
I'm one of those people who believes that a route designation should reflect the funding (i.e. Interstate/US/State Primary routes should be state or federally funded, with lower classifications being locally funded), and also, that a route designation should reflect the best route to use between points along the route.

The poll option that is the most consistent with those 2 principles is to have the routes overlap on the Interstate. The other option is to have the US route end at the Interstate if the US route doesn't continue past the overlap.

This is my thinking.  If the US route is no longer independent of the interstate, it should be truncated to the part that is not on the interstate.  If the US route is independent of the interstate on segments before and after a segment where it's replaced by the interstate, it should be duplexed with the interstate during the section in between them.  This is the US route reflects the best route between points philosophy.  If the old route is wanted as a US route anyway, it could be signed as a Alt route or a Historic US route.

I voted for the first option in the poll - really it does depend on a case-by-case basis, but 90+% of the time I would probably favor either option 1 or option 5. Of course there are some extreme examples (such as US 11 and I-70/US 40 in KS), but even in these I still prefer it to decommissioning and truncating – although there are plenty of times the latter could certainly come in handy. But decommissioning in my view should only be done as a last resort. California went to the extreme with this and lost a significant portion of its US Highway mileage. And beyond just California, US 91, what was intended as a major x1 US Highway corridor, has been almost completely lost except for the short remaining section north of Salt Lake City. It may have been almost completely replaced by I-15 for all intents and purposes, but it's still strange to think about how a major US x1 corridor has been nearly decimated by perhaps what may have been a truncation gone too far.

The general driving public is probably more interested in clarity and simplicity, which is completely understandable. In situations like this when there is an extremely long concurrency with Interstate and US Highway, the latter could be unsigned but still secretly there so as not to be discontinuous with its other segments - if I recall correctly I think this may be the case with US 85's extremely long concurrency with I-25, for example. I simply feel that US Highways should be retained as much as is reasonably possible. The East may have more instances where it's fit to utilize option 1, and the West with option 5, but the majority of the time I would likely gravitate towards either of those options.

Quote from: adventurernumber1 on October 02, 2021, 02:20:32 PM
I voted for the first option in the poll - really it does depend on a case-by-case basis, but 90+% of the time I would probably favor either option 1 or option 5. Of course there are some extreme examples (such as US 11 and I-70/US 40 in KS), but even in these I still prefer it to decommissioning and truncating – although there are plenty of times the latter could certainly come in handy. But decommissioning in my view should only be done as a last resort. California went to the extreme with this and lost a significant portion of its US Highway mileage. And beyond just California, US 91, what was intended as a major x1 US Highway corridor, has been almost completely lost except for the short remaining section north of Salt Lake City. It may have been almost completely replaced by I-15 for all intents and purposes, but it's still strange to think about how a major US x1 corridor has been nearly decimated by perhaps what may have been a truncation gone too far.

The general driving public is probably more interested in clarity and simplicity, which is completely understandable. In situations like this when there is an extremely long concurrency with Interstate and US Highway, the latter could be unsigned but still secretly there so as not to be discontinuous with its other segments - if I recall correctly I think this may be the case with US 85's extremely long concurrency with I-25, for example. I simply feel that US Highways should be retained as much as is reasonably possible. The East may have more instances where it's fit to utilize option 1, and the West with option 5, but the majority of the time I would likely gravitate towards either of those options.

I'm still scratching my head over why US 99 was completely removed over a few concurrencies that are much shorter compared to those on US 40 or US 66 (which I get the reasoning for truncating or removing). CA 99 is a freeway for a good portion for its length, and is somewhat independent from I-5. OR still have OR 99, and its suffixed split going between both state lines, and WA still have WA 99 too.

Quote from: SkyPesos on October 02, 2021, 02:41:08 PM
I'm still scratching my head over why US 99 was completely removed over a few concurrencies that are much shorter compared to those on US 40 or US 66 (which I get the reasoning for truncating or removing). CA 99 is a freeway for a good portion for its length, and is somewhat independent from I-5. OR still have OR 99, and its suffixed split going between both state lines, and WA still have WA 99 too.

One thought is it's easier to get three states on board for something than it is for 10, especially when State A may say "Route X has no use to us" but State B, hundreds of miles and multiple states away from State A feels very differently about Route X.

The ultimate decommissioning of US 66 in 1985 sounded like it was more AASHTO-led than the remaining states that still had it all coming to the decision.

Quote from: adventurernumber1 on October 02, 2021, 02:20:32 PM
The general driving public is probably more interested in clarity and simplicity,

This is my argument against any kind of "funding based" approach, no one really cares. It is also an argument against gaps of any kind. One could even go as far as to say it is an argument against concurrences generally, not in the absolute sense but in the sense of trying to avoid it. Having 2 or more names for one road is somewhat confusing.

Quote from: DenverBrian on October 01, 2021, 09:49:55 AM
And US 36 as it goes through the Denver metro.

I didn't realize that some people are so deeply invested in the idea that US highways are/must be contiguous.

That is not a gap though. US 36 is still defined as a continuous route by AASHTO: it follows I-270 from I-25 to I-70, then I-70 from I-270 to Byers. CDOT has simply chosen to not sign these concurrencies, as is the case with most Interstate/US overlaps in the state. (There are exceptions: I-25/US 160 and I-25/US 24, for example, are both pretty well signed.)

That is distinct from what happens with US 6 in Rifle and US 85 in Stratmoor. With US 6, CDOT actually requested to formally decommission the segment of US 6 that was to become locally maintained, and AASHTO went along with it. So there is now a hole in the official definition. US 85, on the other hand, is formally defined to jump directly from the Venetucci Blvd/B St intersection to I-25. A quick look at a map will show that there are no ramps of any sort to or from I-25 there (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.7768911,-104.7842943,17z), so US 85, while appearing continuous on a map, cannot actually be followed as a continuous route. I think US 24 may do something similar with I-70 in eastern Colorado too.

The four Yellowstone US routes (US 20, 89, 191, 287) fall in that same category, but there it's a little more straightforward - the routes simply are not defined by AASHTO within park boundaries. Implied routes exist, but they are not signed, and more importantly AASHTO does not recognize them.

Quote from: US 89 on October 03, 2021, 05:38:07 PM

Quote from: DenverBrian on October 01, 2021, 09:49:55 AM
And US 36 as it goes through the Denver metro.

I didn't realize that some people are so deeply invested in the idea that US highways are/must be contiguous.

That is not a gap though. US 36 is still defined as a continuous route by AASHTO: it follows I-270 from I-25 to I-70, then I-70 from I-270 to Byers. CDOT has simply chosen to not sign these concurrencies, as is the case with most Interstate/US overlaps in the state.

Then what's the point? If the public is unaware and the routes are not signed, then it's a difference without a distinction. Not a lot of people who consult a paper map for their route; even fewer who consult a paper map, then consult AASHTO to check and see if the route they're considering is "officially" defined as a continuous route or not.

Quote from: DenverBrian on October 03, 2021, 09:08:33 PM

Quote from: US 89 on October 03, 2021, 05:38:07 PM

Quote from: DenverBrian on October 01, 2021, 09:49:55 AM
And US 36 as it goes through the Denver metro.

I didn't realize that some people are so deeply invested in the idea that US highways are/must be contiguous.

That is not a gap though. US 36 is still defined as a continuous route by AASHTO: it follows I-270 from I-25 to I-70, then I-70 from I-270 to Byers. CDOT has simply chosen to not sign these concurrencies, as is the case with most Interstate/US overlaps in the state.

Then what's the point? If the public is unaware and the routes are not signed, then it's a difference without a distinction. Not a lot of people who consult a paper map for their route; even fewer who consult a paper map, then consult AASHTO to check and see if the route they're considering is "officially" defined as a continuous route or not.

Similarly, do you think that US 87 doesn't exist in Colorado at all?

Quote from: SkyPesos on October 03, 2021, 09:13:25 PM

Quote from: DenverBrian on October 03, 2021, 09:08:33 PM

Quote from: US 89 on October 03, 2021, 05:38:07 PM

Quote from: DenverBrian on October 01, 2021, 09:49:55 AM
And US 36 as it goes through the Denver metro.

I didn't realize that some people are so deeply invested in the idea that US highways are/must be contiguous.

That is not a gap though. US 36 is still defined as a continuous route by AASHTO: it follows I-270 from I-25 to I-70, then I-70 from I-270 to Byers. CDOT has simply chosen to not sign these concurrencies, as is the case with most Interstate/US overlaps in the state.

Then what's the point? If the public is unaware and the routes are not signed, then it's a difference without a distinction. Not a lot of people who consult a paper map for their route; even fewer who consult a paper map, then consult AASHTO to check and see if the route they're considering is "officially" defined as a continuous route or not.

Similarly, do you think that US 87 doesn't exist in Colorado at all?

If it is not signed then it might as well not exist.

Quote from: HighwayStar on October 03, 2021, 09:49:47 PM

Quote from: SkyPesos on October 03, 2021, 09:13:25 PM

Quote from: DenverBrian on October 03, 2021, 09:08:33 PM

Quote from: US 89 on October 03, 2021, 05:38:07 PM

Quote from: DenverBrian on October 01, 2021, 09:49:55 AM
And US 36 as it goes through the Denver metro.

I didn't realize that some people are so deeply invested in the idea that US highways are/must be contiguous.

That is not a gap though. US 36 is still defined as a continuous route by AASHTO: it follows I-270 from I-25 to I-70, then I-70 from I-270 to Byers. CDOT has simply chosen to not sign these concurrencies, as is the case with most Interstate/US overlaps in the state.

Then what's the point? If the public is unaware and the routes are not signed, then it's a difference without a distinction. Not a lot of people who consult a paper map for their route; even fewer who consult a paper map, then consult AASHTO to check and see if the route they're considering is "officially" defined as a continuous route or not.

Similarly, do you think that US 87 doesn't exist in Colorado at all?

If it is not signed then it might as well not exist.

This. If the public never sees a trailblazer sign, they certainly won't know. US 87 IS signed on some portions of I-25, but it's not necessary, and for 99.99% of the population, US 87 doesn't exist in Colorado at all.