WI-29 is 4 lanes across Wisconsin. Is there any need for US 8, that is almost exclusively in one state, to be a US highway anymore?
Really no point in changing it at this point. It's probably more local traffic than anything.
I think one could make the argument that MOST (not all, relax people) US Highways, especially those east of the Mississippi) are fairly useless having been supplemented by Interstates over the years.
Out west, there are still many areas where a US highway is it (i.e. Nevada)
Quote from: OCGuy81 on February 07, 2014, 06:15:01 PM
Really no point in changing it at this point. It's probably more local traffic than anything.
I think one could make the argument that MOST (not all, relax people) US Highways, especially those east of the Mississippi) are fairly useless having been supplemented by Interstates over the years.
Out west, there are still many areas where a US highway is it (i.e. Nevada)
Several of Maryland's most-important highways are on the U.S. federal system, including (roughly in order):
U.S. 50
U.S. 301
U.S. 40 (much of it is multiplexed with (and superseded by) I-70 and I-68, but it is an important road through Baltimore City)
U.S. 1 (much of it is superseded by I-95 and the Baltimore-Washington Parkway, but it remains an important connector to the District of Columbia, and to Pennsylvania north(east) of I-695
U.S. 113
U.S. 13
U.S. 29
U.S. 15
U.S. 522 (very short in Maryland, but does include a connection to West Virginia across the Potomac River with no nearby alternative)
U.S. 220 (also pretty short, but the main N-S highway in Allegany County)
U.S. 219 (longer than 220, but the main N-S highway in Garrett County)
Even out West, some of the shorter 3diUS routes could be downgraded to (bi-)state routes. US 197, US 730, maybe US 199 come to mind.
US 730 I think has merit- I have naturally ended up on that route on many occasions to get from the 12 corridor down to western Oregon. I think a good chunk of 730 traffic is interregional travel, which would make it a worthwhile part of the system.
Others in the west- US 138 for sure, and we could probably live without US 310.
46.
US 266 always struck me as superfluous outside of serving as an I-40 detour if necessary, and in any case it is a violation of the AASHTO rules (though to be fair it was essentially grandfathered in).
Most of US 11 in MS is a fairly underutilized road, outside maybe the Hattiesburg and Laurel areas. I imagine it is similar in other states where it is closely paralleled by interstates. It seems like virtually all of US 11 nationally could be dropped and the traveling public would be none the wiser.
I am generally in favor of dropping US routes where interstates run closely parallel or functionally bypassed the old road. US routes should be used for intercity connections that Interstates do not serve. The bypassed US routes should remain state maintained as alternate/detour routes. My thought is that they could be supplementally signed as "Detour" or "Alternate" I-xx at necessary locations. Louisiana already does this with I-10 between Lafayette and BR, signing both US 190 and LA 76 as "Alternate I-10." These could be signed with a special interstate shield similar to how "green" Business Interstate routes are signed. Perhaps red? This would not preclude the use of "Historic US xx" banners on these routes if desired, either.
US 641. Not a major corridor and doesn't meet its parent, and way back when it did meet its parent it required a long concurrency with another US route to do so.
US 211. Very short single-state route.
US 311.
US 158.
US 25W.
US 223.
Quote from: Doctor Whom on February 07, 2014, 07:16:17 PM
46.
Agreed. Especially useless is extending it, unsigned, with I-95/US 1/US 9 to the New York line halfway across the George Washington Bridge. If there's going to be a US 46, it should end at US 1/US 9. To make things easier for people, the exit sign on I-95 coming off the bridge could still say US 1/US 9 TO US 46. Honestly, though, I'm not sure why they don't just change it back to NJ 6.
Sweet. this actually got me to 1000 posts and therefore earning my 2nd star!
Quote from: Urban Prairie Schooner on February 07, 2014, 07:29:27 PM
US 266 always struck me as superfluous outside of serving as an I-40 detour if necessary, and in any case it is a violation of the AASHTO rules (though to be fair it was essentially grandfathered in).
Most of US 11 in MS is a fairly underutilized road, outside maybe the Hattiesburg and Laurel areas. I imagine it is similar in other states where it is closely paralleled by interstates. It seems like virtually all of US 11 nationally could be dropped and the traveling public would be none the wiser.
I am generally in favor of dropping US routes where interstates run closely parallel or functionally bypassed the old road. US routes should be used for intercity connections that Interstates do not serve. The bypassed US routes should remain state maintained as alternate/detour routes. My thought is that they could be supplementally signed as "Detour" or "Alternate" I-xx at necessary locations. Louisiana already does this with I-10 between Lafayette and BR, signing both US 190 and LA 76 as "Alternate I-10." These could be signed with a special interstate shield similar to how "green" Business Interstate routes are signed. Perhaps red? This would not preclude the use of "Historic US xx" banners on these routes if desired, either.
If you were setting up the whole grid from scratch you'd never make the road next to the interstate a US highway yes that means you Oklahoma!
And I came from Minnesota, land of the "turnback" although that is mainly state roads they are really hanging on to some of those US roads.
Quote from: texaskdog on February 07, 2014, 08:01:31 PM
If you were setting up the whole grid from scratch you'd never make the road next to the interstate a US highway yes that means you Oklahoma!
Huh?
Some of US 202 is not needed (largely multiplexed with other routes).
Quote from: bugo on February 07, 2014, 09:02:32 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on February 07, 2014, 08:01:31 PM
If you were setting up the whole grid from scratch you'd never make the road next to the interstate a US highway yes that means you Oklahoma!
Huh?
They required 35 to be built within a few miles of 77 and didn't decomission
Quote from: Urban Prairie Schooner on February 07, 2014, 07:29:27 PM
These could be signed with a special interstate shield similar to how "green" Business Interstate routes are signed. Perhaps red? This would not preclude the use of "Historic US xx" banners on these routes if desired, either.
Yeah, inverse colors. That'd be cool :D
- US 25 north of Cincinnati
- US 66
- US 27 between Fort Wayne and Lansing
- US 99 – wait, what?
Apparently these were considered the most useless US routes by the highway officials from the states involved.
US 211 isn't what it used to be.
US 311 should be part of US 360.
US 264, 522 and 701 are all just kind of there. The latter two kind of go places but 264 is really just an incredibly long US 64A.
I'm surprised no one's mentioned US 159 yet. I really don't know who would think it's an important road unless you are going to/from Falls City, NE to I-29 in Missouri. NDOR was at least nice enough to build a new bridge for it at Rulo. But a good chunk of it is a multiplex with US 73 and the part south of US 73 is basically a winding country road. Essentially, in the overall scheme of things, it amounts to little more than a US 59A. OTOH, in one of my parallel universe versions of US 159, it takes over K-4 between US 59 and I-70 in Topeka, and that is an important road.
See, I kind of like the "redundant" US highways as a backup system to the Interstates when they're traffic-jammed. There's a confidence that it will generally parallel the stricken Interstate path for some distance until you can get return to it, if one chooses, with a certain level of quality and services expected from the motorist.
I'm not a big turnback person, I suppose, except for useless overlaps at end points.
Quote from: dgolub on February 07, 2014, 07:56:26 PM
Quote from: Doctor Whom on February 07, 2014, 07:16:17 PM
46.
Agreed. Especially useless is extending it, unsigned, with I-95/US 1/US 9 to the New York line halfway across the George Washington Bridge. If there's going to be a US 46, it should end at US 1/US 9. To make things easier for people, the exit sign on I-95 coming off the bridge could still say US 1/US 9 TO US 46. Honestly, though, I'm not sure why they don't just change it back to NJ 6.
I feel like if US 46 was reverted to NJ 6 it would just confuse people. I always thought it should be dropped from the US Highway System and become NJ 46. I feel that way, most non-roadgeeks wouldn't even notice. As for the most useless US Highway, my vote goes to US 202.
We are the fifth largest state in size, yet we only have three interstate routes (10, 25,40). Some US routes in New Mexico are as important to us as the Interstates in getting around. US 285 carries the bulk of north - south traffic in the eastern side of the state. US 70, US 54, US 550, US 87 are all vital in connecting our cities where there are no interstates.
Quote from: ap70621 on February 08, 2014, 10:49:39 AM
Quote from: dgolub on February 07, 2014, 07:56:26 PM
Quote from: Doctor Whom on February 07, 2014, 07:16:17 PM
46.
Agreed. Especially useless is extending it, unsigned, with I-95/US 1/US 9 to the New York line halfway across the George Washington Bridge. If there's going to be a US 46, it should end at US 1/US 9. To make things easier for people, the exit sign on I-95 coming off the bridge could still say US 1/US 9 TO US 46. Honestly, though, I'm not sure why they don't just change it back to NJ 6.
I feel like if US 46 was reverted to NJ 6 it would just confuse people. I always thought it should be dropped from the US Highway System and become NJ 46. I feel that way, most non-roadgeeks wouldn't even notice. As for the most useless US Highway, my vote goes to US 202.
Does anybody know it even exists, that is US 202, in Passaic and Bergen Counties? Also NJ 46 is fine as many in New Jersey refer to it as ROUTE 46 as even interstates are called ROUTE as well. So changing its designation, would not confuse anyone, especially non road geeks.
US 202 does exist in Passaic and Bergen, but is mostly county maintained except for the short segment where it is combined with NJ 23. Lots of very old shields along the route with what I believe is series A font.
US 202 is a personal favorite of mine -- it's the "back hallway" of the Northeast, running through many cool areas at or just beyond the edge of the big metropolises. I muse periodically about driving it end to end in one trip.
Quote from: ap70621 on February 08, 2014, 10:49:39 AM
Quote from: dgolub on February 07, 2014, 07:56:26 PM
Quote from: Doctor Whom on February 07, 2014, 07:16:17 PM
46.
Agreed. Especially useless is extending it, unsigned, with I-95/US 1/US 9 to the New York line halfway across the George Washington Bridge. If there's going to be a US 46, it should end at US 1/US 9. To make things easier for people, the exit sign on I-95 coming off the bridge could still say US 1/US 9 TO US 46. Honestly, though, I'm not sure why they don't just change it back to NJ 6.
I feel like if US 46 was reverted to NJ 6 it would just confuse people. I always thought it should be dropped from the US Highway System and become NJ 46. I feel that way, most non-roadgeeks wouldn't even notice. As for the most useless US Highway, my vote goes to US 202.
Valid point. Since the number's been changed already and it was done a long time ago, there's probably more harm than good to be done at this point by changing it back.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 09, 2014, 10:20:06 AM
US 202 is a personal favorite of mine -- it's the "back hallway" of the Northeast, running through many cool areas at or just beyond the edge of the big metropolises. I muse periodically about driving it end to end in one trip.
Yes, it is interesting how it covers a fairly long distance without going through any major cities.
In Florida, US 92 and its child route US 192. US 92 has been superceded by Interstate 4 now, and runs parallel for the entire length from Daytona Beach to Tampa Bay. US 192 is only 75 miles long, with 26 of those miles co-signed by US 441.
Quote from: Takumi on February 08, 2014, 12:56:20 AM
US 211 isn't what it used to be.
US 311 should be part of US 360.
US 264, 522 and 701 are all just kind of there. The latter two kind of go places but 264 is really just an incredibly long US 64A.
264 at least serves Greenville and other places along the way that 64 misses far enough to the north to make a 64A not that worthwhile, especially when they went and made old 64 into 64A in many places already. At least 264 sorta follows the same kind of three-digit numbering scheme as an Interstate would, meeting its parent at both ends. (Possibly I am biased by living for at least a short time just off a posted US 264A)
Would anyone miss U.S. 411 if it went away?
Quote from: Charles2 on February 09, 2014, 09:11:11 PM
Would anyone miss U.S. 411 if it went away?
Nah, these days everyone just uses Google or online directory sites. Oh, wait, wrong 411...
I bet you could get away with getting rid of 189. Most of it's multiplexed anyway.
Quote from: 1 on February 07, 2014, 09:12:32 PM
Some of US 202 is not needed (largely multiplexed with other routes).
I generally hate this type of thread, but ding-ding-ding we have a winner.
Quote from: dgolub on February 09, 2014, 10:30:13 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 09, 2014, 10:20:06 AM
US 202 is a personal favorite of mine -- it's the "back hallway" of the Northeast, running through many cool areas at or just beyond the edge of the big metropolises. I muse periodically about driving it end to end in one trip.
Yes, it is interesting how it covers a fairly long distance without going through any major cities.
Well put. It passes through many communities that are far reaches of other metro areas as you state, but also keep in mind before the interstates were around US 1 was the main route along the east coast. From PA one traveling US 1 could have used US 202 (as US 1 and US 202 intersect in Chester County) and then head north to Maine without stopping at those many signals that lined US 1 north of there.
US 202, as useless as it may seem now, had far less signals than US 1 because of its alignment away from large city metroplexes. I am even sure that even in NJ at one time, Morris, Passaic, and Bergen Counties once had the route better signed than it is now as presently you have little to no shields in many places where county maintained. Plus the ones that are there now (someone brought this up as still are present) are so old and non reflective at night.
Quote from: dlainhart on February 10, 2014, 06:06:01 AM
Quote from: 1 on February 07, 2014, 09:12:32 PM
Some of US 202 is not needed (largely multiplexed with other routes).
I generally hate this type of thread, but ding-ding-ding we have a winner.
Of course US 400 is not only a useless number it is also duplexed almost it's whoe distance.
I might catch some flak for this, but US-6. In the Midwest, there is almost nothing that US-6 does that other routes don't do better. In Indiana, it parallels US-30 and the Toll Road. In Ohio, US-20 goes to more places. In Illinois and Iowa, it might as well be a part of I-80.
Quote from: Brandon on February 10, 2014, 10:32:15 AM
I might catch some flak for this, but US-6. In the Midwest, there is almost nothing that US-6 does that other routes don't do better. In Indiana, it parallels US-30 and the Toll Road. In Ohio, US-20 goes to more places. In Illinois and Iowa, it might as well be a part of I-80.
And in Massachusetts, it is very important.
Quote from: 1 on February 10, 2014, 03:25:51 PM
Quote from: Brandon on February 10, 2014, 10:32:15 AM
I might catch some flak for this, but US-6. In the Midwest, there is almost nothing that US-6 does that other routes don't do better. In Indiana, it parallels US-30 and the Toll Road. In Ohio, US-20 goes to more places. In Illinois and Iowa, it might as well be a part of I-80.
And in Massachusetts, it is very important.
But what does US-6 really do west of the Hudson River? West of Ellicott's Line, it does nothing much of anything. It duplicates other US highways (20 and 30), is a duplicate of an interstate (80, 76, 70), or goes through the middle of nowhere (Nevada).
It's important in Utah for I-70 traffic heading to Salt Lake.
It's also the main, I guess, Salt Lake to Yosemite connector. I feel like it's good to have a US highway that does that, but I can see why others might think that's pointless.
Basically, US-6 could theoretically be split up into a few routes without a problem. US-6 in the east, US-38 across Nebraska and into Colorado, and US-750 across Utah and Nevada.
Quote from: Brandon on February 10, 2014, 10:32:15 AM
I might catch some flak for this, but US-6. In the Midwest, there is almost nothing that US-6 does that other routes don't do better. In Indiana, it parallels US-30 and the Toll Road. In Ohio, US-20 goes to more places. In Illinois and Iowa, it might as well be a part of I-80.
I think that depends on whether you are talking on a national level or a local level. Nationally, it isn't very important, for the above reasons, but locally, it can be very important. US 6 is an important road in Council Bluffs, Iowa (Broadway), Omaha (Dodge Street, West Dodge Road Freeway, the segment between Elkhorn and Gretna it shares with NE 31), and Lincoln (Cornhusker Highway). Of course, the real question is whether you need a US Highway shield to sign those particular roads. Or any shield, for that matter.
US-44. Pretty much redundant to US-6 in the only major corridor it serves (Hartford-Providence). No reason for the Providence-Plymouth corridor to warrant a US highway, and the route west of Hartford doesn't really see much long distance through traffic.
US 11 from the Mason-Dixon Line to Winchester is completely useless, since it is parallelled throughout by I-81, and that highway is in the process of being widened to six lanes for the majority of its route through WV. MDRoads even suggested that US 11 could be decommissioned throughout its entire length and that no one would miss it.
What about US 5? It is totally in the shadows of I-91 its entire length. US 3, even though most of it is with I-93, from Nashua to I-95 its a freeway and has its own identity carrying commuters around the North Boston area.
My only reason to keep both are for nostalgic purposes as the west has too many decommissioned routes.
Quote from: DandyDan on February 10, 2014, 04:26:21 PM
Quote from: Brandon on February 10, 2014, 10:32:15 AM
I might catch some flak for this, but US-6.
I think that depends on whether you are talking on a national level or a local level...Of course, the real question is whether you need a US Highway shield to sign those particular roads. Or any shield, for that matter.
Right. I think a lot of these arguments boil down to how broad of a perspective you want to take and what you consider to be a duplication.
Take US 6, for example. On a national level, it connects Massachusetts to Chicago, Denver, then (formerly) LA. Sure, I-84, 80, 76, 70, and 15 do roughly the same today. But on a more regional level, there are corridors, like in the northern tier of PA, where US 6 does serve a purpose for the manufacturing, timber, oil, and more recently, gas industries–as well as the people and communities in those northern counties–in a way that the parallel I-80 does not. And I believe that this kind of a corridor does warrant a numerical designation–whether that be a US route or not.
On the other hand, the US 6 designation being overlaid onto local streets, important though they may be (such as in Omaha/Council Bluffs) is probably of no benefit.
I do agree that these long distance routes could probably be split up, although for the purposes of simplicity, the designations themselves could be left untouched for the most part–just decommission the unnecessary parts. For example, heading west, decommission US 6 between Bolton and Scranton. Place a couple of signs reading "US 6 - FOLLOW I-384 WEST TO I-84 WEST" . Then at the western terminus of I-84, US 6 signs reappear. This would allow the designation to remain unchanged in corridors where it has local and regional importance but avoid cluttering up sign messages where it merely overlaps or closely parallels a more modern route.
US 6 is an important truck route through most of Indiana and northeastern Ohio. A surprising amount of manufacturing takes place within a few miles of the road. Yes, I get the point that it may not have that much national significance. You could call it SR-6 (and O-6?) and it works as well, but I think there are a lot of other US highways that are more expendable.
US 11 in Louisiana! Superceded by US 90 and I-10/59.
US 84 between Winnfield and Jena, and US 71 between Bunkie and US 190. Other than those routes, our US routes are actually useful.
US 425 is useless because of number.
Nexus 7
Quote from: roadman65 on February 10, 2014, 07:35:09 PM
What about US 5? It is totally in the shadows of I-91 its entire length. US 3, even though most of it is with I-93, from Nashua to I-95 its a freeway and has its own identity carrying commuters around the North Boston area.
My only reason to keep both are for nostalgic purposes as the west has too many decommissioned routes.
I'm not sure why that's a problem--a lot of US routes have parallel interstates that were built later. My one gripe with US 3 is why it ends where it does rather than following MA 3 down to US 6 by Cape Cod.
Quote from: dgolub on February 14, 2014, 08:48:09 AMI'm not sure why that's a problem--a lot of US routes have parallel interstates that were built later. My one gripe with US 3 is why it ends where it does rather than following MA 3 down to US 6 by Cape Cod.
The reasoning for the now-odd US 3/MA 3 hand-off point in Cambridge is due to that location originally (prior to 1971) had US 1 (& MA 28) intersecting w/it.
South of that location, US 1/ MA 3/28 multiplexed w/each other for a short distance to where MA 28 met its MA C28 partner and MA 3 piggy-backed w/US 1 until it breaks east (along the present MA 203) towards the Southeast Expressway.
When the C-routes were abolished in 1971, for some reason & despite the MassDPW relocating MA 3 to its current locations (in hindsight, they shouldn't have bothered given the fact that the Southeast Expressway was on its way to becoming a de-facto Interstate a year later); they chose not to move the US 3/MA 3 hand-off location to where MA 3 then multiplexed w/US 1, at the Storrow Drive/Longfellow Bridge interchange (most of Storrow Drive was US 1 from 1971 to 1989, it was MA C1 prior to 1971). Whether the DPW sought permission from AASHTO to extend US 3 southeast (and it got rejected) or didn't bother to do so is unknown.
As far as MassDPW/MassHighway/MassDOT not making all of Route 3 (to Sagamore) a US route is concerned; they
probably did not want to any north-south US highway located east of US 1, despite other states having such. Mind you, the above is only
speculation; no more no less.
Quote from: 1 on February 10, 2014, 03:25:51 PM
And in Massachusetts, it (US 6) is very important.
But only east of the Cape Cod Canal.
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 14, 2014, 09:27:49 AM
Quote from: dgolub on February 14, 2014, 08:48:09 AMI'm not sure why that's a problem--a lot of US routes have parallel interstates that were built later. My one gripe with US 3 is why it ends where it does rather than following MA 3 down to US 6 by Cape Cod.
The reasoning for the now-odd US 3/MA 3 hand-off point in Cambridge is due to that location originally (prior to 1971) had US 1 (& MA 28) intersecting w/it.
*cough cough* The handover actually happens at Massachusetts Avenue. That was the original route of US 1 in the 1920s, but 1 pretty soon after came up VFW Pkwy. to Storrow. For whatever reason, the 3/3 handoff never moved to the south end of the Longfellow Bridge where it would have made sense.
US 83 Biz in San Ygnacio, TX.
Quote from: Brandon on February 10, 2014, 03:32:21 PMBut what does US-6 really do west of the Hudson River?
It's the major east/west route across the northern tier of Pennsylvania. I-80 is about 50 miles to the south, and I-86 is about 30 miles to the north.
There's probably a solid 20% of US Highway mileage that is no longer needed. Anything that just parallels an interstate (or worse, is concurrent with it) for hundreds of miles can just go away as far as I'm concerned. Nostalgia is not a good enough reason to keep them around. State highways can handle any emergency detour duties just fine.
Furthermore, I am in favor of allowing US highways to be discontinuous. Many of them have long, unsigned concurrencies anyway so just make it official. I've been in New Mexico for a couple months now and I have not seen a single US 85 shield despite US 85 being on all these different maps. I've seen a vestigial US 80 shield in Deming, but in driving some 75% of the old alignment and the entirety of I-25, no sighting of US 85. The hard part is already done in that case.
Then I can't help but point out the high density of US Highways in the Southeast in general, but South Carolina in particular. Way more US Highways than one would predict based on population. All these 3 digit routes that wander around, multiplex with each other for long distances and generally lack any importance. That herd could use some thinning.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on February 17, 2014, 11:46:38 PM
Anything that just parallels an interstate (or worse, is concurrent with it) for hundreds of miles can just go away as far as I'm concerned.
Something wrong with US 5?
Quote from: Alps on February 14, 2014, 06:36:42 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 14, 2014, 09:27:49 AMThe reasoning for the now-odd US 3/MA 3 hand-off point in Cambridge is due to that location originally (prior to 1971) had US 1 (& MA 28) intersecting w/it.
*cough cough* The handover actually happens at Massachusetts Avenue. That was the original route of US 1 in the 1920s, but 1 pretty soon after came up VFW Pkwy. to Storrow. For whatever reason, the 3/3 handoff never moved to the south end of the Longfellow Bridge where it would have made sense.
*
cough cough* again. The US/MA 3 hand-off location is
still in Cambridge per my original post and not Boston. :sombrero:
As far as the shifting of the hand-off east towards Mass Ave., which likely occurred in 1971 as well, one has to wonder if the reasoning for not extending US 3 further east along Memorial Drive from Mass Ave. to the Longfellow Bridge has to do with the very low bridge & overpass clearances along that stretch of road. Some of those clearances might be lower than even those along Storrow Drive; that might've been too much for AASHTO to swallow.
Another reason why the MassDPW shouldn't have monkeyed around with the re-routing US/MA 3 between Cambridge and Neponset Circle back in '71.
The 1989 AASHTO log has US 3 ending at US 20 in Boston. Thus AASHTO had jack shit to do with the state-level change.
Quote from: NE2 on February 18, 2014, 10:40:57 AM
The 1989 AASHTO log has US 3 ending at US 20 in Boston. Thus AASHTO had jack shit to do with the state-level change.
The updated 2009 AASHTO database has US 3 ending at MA 3, the mileage coincides with the intersection with MA 2A.
http://route.transportation.org/Pages/U.S.RouteNumberDatabase%28Dec2009%29.aspx (http://route.transportation.org/Pages/U.S.RouteNumberDatabase%28Dec2009%29.aspx)
Presumably MassDOT submitted a correction. But the important point is that AASHTO had nothing to do with the 1970s change.
US 63 in Louisiana. Either replace 167 with 63 or get rid of it.
I'm still trying to figure the point of US 371 and US 425.
Finally, any business route that serves no modern purpose of navigation. Especially 90 BUS in Lafayette.
Quote from: jbnv on February 18, 2014, 11:13:36 AM
I'm still trying to figure the point of US 425.
It's a more direct route than US 65 (and should therefore be a realigned US 65 or US x65).
How about all those routes numbered US 1A in Maine? Are they useless?
Quote from: NE2 on February 14, 2014, 09:16:09 PM
US 83 Biz in San Ygnacio, TX.
Is this for real? Why?
Quote from: jbnv on February 18, 2014, 11:13:36 AM
I'm still trying to figure the point of US 371 and US 425.
400 and 412 seem significantly more useless to me.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on February 18, 2014, 01:20:34 PM
Quote from: jbnv on February 18, 2014, 11:13:36 AM
I'm still trying to figure the point of US 371 and US 425.
400 and 412 seem significantly more useless to me.
US 400 is not useless, did you not hear the latest news. That everybody from SW Missouri is flocking to Lamar, CO. Wichita and Dodge City are going to have a tourist boom for those tired from travel to stop and patronize their businesses.
Yeah, probably in somebody at AASHTO dreams it is, of course.
My "Most useless US Hwys" list, not including Truck/Business/Alternate/Bypass:
1. US 1A (All Maine)
2. US 201A
3. US 46
4. US 202 (which includes erroneous MA 202 :pan:)
5. US 5 (it's obsolete)
6. US 44
7. US 11 (obsolete except in northern New York)
8. US 6 (only important Pennsylvania and east)
9. US 201
10. Any state route signed with a US sign (e. g. US 34 in Ithaca NY)
You forgot US 130 to your list. Its completely overshadowed by the NJ Turnpike and I-295 both.
Quote from: 1 on February 18, 2014, 04:08:02 PM
My "Most useless US Hwys" list, not including Truck/Business/Alternate/Bypass:
1. US 1A (All Maine)
2. US 201A
If you're excluding "Truck/Business/
Alternate/Bypass" routes, then I'd think that by any reasonable definition of the term, you should exclude the first two from your list.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on February 18, 2014, 01:20:34 PM
412 seem significantly more useless to me.
US 412 is not even mentioned on I-25.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on February 18, 2014, 01:20:34 PM
Quote from: jbnv on February 18, 2014, 11:13:36 AM
I'm still trying to figure the point of US 371 and US 425.
400 and 412 seem significantly more useless to me.
412 actually makes sense as a single corridor, whether you like the number or not. It should have a single number, at least on the non-duplexed portions.
Quote from: bugo on February 18, 2014, 10:44:39 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on February 18, 2014, 01:20:34 PM
Quote from: jbnv on February 18, 2014, 11:13:36 AM
I'm still trying to figure the point of US 371 and US 425.
400 and 412 seem significantly more useless to me.
412 actually makes sense as a single corridor, whether you like the number or not. It should have a single number, at least on the non-duplexed portions.
But wouldn't it be more logical to renumber 412 as something that comes more closely to fitting in the grid? US 364? US 470? US 72, then redesignate the current US 72 as either US 74 or 76? Better yet, extend US 76 W from Chattanooga along US 64 to Pulaski, then N on I-65 to Columbia, then redsignate US 412 as US 76?
quotes, people ~S
Quote from: NE2 on February 18, 2014, 11:04:47 AMBut the important point is that AASHTO had nothing to do with the 1970s change.
With that in mind,
when did AASHTO start requiring states to submit for approval US highway reroutes?
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 19, 2014, 01:30:03 PM
Quote from: NE2 on February 18, 2014, 11:04:47 AMBut the important point is that AASHTO had nothing to do with the 1970s change.
With that in mind, when did AASHTO start requiring states to submit for approval US highway reroutes?
1927. (Including its predecessor organizations).
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on February 19, 2014, 01:37:31 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 19, 2014, 01:30:03 PM
Quote from: NE2 on February 18, 2014, 11:04:47 AMBut the important point is that AASHTO had nothing to do with the 1970s change.
With that in mind, when did AASHTO start requiring states to submit for approval US highway reroutes?
1927. (Including its predecessor organizations).
Okay. That being the case; how did the MassDPW 1971 reroutes of both US 1 & 3 get done
without AASHTO's involvement (of any capacity) per NE2's earlier comment?
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 19, 2014, 01:40:59 PM
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on February 19, 2014, 01:37:31 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 19, 2014, 01:30:03 PM
Quote from: NE2 on February 18, 2014, 11:04:47 AMBut the important point is that AASHTO had nothing to do with the 1970s change.
With that in mind, when did AASHTO start requiring states to submit for approval US highway reroutes?
1927. (Including its predecessor organizations).
Okay. That being the case; how did the MassDPW 1971 reroutes of both US 1 & 3 get done without AASHTO's involvement (of any capacity) per NE2's earlier comment?
They violated the AASHTO requirement that a state not change the routing or marking of a U.S. route. Since AASHTO doesn't have any real enforcement power, states can get away with this.
That said, AASHO logs initially gave only cities and mileage, not intersections. So a change from one point in Boston to another nearby probably wouldn't have required approval back then (not that this applies to US 3, since the new end is in Cambridge).
Quote from: NE2 on February 19, 2014, 03:25:23 PM
That said, AASHO logs initially gave only cities and mileage, not intersections. So a change from one point in Boston to another nearby probably wouldn't have required approval back then (not that this applies to US 3, since the new end is in Cambridge).
According to a scan of an old 1937 map of Boston & vicinity it shows US 3 ending at US 1 at the Memorial Drive/B.U. Bridge in Cambridge. I have an old 1966 Shell map that I believe shows similar (w/MA 3 multiplexing w/US 1 on the Boston side of the bridge). When did
US 3 ever end in the actual City of Boston limits?
FWIW, the 1971 extension of US 3 from the B.U. bridge to Mass Ave. is only about a mile.
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 19, 2014, 04:06:54 PM
When did US 3 ever end in the actual City of Boston limits?
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11529.msg279633#msg279633
Peep and fucen weep.
Quote from: NE2 on February 19, 2014, 04:08:57 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 19, 2014, 04:06:54 PM
When did US 3 ever end in the actual City of Boston limits?
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11529.msg279633#msg279633
Thank you very much for that scan. I will admit that I forgot about that old scan.
Quote from: mcdonaat on February 14, 2014, 01:35:57 AM
US 425 is useless because of number.
I was just looking at a Mississippi map from 2011-2012. Has 425 taken over US 65 in Natchez? The inset map doesn't show 65 signed.
Pictures from 2008:
http://www.millenniumhwy.net/2008_NOLA_Day_3/Pages/295.html
Then move forward using the little right arrow at the top of the page. You'll see the approach from northbound US 61, crossing the bridge into Louisiana and then back to Natchez, and then back north on US 61. (US 98 was mentioned in another thread; these pics will answer some of those questions as well.)
Semantic question: If a US highway designation can be be replaced in a logical manner with a state route, does that make the US highway designation useless? For example, consider US 190 east of US 171 in south Louisiana. I can make a case for replacing 190 with LA 12 from 171 to Baton Rouge, LA 36 from Baton Rouge to Covington, LA 25 from Covington to Mandeville, and LA 22 from Mandeville east. The latter three segments are supplanted by I-12. Is this designation of US 190 useless?
Quote from: hbelkins on February 23, 2014, 03:24:47 PM
Pictures from 2008:
http://www.millenniumhwy.net/2008_NOLA_Day_3/Pages/295.html
Then move forward using the little right arrow at the top of the page. You'll see the approach from northbound US 61, crossing the bridge into Louisiana and then back to Natchez, and then back north on US 61. (US 98 was mentioned in another thread; these pics will answer some of those questions as well.)
It did answer my question. I'll research why this was done.
Quote from: jbnv on February 23, 2014, 03:26:50 PM
Semantic question: If a US highway designation can be be replaced in a logical manner with a state route, does that make the US highway designation useless? For example, consider US 190 east of US 171 in south Louisiana. I can make a case for replacing 190 with LA 12 from 171 to Baton Rouge, LA 36 from Baton Rouge to Covington, LA 25 from Covington to Mandeville, and LA 22 from Mandeville east. The latter three segments are supplanted by I-12. Is this designation of US 190 useless?
The only section of US 190 in La. that still serves an intercity travel purpose is Baton Rouge-Opelousas. Otherwise the rest could be replaced with state designations and through travelers would be none the wiser.
US 80 could be rendered useless in Mississippi between Brandon and Meridian.
US 150 is multiplexed or right along an interstate for almost its entire length.
US 66 was completely useless before they got rid of it.