US Highways were created to move people across the country quickly. Now we have interstate highways to do that. Wouldn't the systems work just as well without US Highways at all?
What would the routes become if the US designations were removed?
Quote from: texaskdog on June 08, 2014, 09:17:43 PM
US Highways were created to move people across the country quickly. Now we have interstate highways to do that. Wouldn't the systems work just as well without US Highways at all?
The US Highways are often good alternatives for people who can't stand Interstates, or are tired of a particular Interstate and are looking for a change of pace. And especially west of the Mississippi, they help fill in the large spaces in the Interstate network, and help the people in those spaces find their way to the Interstates.
Agreed with above, but they would function the same whether they were State (which they really are) or "U.S." highways. Most people wouldn't really notice the difference if they officially became state routes (assuming the states maintained the route numbers), but it would probably drive everyone nuts on this forum.
What about state routes and US routes with the same number close to each other? (example: US 4 and NH 4)
Quote from: 1 on June 08, 2014, 10:11:02 PM
What about state routes and US routes with the same number close to each other? (example: US 4 and NH 4)
That was a bad idea by NH to begin with (not sure of the history), and probably would confuse the average motorist now. I don't think most people notice the difference between state and U.S. highways. States should not be duplicating any numbers for interstate, state or U.S. routes, although many do. U.S/State and interstates are easier to tell apart, but I still laugh when I look at U.S. 74 running right onto I-74 in NC.
I think it's time to turn the U.S. Highway system over to state numbering, or at least scale back the system significantly. When you look at the way US 6 is signed through the Denver area or the way US 169 is signed in Johnson County, Kansas, just to name a couple of examples, it's obvious that significant portions of that highway system are considered irrelevant and that practically no one really cares about the continuity of its routes. From what I've observed, state routes are often treated with more respect; they're usually signed consistently, and they end in appropriate, understandable places because there's less of a reason to dump them on Interstate routes.
US Highways are needed. Sure many states have them next to interstates and many like Colorado do a terrible job signing them when concurrent with interstates, but are still needed in many places like US 101 (hence we hate its unusual number) which serve as a major corridor and used by all kinds of travelers.
However, to decommission them is costly and troublesome like removing US 92 and US 5 that are both in the wake of major interstates their whole length. Plus in Florida we do use the designation in everyday talk. US 17 & 92 are referred to as such and not like the northeast that refers to all route numbers as route x. We do say US 1 and we do say US 92, so we do look at them as more of a major arterial rather than some local road. Even US 192 is looked at a major road because of its importance in the Disney World tourist area and having that gives that stretch more importance to visitors as it stands out in front of the rest of the area road names and numbers.
US highways aren't necessarily needed in the corridors parallel to Interstates, though most here would argue to keep them for nostalgia, grid, etc. (I happen to like them a whole bunch.) But there are so many US routes in their own corridors that the system itself shouldn't die. Examples abound, even in the east: US 6 across PA and NY (and through RI), US 22 across OH, WV and most of PA, US 30 across IN, OH, WV, US 206, US 209, just for starters.
I'd say that they aren't obsolete. The numbers can be kept from state to state, where state highways might end up changing numbers over a few years. Sure, we have the example of TX 12/LA 12, but that's a rarity. US highways do give a solid number to follow, and the Interstates are freeways. You can't really turn US 84 in rural Louisiana into a freeway, nor can you turn it into LA 84 (because you would need to make sure TX would number theirs 84, and the same with MS, CO, AL, and GA).
Just keep em! Why change what ain't broke? I'd trust driving along a US highway more than a state highway, because a state highway could end in the middle of nowhere at a closed gate.
The system implies, "secondary corridor between regionally significant places, that has multi-state importance." As that, it's useful. I'm sure we've all followed a US route between small cities we aren't familiar with and/or that are not necessarily connected by another clear straight route.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on June 09, 2014, 12:00:05 AM
The system implies, "secondary corridor between regionally significant places, that has multi-state importance." As that, it's useful. I'm sure we've all followed a US route between small cities we aren't familiar with and/or that are not necessarily connected by another clear straight route.
That I have. US 79 is used mostly to get from Minden/Shreveport to El Dorado, US 167 from Ruston/Alexandria to El Dorado/Little Rock, US 425 to get from Baton Rouge to Little Rock, and US 84 from Alexandria (via LA 28) to Natchez. Multistate importance is key, and even if it has been bypassed by an Interstate, people growing up knowing a road as "Highway 51" will be confused by it randomly changing for no purpose.
Hence, why Ferriday has US 65.
No, but the Interstates should have continued the U.S. numbering. When Interstates were just a widened or parallel route to an existing U.S. route, they should have taken over the U.S. route number. When they were new routes, they should have been numbered as new U.S. routes of either 2 or 3 digits as appropriate.
Quote from: Alps on June 08, 2014, 11:56:17 PM
US highways aren't necessarily needed in the corridors parallel to Interstates, though most here would argue to keep them for nostalgia, grid, etc. (I happen to like them a whole bunch.) But there are so many US routes in their own corridors that the system itself shouldn't die. Examples abound, even in the east: US 6 across PA and NY (and through RI), US 22 across OH, WV and most of PA, US 30 across IN, OH, WV, US 206, US 209, just for starters.
Some examples of U.S. highways that have significant sections that are not near Interstates (or are needed even though they have sections that are close to one or more Interstates (Warning: East Coast and California bias ahead):
Odd:
1
7
13
15
17
21
27
29
33
41
101
119
201
209
219
221
421
301
322
501
Even:
2
4
6
22
30
40
44
46
48
50
52
58
60
64
70
158
258
202
220
250
264
460
522
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 09, 2014, 02:07:23 AM
Quote from: Alps on June 08, 2014, 11:56:17 PM
US highways aren't necessarily needed in the corridors parallel to Interstates, though most here would argue to keep them for nostalgia, grid, etc. (I happen to like them a whole bunch.) But there are so many US routes in their own corridors that the system itself shouldn't die. Examples abound, even in the east: US 6 across PA and NY (and through RI), US 22 across OH, WV and most of PA, US 30 across IN, OH, WV, US 206, US 209, just for starters.
Some examples of U.S. highways that have significant sections that are not near Interstates (or are needed even though they have sections that are close to one or more Interstates (Warning: East Coast and California bias ahead):
Odd:
Surprised you didn't mention 395, which other than the segments in Spokane, the Washington Tri-Cities, and Reno, really runs apart from any Interstate corridor.
93 (due to its long stretch in Nevada north of Vegas) would also fit this as well.
US 83 and its child routes also fit in nicely in this determination, as does US 281.
US routes should not be decomissioned, as mentioned previously they form a secondary route network to the interstate highway, and in many places compliment it. For example in north dakota US-2 forms the northern east-west route across the state, and does not meet another interstate until it is half way through montana, and it does not meet an east-west interstate until it hits spokane washington. This one US route connects I-75, I-29, I-15 and I-90 accross the northern parts of many states that I-94 does not touch.
How about this? (if someone wants a big project). Strip off all the US highway numbers and put down US highway numbers on the roads that really truly still are national highways or have use away from Interstates, etc.
Some of this is pretty rhetorical but I thought it would make for good discussion.
QuoteHow about this? (if someone wants a big project). Strip off all the US highway numbers and put down US highway numbers on the roads that really truly still are national highways or have use away from Interstates, etc.
Some of this is pretty rhetorical but I thought it would make for good discussion.
I've been working on such a system for about 8 years...close to finished with the 1/2-digit routes. I intend to post it in the Fictional Highways folder when I get to it.
We mention here that many of the interstates that not only are in the shadow of the interstate system that are important, but what of those not near interstates that are not very independent on their own ? Those that are not near an interstate that serve really no purpose as a major corridor. Those that act as a glorified local road and only us road geeks have actually clinched end to end in one sitting. US routes like US 4, US 160, and some here may even argue US 400 (although I say despite its unusual numbering it does create a full corridor across Southern Kansas) are not used primarily as through routes but long local corridors between points along its route.
From Albany, NY to Concord, NH no one ever uses US 4 to complete its journey even without the Mass Pike being built. Most would have used NY 7, VT 9, and NH 9 as it is most direct where US 4 goes way north to Whitehall before turning east and then SE after Rutland. It is used mainly as a regional corridor for points between that are several miles apart, but not in the long run for it.
These too maybe something to consider as well as US 98 in the peninsula of Florida. Does anyone actually use US 98 from West Palm Beach to Perry? Does anyone even go from Lakeland to Perry or Lakeland to West Palm Beach? There are plenty of these types of scenarios where independent US routes are not used for the long haul or make up major arterials. Do we consider these for distinction as well?
Your argument discounts the fact that most people use US 4 out of the Capitol Region to go to/from/through Vermont...which by the book is still an inter-state function. Sure, they're not using it all the way from Albany to Concord, but that doesn't mean it's not an important or major route in other aspects.
That is why I say regional corridor. For those from the Capital Region to Northern Vermont is regional considering that from Albany area to Portsmouth, NH is what US 4 runs, it only makes about a third to half. Basically US 4 is 2 or 3 different corridors that use the same number.
From White River Junction to Concord it is one corridor because there I-89 takes the through traffic away and locally used there, so from Albany to Rutland areas are another one and from Rutland (Northern VT) to the NH Seacoast is number three (along with I-89).
Quote from: froggie on June 09, 2014, 09:07:06 AM
QuoteHow about this? (if someone wants a big project). Strip off all the US highway numbers and put down US highway numbers on the roads that really truly still are national highways or have use away from Interstates, etc.
Some of this is pretty rhetorical but I thought it would make for good discussion.
I've been working on such a system for about 8 yearsÂ…close to finished with the 1/2-digit routes. I intend to post it in the Fictional Highways folder when I get to it.
SOmething for me to look forward to this summer. 8 years dang!!
I had commented on this subject on an earlier posting thread that I had started several years ago. But here would be my "solution" to the question raised in this thread:
1. I would more or less use a "California" solution to US Highways nationwide - I would not eliminate the US Highway system but I would pair the total mileage down substantially, leaving important routes that compliment Interstate Highways and connect large "un-served" areas of the country to the Interstate Highway System intact.
2. I would allow discontinuous segments of US Highways -make official what many states are already doing "de-facto" - long sections where US Highways share the alignment with Interstates (e.g. - US 40 in Missouri and Kansas and much of US 87, etc), those highways would be officially be decommissioned where they share roadways with interstates). Intact sections of the same US highway could connect to the interstate at either end. Shorter sections of concurrencies would include full US highway signage.
3. Drastically expand the "Historic US Route" designation. Include old parallel sections of US Highways alongside interstates and in other areas that could include roadways that are locally maintained as well state maintained. That way, famous old sections of roadways could be remembered and commemorated beyond US 66, even as they serve a much less useful through traffic purpose today. That way, they could still be driven over long distances.
I don't expect any of my "recommendations" to happen. The current system is not terrible, and I don't see the desire or money to change it. Getting rid of the US highways altogether would be worse than leaving as is, IMHO.
If it wasn't for US 130, I'd have no clue how to get from North Jersey to South Jersey!
But seriously, I do think US routes still serve a very important purpose. Many people may use them as local routes within town or from one town to the next, but people do the same with interstates, with many trips being simple commutes to work or the mall. Interstates are great to get from city to city via long distances. US routes serve the same purpose connection small & medium size towns.
The current US Highway system has evolved into a brand name rather than a system of through highways in many areas. Not all US Highways are useless parallel highways either, though many are. The current systems provides three things of interest at least in Tennessee.
1. Convenient system of highways with through number to provide an adequate system of highways in which one may navigate in lieu of the interstate. This is especially convenient in the case of emergency closures. It is much easier to put signs up on the big road like use US 41 next XX miles due to emergency road closure then it would to say put up a bunch of detour signs.
2. Tourism
3. Economic development. TDEC can sell an area better by saying that it is served by four-lane US 43 and US 64 then say SR 6 and SR 15.
Thousands of miles of the US highway system are obsolete and should be decommissioned into state or even county roads in some places. The long concurrencies with interstates should be gotten rid of. Ones that have been superseded by an interstate should also go away. I have no problem creating official gaps in US highways like some of the examples mentioned. There are also areas of the Southeast where the density of US highway routes seems way out of proportion to the population density. The locus of this anomaly seems to be South Carolina. Some thinning should probably occur in these areas.
US highways are a secondary system of national roads and I think interstates should always take precedent over US routes. If there's ever a conflict, like with US 41 and the forthcoming I-41, the interstates should win. Or there's some state highway using a number that would be useful for an interstate. The interstate should win. Every time.
We've renumbered countless miles of highway in our history. People adapted and figured it out. It's not that much of a burden.
I have also been playing with a series of maps looking to pare down the mileage of US highways I feel is no longer necessary. It's a long process as I'm sure Froggie can attest (but the fun is more in the process, not the product; for me at least). The US Highway system really becomes a tangled web in certain places; whatever rules the system is supposed to follow have been chucked out the window. It is very cobbled together and the disorder makes it less useful.
You also have to take in the region as well where the US routes are. In the Northeast US routes are generally state highways with funny shields.
In the South they are the primary roads with state designations as the secondary roads. In Florida the US routes are the same as 0 ending cross state routes, as the three digits act as connectors and the county roads are the true secondary either in rural county highways or major urban arterials that are not part of the state system.
Out west they are the same as interstates, but without the freeway hence the decommissionings and silent duplexes. Once an interstate comes in to the picture it is redundant of the new freeway except on toll roads. Hence if it were not for the KTA US 81 south of Wichita would be paired with I-35 as it is with I-135 north of Wichita.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on June 09, 2014, 03:13:22 PM
Thousands of miles of the US highway system are obsolete and should be decommissioned into state or even county roads in some places. The long concurrencies with interstates should be gotten rid of. Ones that have been superseded by an interstate should also go away. I have no problem creating official gaps in US highways like some of the examples mentioned. There are also areas of the Southeast where the density of US highway routes seems way out of proportion to the population density. The locus of this anomaly seems to be South Carolina. Some thinning should probably occur in these areas.
US highways are a secondary system of national roads and I think interstates should always take precedent over US routes. If there's ever a conflict, like with US 41 and the forthcoming I-41, the interstates should win. Or there's some state highway using a number that would be useful for an interstate. The interstate should win. Every time.
We've renumbered countless miles of highway in our history. People adapted and figured it out. It's not that much of a burden.
I have also been playing with a series of maps looking to pare down the mileage of US highways I feel is no longer necessary. It's a long process as I'm sure Froggie can attest (but the fun is more in the process, not the product; for me at least). The US Highway system really becomes a tangled web in certain places; whatever rules the system is supposed to follow have been chucked out the window. It is very cobbled together and the disorder makes it less useful.
Well said!
It's a nice system to have that can be complementary to the Interstate system, but a number of roads on it have no purpose for being a part of it, like US 159. The thing about it is that there is no consistency in it, unlike the Interstate system. A large number of roads a part of the system should probably be removed, largely roads which parallel the Interstates. Some of this may lead to a large scale renumbering.
As mentioned earlier, the US highway system supplements the Interstate system, either scenically or buisnessally. It also provides a sense of continuity across the country. Even without it paralleling an Interstate it may not provide the most direct route between points A and B since new state highways have been constructed after the US highway. In those cases I believe the US highway should be routed onto the state route and the state route onto the US highway. But in a couple of cases they can fill a major gap in the Interstate system where they are upgraded to an expresssway, but a logical Interstate number can't be applied. (I.e. US 67 in AR and US 15 in PA) And in those cases, I believe the US highway number should be kept.
Also, IMO interstates and US highways shouldn't contain the same number in the same state. Cough, I-41, cough cough. :spin:
Quote from: billtm on June 09, 2014, 04:34:53 PM
Also, IMO interstates and US highways shouldn't contain the same number in the same state. Cough, I-41, cough cough. :spin:
I-74 and I-24 also violate that rule.
I-69 and US 69 now do in Texas too.
I would like to see if US 83 gets truncated when I-69E gets finished?
Quote from: Henry on June 09, 2014, 04:36:19 PM
Quote from: billtm on June 09, 2014, 04:34:53 PM
Also, IMO interstates and US highways shouldn't contain the same number in the same state. Cough, I-41, cough cough. :spin:
I-74 and I-24 also violate that rule.
If I controlled the Interstate system, I would give I-24 a pass, but I-74 makes me want to do this: :banghead:.
The same with I-41 :banghead:
:bigass:
Quote from: roadman65 on June 09, 2014, 04:37:23 PM
I-69 and US 69 now do in Texas too.
Future I-69 from Texarkana south becomes Future I-47. Problem solved. :bigass:
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on June 09, 2014, 01:49:53 PM
3. Economic development. TDEC can sell an area better by saying that it is served by four-lane US 43 and US 64 then say SR 6 and SR 15.
I don't think being on a US highway has any effect on economic development. Being on an interstate does, but not a US route. If I say US 119, am I talking about the four-lane such as between Pikeville and South Williamson, or the curvy, narrow two-lane between Whitesburg and Cumberland?
With an interstate, you know what you're getting. Definitely not true with a US highway.
Okay: who here believes that people in general would travel on a US highway just because its a US highway assuming it will be a higher quality road? Or if google maps (or whatever) suggested a different route of travel would you take it in leiu of a US highway?
QuoteThe current US Highway system has evolved into a brand name rather than a system of through highways in many areas.
Not really. The Interstate system has become the brand name....far moreso than the US routes.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on June 09, 2014, 03:13:22 PM
Thousands of miles of the US highway system are obsolete and should be decommissioned into state or even county roads in some places. The long concurrencies with interstates should be gotten rid of. Ones that have been superseded by an interstate should also go away. I have no problem creating official gaps in US highways like some of the examples mentioned. There are also areas of the Southeast where the density of US highway routes seems way out of proportion to the population density. The locus of this anomaly seems to be South Carolina. Some thinning should probably occur in these areas.
US highways are a secondary system of national roads and I think interstates should always take precedent over US routes. If there's ever a conflict, like with US 41 and the forthcoming I-41, the interstates should win. Or there's some state highway using a number that would be useful for an interstate. The interstate should win. Every time.
We've renumbered countless miles of highway in our history. People adapted and figured it out. It's not that much of a burden.
I have also been playing with a series of maps looking to pare down the mileage of US highways I feel is no longer necessary. It's a long process as I'm sure Froggie can attest (but the fun is more in the process, not the product; for me at least). The US Highway system really becomes a tangled web in certain places; whatever rules the system is supposed to follow have been chucked out the window. It is very cobbled together and the disorder makes it less useful.
This sums it up well. In some states more so than others, but rather than making the US highway system a system of discontinuous routes, why not extend the Interstate highway numbering system for these primary US routes? The Interstate system is essentially
the inter-city highway system for the country. There is really no need to conflate a the highest standard of road with the national numbering system. All that does is to encourage the waste of billions of dollars upgrading highways only to get the coveted Interstate shield. In many cases, why couldn't a modern expressway or roads like the parkways in Kentucky be marked as Interstate highways even if the shield bears different colors to distinguish the grade of highway?
Quote from: TheStranger on June 09, 2014, 05:27:14 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 09, 2014, 02:07:23 AM
Quote from: Alps on June 08, 2014, 11:56:17 PM
US highways aren't necessarily needed in the corridors parallel to Interstates, though most here would argue to keep them for nostalgia, grid, etc. (I happen to like them a whole bunch.) But there are so many US routes in their own corridors that the system itself shouldn't die. Examples abound, even in the east: US 6 across PA and NY (and through RI), US 22 across OH, WV and most of PA, US 30 across IN, OH, WV, US 206, US 209, just for starters.
Some examples of U.S. highways that have significant sections that are not near Interstates (or are needed even though they have sections that are close to one or more Interstates (Warning: East Coast and California bias ahead):
Odd:
Surprised you didn't mention 395, which other than the segments in Spokane, the Washington Tri-Cities, and Reno, really runs apart from any Interstate corridor.
93 (due to its long stretch in Nevada north of Vegas) would also fit this as well.
US 95 also fits this bill in Nevada. It comprises about 75% of the highway link between the major population centers in the state (Las Vegas and Reno/Carson City).
Thus, I believe that US Routes still do serve a legitimate purpose, and we shouldn't just ditch the system. However, there are areas where the system could be pared down quite a bit...it still amazes me how dense and overlapped some areas of the country are with their routes.
Like US 311. Where does it go but around the bend and through the woods. It is in no way a continuous throughofare.
I think most US highways are obsolete, but I still think they should keep their numbers (and they should never be rerouted onto the Interstates).
In some areas, maybe a bit, but US-101, 97, 95, 395, and 93 have something to say about that. All quite important routes with no nearby interstates. And that's just the N-S routes in the west.
Once upon a time, when annoyed at the messiness of overlapping Interstate and US routes, and the fuss associated with localities seeking a shiny new number to go on a new red-white-and-blue shield when upgrading an existing route, I dreamed up the idea of simply replacing the current Interstate and US highway numbering systems with a new hybrid National highway numbering system.
The general standards would have been along these lines:
Highway numbers would be 3di's or 4di's.
Routes 100-299: long-distance highways - transcontinental or nearly so. Traditional major corridors would get xx0 or xx5 numbers, Even numbers go east-west, odd numbers go north-south. Numbers would be unique within the system. Initial number assignments would leave gaps where possible for future expansion.
Routes 300-399: long distance diagonal routes, or future use. Numbers unique within the system.
Routes 400-599: regional routes, assigned in a grid pattern (initially with gaps for future expansion), with the grid repeating as necessary. There might be a 401 in California, another in Texas, and another in Virginia, for example.
Routes 600-700: local connectors, spurs, loops in the national highway system. Numbers unique within a state, not necessarily related to any parent route or assigned in a particular pattern; number assignments instead made as to minimize potential confusion with other national routes.
Routes 800-899, 1000-9999: state use. Such routes not formally part of the national highway system, but states wishing to sign certain routes with national highway shields could assign numbers within these ranges.
Routes 900-999: special use -- connections to intermodal facilities, national park routes, etc. Numbers unique within a state.
Additionally, highway numbers would be prefixed with a letter, to designate the grade of a highway:
X = interstate-standard
A = sub-standard freeways, expressways
B = generally "good" sub-expressway routes
C = inferior route
D = hazardous route that is nonetheless part of the system
...with perhaps some possible variation (based on defined specifications, not political pressure) to allow for relaxation of eligibility for class A and B signage in rural/remote areas, or to accept some grandfathering for continuity's sake. (E.g., I can't imagine seeing the Pennsylvania Turnpike or I-84 in Hartford being downgraded through the introduction of a new numbering scheme.)
National highway trailblazers would also be color-coded to reflect the grade of a highway segment (a la New Brunswick).
Grading would be based on the nature of the route between intersections with other national highway routes, or an ultimate terminus. (E.g., to qualify for an "X", a highway segment would generally have to be interstate-standard between one intersecting X-route and another intersecting X-or-A route or the highway's terminus.) As segments of a route get upgraded, the prefix and trailblazer color would change, but the route number would continue on.
For example, consider Corridor X. Under this kind of scheme, it would have gone from "B78" to "A78" to most of it eventually becoming "X78", without the need for a new interstate number to be assigned and without the messiness of what to do with the US78 designation.
Similarly, for the Las Vegas - Phoenix freeway, there wouldn't need to be the whole rigmarole of getting I-11 assigned to the corridor. Keep the "93" designation, and relabel/resign it as "X93" as the freeway is built.
Given the expense of resigning highways, and the attachment people feel towards their highway numbers and the Interstate brand, a complete restructuring such as this will never happen....but it's kind of fun to think about.
The main problem with the US Highway system began well before 1956, IMHO. The original system, as created in 1925-26 was a decent system meant for interstate travel and would've translated well to the freeway system in 1956. However, by 1956, the system was a hopeless tangle of 2duses and 3duses that made little to no sense and covered a lot of local routes in addition to the 1925-26 intent. I mean, seriously, was US-6 really needed across most of the country? Did US-52 need to be extended northwest toward Saskatchewan? Do we need US-395 to be longer than US-95, or US-191 longer than US-91? Had the system not been abused so badly by 1956, the numbers and shields could've just been translated to the new interstate system as an extension of the US Highway system. If you doubt me, look at the 1925-26 map of the system versus the 1956 map of the system.
Quote from: texaskdog on June 09, 2014, 06:26:26 PM
Okay: who here believes that people in general would travel on a US highway just because its a US highway assuming it will be a higher quality road? Or if google maps (or whatever) suggested a different route of travel would you take it in leiu of a US highway?
Well, higher quality than what? Other things being equal, I'd expect a U.S. highway to be at least a decent 2-lane road. If the alternative is a county road or Forest Service road, and I wanted a safe and efficient drive, I'd go with the U.S. route.
However, they are clearly no comparison with interstates.
Quote from: Brandon on June 10, 2014, 05:40:01 PM
Do we need US-395 to be longer than US-95, or US-191 longer than US-91? Had the system not been abused so badly by 1956, the numbers and shields could've just been translated to the new interstate system as an extension of the US Highway system. If you doubt me, look at the 1925-26 map of the system versus the 1956 map of the system.
To be fair, much of 191's extensions occurred in the 1980s and 1990s; 91 was still a pretty substantial route in 1956.
No. In many places, a US route is the main road to take between two major cities. They should be left alone.
Quote from: kkt on June 10, 2014, 05:51:48 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on June 09, 2014, 06:26:26 PM
Okay: who here believes that people in general would travel on a US highway just because its a US highway assuming it will be a higher quality road? Or if google maps (or whatever) suggested a different route of travel would you take it in leiu of a US highway?
Well, higher quality than what? Other things being equal, I'd expect a U.S. highway to be at least a decent 2-lane road. If the alternative is a county road or Forest Service road, and I wanted a safe and efficient drive, I'd go with the U.S. route.
However, they are clearly no comparison with interstates.
They truly aren't in comparison. I take US routes mostly because the Interstates are way too crowded. I can take my time and not have to worry about being run over by 75 MPH traffic. US 90 is way more important than the state highways close to it, and the same with US 171, US 61, and US 79 north of Minden. However, some US highways have been bypassed by the Interstates (US 80 is in the shadows of I-20 the entire time), but still serve the purpose. You have a single number linking tons of small town business districts (US 80 serves as one the courthouse square streets, or comes within 4 streets, for Caddo, Webster, Bienville, Lincoln, Ouachita, Richland, and Madison Parishes. The only exception is Ouachita, where the former alignment of US 80 comes within 4 streets).
Interstates > US highways > State highways > County roads > Forest roads. US highways always trump state highways, because they have one number. Most state highways here are one or two parishes at the most. US highways are the long haul numbers.
Some US routes are certainly important as they serve corridors which Interstates do not traverse. Other US routes are essentially obsolete, as their functions have been usurped by parallel Interstates. A third subset of US routes are not paralleled by Interstates, but have nonsensical or otherwise indirect routings which call into question their use as long-haul routes.
US highways serve a role "in between" Interstate and state routes and should not disappear. Potentially a different sort of route could fill that role, but for tradition's sake the US route should fill the role, however imperfectly. In any case, the US highway system needs reform, not elimination. Removing less useful and obsolete routes, combining other routes where logical corridors exist, or splitting routes where a logical continuous corridor does not exist are reasonable changes that could be made.
As for US routes serving as "detour" or parallel routings to Interstates, I still hold out hope that a DETOUR or ALTERNATE Interstate banner could be adopted to fill that need.
Some states, like Michigan, upgraded US highways without converting them to Interstate numbers. US 31 and US 131 are certainly not minor unneeded routes - even though 131 is a single-state US route.
Those that were replaced by Interstates were decommissioned (e.g. US 16, 25, 27).
And some are "hybrid" - US 23 is an important freeway route in it's own right between Toledo and Flint, is cosigned with I-75 up to Bay City, and becomes a regional route along Lake Huron for the rest of it's Michigan length. It's also a hybrid through Ohio, at least north of Columbus, then becomes a regional route into the South.
In some cases, the "old road" was kept as a state-maintained route, whether numbered (e.g. M-13) or not (Old 131).
There is still a place for the US Highways, although I agree that many of them should be decommissioned in parts or entirely.
Quote from: GaryV on June 10, 2014, 08:04:52 PM
Some states, like Michigan, upgraded US highways without converting them to Interstate numbers. US 31 and US 131 are certainly not minor unneeded routes - even though 131 is a single-state US route.
Nope. US 131 barely, and I mean BARELY goes into Indiana to end at I-80/90.
Quote from: Urban Prairie Schooner on June 10, 2014, 07:58:36 PM
Some US routes are certainly important as they serve corridors which Interstates do not traverse. Other US routes are essentially obsolete, as their functions have been usurped by parallel Interstates. A third subset of US routes are not paralleled by Interstates, but have nonsensical or otherwise indirect routings which call into question their use as long-haul routes.
US highways serve a role "in between" Interstate and state routes and should not disappear. Potentially a different sort of route could fill that role, but for tradition's sake the US route should fill the role, however imperfectly. In any case, the US highway system needs reform, not elimination. Removing less useful and obsolete routes, combining other routes where logical corridors exist, or splitting routes where a logical continuous corridor does not exist are reasonable changes that could be made.
As for US routes serving as "detour" or parallel routings to Interstates, I still hold out hope that a DETOUR or ALTERNATE Interstate banner could be adopted to fill that need.
A lot of that could be solved by appropriate numbering of county or state roads. For example, Louisville could sign a Jefferson County 265A to serve that purpose - or just extend KY 1065 to follow more of I-265.
For nostalgic purposes the US routes should be kept, however in a perfect sense routes like US 3, and US 5 should be eliminated as for the former it is totally in the shadow of I-91 and the latter has it mostly near I-93 with only some miles independent north of Franconia Notch not long enough to be one corridor.
Of course you have US 22 in New Jersey that even though close to I-78, it still is a major road above the rest around the area and should be raised higher than the typical state route as the same for US 1 there.
If a route is in the shadow of an interstate, but generates a lot of regional traffic a US route is useful. Even though Caltrans would decommission US 41, US 1, US 90, and US 23 (which really serves no purpose in FL anymore) in Florida, it still, I think, makes sense in this case to keep.
Most of this is if a need was to arise and the renumbering of the current system were to be implemented only. Right now I see no more need to remove routes from the list and like I said for nostalgia it is nice to see it still, especially east of the Mississippi.
5 is definitely obsolete, but there is no point in changing its number.
And you may have mixed up 3 and 5. 3 parallels 93, and 5 parallels 91.
They're not obsolete. They are both regional and local corridors and alternatives to the parallel freeways. The only US routes that are obsolete are old alignments that are now frontage roads (like old US 71 and old US 40 in Missouri). I wouldn't use "obsolete" as it is not an accurate word.
Quote from: 1 on June 11, 2014, 11:02:11 AM
5 is definitely obsolete, but there is no point in changing its number.
And you may have mixed up 3 and 5. 3 parallels 93, and 5 parallels 91.
No you are right which is why I said only if the case did arrive at where a major renumbering would occur.
So I did mess up the two routes LOL! Oh well, I guess we all do funny things at times. I am aware, though, that US 5 is for I-91 and US 3 is for I-93. I just used former and latter wrong.
Quote from: bugo on June 11, 2014, 11:05:10 AM
They're not obsolete. They are both regional and local corridors and alternatives to the parallel freeways. The only US routes that are obsolete are old alignments that are now frontage roads (like old US 71 and old US 40 in Missouri). I wouldn't use "obsolete" as it is not an accurate word.
Also US 301 in Southern Virginia where it runs right next to I-95 for several miles and VDOT signs it as such. It would be better to be concurrent with I-95 and have the counties maintain the US 301 that is a frontage road to I-95 like Jasper County, SC did with US 17.
Quote from: tidecat on June 10, 2014, 10:15:50 PM
A lot of that could be solved by appropriate numbering of county or state roads. For example, Louisville could sign a Jefferson County 265A to serve that purpose - or just extend KY 1065 to follow more of I-265.
They've sorta done that with KY 1747. It took over the numbering of KY 1631.
Quote from: roadman65 on June 11, 2014, 11:10:41 AMAlso US 301 in Southern Virginia where it runs right next to I-95 for several miles and VDOT signs it as such. It would be better to be concurrent with I-95 and have the counties maintain the US 301 that is a frontage road to I-95 like Jasper County, SC did with US 17.
Wasn't 301 a four-lane road, and the northbound lanes of it became the southbound lanes of 95?
Quote from: bugo on June 11, 2014, 11:05:10 AM
They're not obsolete. They are both regional and local corridors and alternatives to the parallel freeways.
I would argue that a good rule of thumb as to whether a highway deserves a federal designation (Interstate or US Highway) is whether it's actually officially part of the National Highway System.
The only stretch of US 5 that's part of the NHS is the section running from East Hartford, CT to East Windsor, CT
The rest of US 5 is arguably obsolete, at least within the context of it being a thoroughfare used to mapping together areas/destinations of national significance.
That isn't to say that the balance of US 5 isn't an important thoroughfare -- a significant artery for local or inter-town traffic -- but isn't that role better served with a state highway designation?
Quote from: hbelkins on June 11, 2014, 12:37:14 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on June 11, 2014, 11:10:41 AMAlso US 301 in Southern Virginia where it runs right next to I-95 for several miles and VDOT signs it as such. It would be better to be concurrent with I-95 and have the counties maintain the US 301 that is a frontage road to I-95 like Jasper County, SC did with US 17.
Wasn't 301 a four-lane road, and the northbound lanes of it became the southbound lanes of 95?
Yes...
301 also used to have a stoplight at VA 40.
I *think* they built I-77/81 the same way but elected to put US 11-52 on the completed freeway.
When they built I-77 NB on top of two-way US 21-52 south of Rocky Gap, they built a new frontage road on the opposite side of I-77 SB and put US 21-52 on it.
Mapmikey
Other than change for the sake of having change, I don't see any real benefit to mass decommissioning of US routes. The system is in place, signed, and mapped. There would be a lot of logistical challenges and expense to change things.
Even if they are on old alignments, there is a benefit to having the US route shield because you know it is a long distance (and presumably through) route. If I'm navigating in an unfamiliar city or a case where I'm on a freeway and there is a traffic jam and I need to exit, I'm going to try looking for a US route because I can expect it's not going to randomly end on me somewhere like a state route might.
As far as multiplexing routes onto Interstates, my thought is that if the old route is going to continue being state-maintained and isn't a horrible alignment that you should leave the US route on it to serve as a backup routing. If the old route is going to be turned back to locals, move the US route onto the Interstate alignment. If there is a really long section where the route would be multiplexed and the remaining part is just a stub, then I would start to think about decommissioning but those would be fairly unusual cases.
If you are going to have a route on an alignment, I do think it should be signed so people can navigate by it. Where there are parallel Interstates, if the old route is going to continue as a state route anyway I think they should just leave the US route on the old alignment unless it is terrible. If the old route was going to be
Should AZ 66 be US 66 then?
You are right, you have plenty of places where the US routes were that are still part of the state route system, but like old US 66 you have big gaps between each state route 66 that would either make many different US 66's if that took place or have the long concurrencies that the whole decommissioning idea was to prevent originally.
US 66 should be recommissioned from El Reno, OK to either Joplin or Springfield, MO. That section is a living, breathing highway and goes through 3 states. The rest of the road can remain as "historic" 66.
Having lived along 5, I think there's a good case for it. First of all, exits can be sparse along 91, and though it may seem like there's "nothing there" between exits, there's plenty of "there" there. 5 ties those places together. It's 91 Local, so to speak. And if you are off 91 at any point in that corridor and hope to return to it, it is a solid bet that 5 will get you back to 91 without a lot of complication. Having one designation for the parallel route along this corridor is useful and should remain.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on June 12, 2014, 12:27:03 PM
Having lived along 5, I think there's a good case for it. First of all, exits can be sparse along 91, and though it may seem like there's "nothing there" between exits, there's plenty of "there" there. 5 ties those places together. It's 91 Local, so to speak. And if you are off 91 at any point in that corridor and hope to return to it, it is a solid bet that 5 will get you back to 91 without a lot of complication. Having one designation for the parallel route along this corridor is useful and should remain.
All true. Though 5 (at least in VT) is pretty lightly traveled compared to 91, and I would hardly consider it suitable for through truck traffic as it passes through every little town, and is constructed to typical New England two-lane standards. I don't see why it couldn't just as well be VT 5 or some such. Nothing wrong with it keeping a continuous designation, just not a US shield.