US 87 has a segment that is permanently closed due to a landslide near Story, Wyoming. There is a good detour route, WY 193, that bypasses the landslide. Wyoming wanted to reroute US 87 onto WY 193 but it was denied. The current US 87 will likely never be repaired because it might damage a historic site near the landslide. Why on earth would they deny this rerouting?
Because they want it moved to I-90. Fuck them.
http://route.transportation.org/Documents/2001_USRN_Cmte.pdf
At the risk of running off onto a tangent, US-87 ought to be decertified from end-to-end anyway. It's useless outside of Texas and Montana; let those states give their sections a state route number.
Quote from: halork on April 27, 2015, 06:43:39 AM
At the risk of running off onto a tangent, US-87 ought to be decertified from end-to-end anyway. It's useless outside of Texas and Montana; let those states give their sections a state route number.
At the risk of going off into
another tangent, if you decertify US-87, why not transfer it over to US-191 anyways? It would still fit the grid and actually have a route of its own.
Quote from: NE2 on April 26, 2015, 09:11:52 PM
Because they want it moved to I-90. Fuck them.
http://route.transportation.org/Documents/2001_USRN_Cmte.pdf
They actually denied it because WY 193 doesn't meet US highway standards. They recommended I-90 as an alternate routing.
In this case, though, AASHTO should have approved a waiver to WY 193. Having a substandard route is better than having no thru route at all. I'm loathe to advocate it, but WYDOT should pull an ODOT and just sign the reroute. Maybe they could include ½" DETOUR plaques with the signs.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 27, 2015, 02:54:55 PM
Quote from: NE2 on April 26, 2015, 09:11:52 PM
Because they want it moved to I-90. Fuck them.
http://route.transportation.org/Documents/2001_USRN_Cmte.pdf
They actually denied it because WY 193 doesn't meet US highway standards. They recommended I-90 as an alternate routing.
In this case, though, AASHTO should have approved a waiver to WY 193. Having a substandard route is better than having no thru route at all. I'm loathe to advocate it, but WYDOT should pull an ODOT and just sign the reroute. Maybe they could include ½" DETOUR plaques with the signs.
Google map shows them running together.
87 is pretty useless most of the way
how about rerouting US 87 via US 310 (which can be shortened if not eliminated), WY 120, and a duplex with US 26 back to Scottsbluff, then south on multistate 71 down and replace US 350 to Trinidad? Or even take over 287.....I know we're getting into fictional highway territory.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 27, 2015, 02:54:55 PM
Quote from: NE2 on April 26, 2015, 09:11:52 PM
Because they want it moved to I-90. Fuck them.
http://route.transportation.org/Documents/2001_USRN_Cmte.pdf
They actually denied it because WY 193 doesn't meet US highway standards. They recommended I-90 as an alternate routing.
There are no "US Highway Standards".
AASHTO applies their "Green Book" standards to new U.S. Highways.
I see AASHTO's point. Route numbers are to guide motorists to the best, quickest, or easiest way between two points. If US 87 isn't that way, what's it for?
Quote from: kkt on April 27, 2015, 04:38:36 PM
I see AASHTO's point. Route numbers are to guide motorists to the best, quickest, or easiest way between two points. If US 87 isn't that way, what's it for?
That's what I-90 is for. US 87 is for the best non-Interstate route.
Quote from: NE2 on April 27, 2015, 11:35:37 PM
Quote from: kkt on April 27, 2015, 04:38:36 PM
I see AASHTO's point. Route numbers are to guide motorists to the best, quickest, or easiest way between two points. If US 87 isn't that way, what's it for?
That's what I-90 is for. US 87 is for the best non-Interstate route.
But why? Sure, road geeks care because road archaeology. But they'd get their information elsewhere. For most of the travelling public, getting rid of redundant old route numbers when they're superseded by parallel freeways is helpful.
Quote from: kkt on April 28, 2015, 12:46:08 AM
Quote from: NE2 on April 27, 2015, 11:35:37 PM
Quote from: kkt on April 27, 2015, 04:38:36 PM
I see AASHTO's point. Route numbers are to guide motorists to the best, quickest, or easiest way between two points. If US 87 isn't that way, what's it for?
That's what I-90 is for. US 87 is for the best non-Interstate route.
But why? Sure, road geeks care because road archaeology. But they'd get their information elsewhere. For most of the travelling public, getting rid of redundant old route numbers when they're superseded by parallel freeways is helpful.
It's not redundant. What if, say, an earthquake damaged part of I-90? With an independent US 87, traffic could be detoured onto a state highway. Decommission US 87 and move it onto I-90 and you don't have a state-maintained detour route.
Quote from: bugo on April 28, 2015, 01:10:26 AM
Quote from: kkt on April 28, 2015, 12:46:08 AM
But why? Sure, road geeks care because road archaeology. But they'd get their information elsewhere. For most of the travelling public, getting rid of redundant old route numbers when they're superseded by parallel freeways is helpful.
It's not redundant. What if, say, an earthquake damaged part of I-90? With an independent US 87, traffic could be detoured onto a state highway. Decommission US 87 and move it onto I-90 and you don't have a state-maintained detour route.
Removing the US 87 route markers doesn't necessarily remove the state maintenance. WYDOT can assign new state route numbers to the decommissioned part of US 87, such as adding most of it to WY 193.
Quote from: oscar on April 28, 2015, 03:11:38 AM
Quote from: bugo on April 28, 2015, 01:10:26 AM
Quote from: kkt on April 28, 2015, 12:46:08 AM
That's what I-90 is for. US 87 is for the best non-Interstate route.
But why? Sure, road geeks care because road archaeology. But they'd get their information elsewhere. For most of the travelling public, getting rid of redundant old route numbers when they're superseded by parallel freeways is helpful.
It's not redundant. What if, say, an earthquake damaged part of I-90? With an independent US 87, traffic could be detoured onto a state highway. Decommission US 87 and move it onto I-90 and you don't have a state-maintained detour route.
Removing the US 87 route markers doesn't necessarily remove the state maintenance. WYDOT can assign new state route numbers to the decommissioned part of US 87, such as adding most of it to WY 193.
[/quote]
You mixed up the quote. I want it to be known that I fully support US 87 and other US and state routes that are paralleled by interstates having their own alignment which provides an alternate to the interstate in case the interstate is blocked or if one simply wants to take the old 2 lane road instead of the freeway. I also think US 87 should be rerouted on WY 193. AASHTO might have a stick up their ass saying that WY 193 isn't up to "US highway standards" (whatever that is) but current US 87 is impassable. The supposedly substandard WY 193 is still superior to the US 87 alignment that is no longer a through highway. AASHTO seems to be more lenient these days. Maybe if Wyoming reapplied for the rerouting it would be approved.
I agree; US 87 ought to be rerouted onto WY 193, regardless of whether or not it is the best detour around the damaged area. It's one thing to have Interstate-standard and substandard freeways, but what the hell are US highway standards? Never heard of them, and if there were such a thing, it's the stupidest thing ever invented in the roadgeek world!
US 87 in Wyoming is one of my favorite topics. I agree with Jeremy's position on this one. It should be rerouted onto Wyoming 193, especially since WyoDOT realigned the intersection so that through traffic transitions from US 87 onto Wyoming 193 and then back onto US 87. The curious thing is, while US 87 is following a non-Interstate highway alignment just south of Sheridan, I have wondered why other old alignments of US 87 have not similarly retained the US 87 designation and instead are given state highway designations. Significant sections of old US 87 have been retained in the Wyoming state highway system, for better or for worse, but only this segment and a shared segment with US 20-26 between Casper and Glenrock allow US 87 some travel away from the Interstates. I've always been amazed to see all the shared alignments among most roadways in Wyoming, not just pairing Interstate and US but also matching Interstate business routes with US routes, combining multiple US routes, merging and detangling Wyoming 130-230 at both ends, and watching Wyoming 789 share pavement with just about any route it meets. It's great for signage geeks (like when I go to Buffalo and try to figure out where, exactly, the north end of Business Loop I-25 is). So maybe WyoDOT will sign both US 87 and Wyoming 193*, just to keep US 87 sharing alignment with another route?
* - If AASHTO gives permission. I don't know if WyoDOT would go against AASHTO's ruling on this matter. But I doubt WyoDOT intends to place US 87 back onto I-90.
I wonder if it has anything to do with the reasoning behind why the AASHO denied an extension of US 666 in Utah many decades ago?
I say put it on WY 193. I feel that it is important to maintain the original US highway designations off-interstate so that it is easy for drivers to find and use it as an alternate when there is a problem on the interstate.
It is a shame that states like Texas chose to build interstates over the top of the original US highways. This is to the detriment of motorists because it leaves no reasonable alternate route if a problem occurs on the interstate.
Thumbs up to Florida for not doing this.
Quote from: Brian556 on April 30, 2015, 04:32:32 PM
I say put it on WY 193. I feel that it is important to maintain the original US highway designations off-interstate so that it is easy for drivers to find and use it as an alternate when there is a problem on the interstate.
It is a shame that states like Texas chose to build interstates over the top of the original US highways. This is to the detriment of motorists because it leaves no reasonable alternate route if a problem occurs on the interstate.
Thumbs up to Florida for not doing this.
Last year in Wisconsin there was a traffic jam outside of Eau Claire. Having US 12 there was a big help as I knew the alternate route.
Quote from: 707 on April 30, 2015, 02:28:09 PM
I wonder if it has anything to do with the reasoning behind why the AASHO denied an extension of US 666 in Utah many decades ago?
I thought the real reason was the superstition behind 666, and the fear of sign theft.
Quote from: Henry on May 04, 2015, 12:57:42 PM
Quote from: 707 on April 30, 2015, 02:28:09 PM
I wonder if it has anything to do with the reasoning behind why the AASHO denied an extension of US 666 in Utah many decades ago?
I thought the real reason was the superstition behind 666, and the fear of sign theft.
The Christian superstition. Had it been any other religion, it wouldn't have been changed.
Quote from: Brian556 on April 30, 2015, 04:32:32 PM
I say put it on WY 193. I feel that it is important to maintain the original US highway designations off-interstate so that it is easy for drivers to find and use it as an alternate when there is a problem on the interstate.
It is a shame that states like Texas chose to build interstates over the top of the original US highways. This is to the detriment of motorists because it leaves no reasonable alternate route if a problem occurs on the interstate.
Thumbs up to Florida for not doing this.
Sorry, I don't get it. It's much more useful for the congestion alternative to have the parallel route marked "Emergency" I-xx, like Michigan does with I-94. Otherwise, how do I know a particular U.S. route is a parallel alternate?
maybe they could get in the habit of marking these roads with the same number. "Wyoming 25" could parallel I-25 wherever needed. If someone can't tell the difference between the highways they are an idiot.
Quote from: texaskdog on May 05, 2015, 10:48:38 AM
maybe they could get in the habit of marking these roads with the same number. "Wyoming 25" could parallel I-25 wherever needed. If someone can't tell the difference between the highways they are an idiot.
If the old route crossed the new route, it could cause major confusion similar to the US 74/I-74 clusterfuck in North Carolina and the pending US 69/I-69 crossing in Texas. There are some other examples like US 27 and GA 27 and US 70 and TX 70.
Quote from: bugo on May 05, 2015, 11:20:02 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on May 05, 2015, 10:48:38 AM
maybe they could get in the habit of marking these roads with the same number. "Wyoming 25" could parallel I-25 wherever needed. If someone can't tell the difference between the highways they are an idiot.
If the old route crossed the new route, it could cause major confusion similar to the US 74/I-74 clusterfuck in North Carolina and the pending US 69/I-69 crossing in Texas. There are some other examples like US 27 and GA 27 and US 70 and TX 70.
dont forget I/US-41 in wisconsin, but I'm not sure they will be cosigned, US 41 may disappear and reappear on either side it connects with I-41.
Quote from: bugo on May 04, 2015, 01:04:44 PM
Quote from: Henry on May 04, 2015, 12:57:42 PM
Quote from: 707 on April 30, 2015, 02:28:09 PM
I wonder if it has anything to do with the reasoning behind why the AASHO denied an extension of US 666 in Utah many decades ago?
I thought the real reason was the superstition behind 666, and the fear of sign theft.
The Christian superstition. Had it been any other religion, it wouldn't have been changed.
That's exactly what I meant.
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 05, 2015, 11:34:13 AM
Quote from: bugo on May 05, 2015, 11:20:02 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on May 05, 2015, 10:48:38 AM
maybe they could get in the habit of marking these roads with the same number. "Wyoming 25" could parallel I-25 wherever needed. If someone can't tell the difference between the highways they are an idiot.
If the old route crossed the new route, it could cause major confusion similar to the US 74/I-74 clusterfuck in North Carolina and the pending US 69/I-69 crossing in Texas. There are some other examples like US 27 and GA 27 and US 70 and TX 70.
dont forget I/US-41 in wisconsin, but I'm not sure they will be cosigned, US 41 may disappear and reappear on either side it connects with I-41.
US 41 won't be signed in the Milwaukee area but will be co-signed elsewhere.
Quote from: bugo on May 05, 2015, 11:20:02 AMIf the old route crossed the new route, it could cause major confusion similar to the US 74/I-74 clusterfuck in North Carolina and the pending US 69/I-69 crossing in Texas. There are some other examples like US 27 and GA 27 and US 70 and TX 70.
Or every fucking business interstate!
Worse are the bannered US routes, as the shields are the same color and shape.
Surely, however - all the examples you give - are very different to what is being proposed. The examples I give of it being a fairly humdrum thing that is really rather common are better - business and bannered routes tend to be (though not always) the kind of alternate route that texasdog is proposing whereby following it won't take you in a wildly different direction.
Quote from: bugo on May 05, 2015, 11:20:02 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on May 05, 2015, 10:48:38 AM
maybe they could get in the habit of marking these roads with the same number. "Wyoming 25" could parallel I-25 wherever needed. If someone can't tell the difference between the highways they are an idiot.
If the old route crossed the new route, it could cause major confusion similar to the US 74/I-74 clusterfuck in North Carolina and the pending US 69/I-69 crossing in Texas. There are some other examples like US 27 and GA 27 and US 70 and TX 70.
No, if you don't know what an interstate highway sign looks like compared to a Wyoming state highway sign YOU'RE AN IDIOT!
Quote from: texaskdog on May 05, 2015, 04:09:43 PM
Quote from: bugo on May 05, 2015, 11:20:02 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on May 05, 2015, 10:48:38 AM
maybe they could get in the habit of marking these roads with the same number. "Wyoming 25" could parallel I-25 wherever needed. If someone can't tell the difference between the highways they are an idiot.
If the old route crossed the new route, it could cause major confusion similar to the US 74/I-74 clusterfuck in North Carolina and the pending US 69/I-69 crossing in Texas. There are some other examples like US 27 and GA 27 and US 70 and TX 70.
No, if you don't know what an interstate highway sign looks like compared to a Wyoming state highway sign YOU'RE 8AN IDIOT!
Not everyone is as knowledgeable about roads as we are. Calling them "idiots" is unnecessary and offensive
Quote from: bugo on May 05, 2015, 07:34:23 PMNot everyone is as knowledgeable about roads as we are.
Do you really have to have levels of roadgeekery anywhere near ours to be able to tell the difference between a yellow rectangle and a blue-and-red shield shape?
And if you can't tell that difference, then you would struggle more with business I-25, with the shields the same shape. Is that the point of business interstates? Confuse the ignorant into driving through your town in the hope that they might shop? :banghead:
QuoteCalling them "idiots" is unnecessary and offensive
Saying that people in general are too uninformed/stupid to tell two very different shields apart is unnecessary and offensive.
Quote from: halork on April 27, 2015, 06:43:39 AM
At the risk of running off onto a tangent, US-87 ought to be decertified from end-to-end anyway. It's useless outside of Texas and Montana; let those states give their sections a state route number.
I will never understand your type. Why do that when there are simply better ways of routing it? (https://www.google.ca/maps/dir/28.616346,-96.623927/2-14+U.S.+87,+Havre,+Mt+59501,+USA/@40.7290792,-88.5952743,5z/data=!4m49!4m48!1m40!3m4!1m2!1d-97.4526538!2d29.1700885!3s0x8642dfce9905251f:0xbe08656abda0f828!3m4!1m2!1d-98.9963407!2d30.4670574!3s0x865bce162706c975:0xeb714863d274933b!3m4!1m2!1d-101.402573!2d32.1078644!3s0x86f91c2657682451:0x8574c2eeaf7fd8d0!3m4!1m2!1d-105.5050374!2d37.4414765!3s0x871690b3cc091c43:0xbe41bd24512d5107!3m4!1m2!1d-107.6105973!2d40.9209729!3s0x87433ee56a40c24f:0x99c72b2617f38c1c!3m4!1m2!1d-108.4442668!2d44.8220497!3s0x534967851ad9fdbd:0xba366260ebe1023c!3m4!1m2!1d-108.6483344!2d46.8252455!3s0x534767c9cc85b4bb:0x523f21d6729c496f!3m4!1m2!1d-111.0074613!2d47.7667689!3s0x5341f511d7e02ae1:0xb0abbb4dcd07e21e!1m5!1m1!1s0x536ab40956a8bfe7:0x510c971e6715f504!2m2!1d-109.7468011!2d48.555207!3e0)
Enough name calling; let's get back to the topic at hand. Thank you.
Quote from: bugo on May 05, 2015, 07:34:23 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on May 05, 2015, 04:09:43 PM
Quote from: bugo on May 05, 2015, 11:20:02 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on May 05, 2015, 10:48:38 AM
maybe they could get in the habit of marking these roads with the same number. "Wyoming 25" could parallel I-25 wherever needed. If someone can't tell the difference between the highways they are an idiot.
If the old route crossed the new route, it could cause major confusion similar to the US 74/I-74 clusterfuck in North Carolina and the pending US 69/I-69 crossing in Texas. There are some other examples like US 27 and GA 27 and US 70 and TX 70.
No, if you don't know what an interstate highway sign looks like compared to a Wyoming state highway sign YOU'RE 8AN IDIOT!
Not everyone is as knowledgeable about roads as we are. Calling them "idiots" is unnecessary and offensive
People drive roads their whole lives. They have to study a book and have experience on the roads and understand signs to get their licenses. Even if someone is not going to know each states signs, they would at least know what an interstate shield looks like and seeing one means you are getting on a 4+ lane controlled expressway.
Point being why have signs in different color schemes if no one is going to know the difference? For all I care the state road could be 125. Or you could put alternate on it.
Quote from: texaskdog on May 06, 2015, 09:12:39 AM
Quote from: bugo on May 05, 2015, 07:34:23 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on May 05, 2015, 04:09:43 PM
Quote from: bugo on May 05, 2015, 11:20:02 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on May 05, 2015, 10:48:38 AM
maybe they could get in the habit of marking these roads with the same number. "Wyoming 25" could parallel I-25 wherever needed. If someone can't tell the difference between the highways they are an idiot.
If the old route crossed the new route, it could cause major confusion similar to the US 74/I-74 clusterfuck in North Carolina and the pending US 69/I-69 crossing in Texas. There are some other examples like US 27 and GA 27 and US 70 and TX 70.
No, if you don't know what an interstate highway sign looks like compared to a Wyoming state highway sign YOU'RE 8AN IDIOT!
Not everyone is as knowledgeable about roads as we are. Calling them "idiots" is unnecessary and offensive
People drive roads their whole lives. They have to study a book and have experience on the roads and understand signs to get their licenses. Even if someone is not going to know each states signs, they would at least know what an interstate shield looks like and seeing one means you are getting on a 4+ lane controlled expressway.
Point being why have signs in different color schemes if no one is going to know the difference? For all I care the state road could be 125. Or you could put alternate on it.
I agree, it isn't that hard to know the difference between State, US, County, and Interstate routes. people are so ignorant to new signage and sometimes typical signage. It always surprises me how ignorant people can be with signage and navigation, this can get really bad and cause accidents. Recently in Indianapolis someone died because they didn't understand what a flashing arrow signal was for (with a huge sign explaining what it is for next to it) people need to take responsibility (they usually blame and sue the DOT) and become more familiar with roads and signs, it benefits us all and can save lives. You don't need to be a road geek to know what signs and maps mean and to be able to navigate the country using both.
Right. If the possibility for confusion is that bad, why not have ever road have a unique number? Why can't a US highway and interstate be in the same STATE without confusion? We have loop 360 here and Texas 360 in Dallas and no one seems to have a problem.
Quote from: Molandfreak on May 06, 2015, 04:23:59 AM
Quote from: halork on April 27, 2015, 06:43:39 AM
At the risk of running off onto a tangent, US-87 ought to be decertified from end-to-end anyway. It's useless outside of Texas and Montana; let those states give their sections a state route number.
I will never understand your type. Why do that when there are simply better ways of routing it? (https://www.google.ca/maps/dir/28.616346,-96.623927/2-14+U.S.+87,+Havre,+Mt+59501,+USA/@40.7290792,-88.5952743,5z/data=!4m49!4m48!1m40!3m4!1m2!1d-97.4526538!2d29.1700885!3s0x8642dfce9905251f:0xbe08656abda0f828!3m4!1m2!1d-98.9963407!2d30.4670574!3s0x865bce162706c975:0xeb714863d274933b!3m4!1m2!1d-101.402573!2d32.1078644!3s0x86f91c2657682451:0x8574c2eeaf7fd8d0!3m4!1m2!1d-105.5050374!2d37.4414765!3s0x871690b3cc091c43:0xbe41bd24512d5107!3m4!1m2!1d-107.6105973!2d40.9209729!3s0x87433ee56a40c24f:0x99c72b2617f38c1c!3m4!1m2!1d-108.4442668!2d44.8220497!3s0x534967851ad9fdbd:0xba366260ebe1023c!3m4!1m2!1d-108.6483344!2d46.8252455!3s0x534767c9cc85b4bb:0x523f21d6729c496f!3m4!1m2!1d-111.0074613!2d47.7667689!3s0x5341f511d7e02ae1:0xb0abbb4dcd07e21e!1m5!1m1!1s0x536ab40956a8bfe7:0x510c971e6715f504!2m2!1d-109.7468011!2d48.555207!3e0)
I'm being practical. US-87 has lost it's significance as an inter-state route. Decommissioning it would allow Texas, Wyoming and Montana to control the routing of their highways without having to get Federal approval, and save money by allowing the removal of signage along hundreds of miles of useless concurrencies. As for a major re-route as you suggest, I'd love to see that (and I have a few ideas of my own), but that would require a significant amount of coordination between the states, and a compelling reason to spend the money to do it. I don't see that happening.
Quote from: halork on May 07, 2015, 08:46:58 AM
Quote from: Molandfreak on May 06, 2015, 04:23:59 AM
Quote from: halork on April 27, 2015, 06:43:39 AM
At the risk of running off onto a tangent, US-87 ought to be decertified from end-to-end anyway. It's useless outside of Texas and Montana; let those states give their sections a state route number.
I will never understand your type. Why do that when there are simply better ways of routing it? (https://www.google.ca/maps/dir/28.616346,-96.623927/2-14+U.S.+87,+Havre,+Mt+59501,+USA/@40.7290792,-88.5952743,5z/data=!4m49!4m48!1m40!3m4!1m2!1d-97.4526538!2d29.1700885!3s0x8642dfce9905251f:0xbe08656abda0f828!3m4!1m2!1d-98.9963407!2d30.4670574!3s0x865bce162706c975:0xeb714863d274933b!3m4!1m2!1d-101.402573!2d32.1078644!3s0x86f91c2657682451:0x8574c2eeaf7fd8d0!3m4!1m2!1d-105.5050374!2d37.4414765!3s0x871690b3cc091c43:0xbe41bd24512d5107!3m4!1m2!1d-107.6105973!2d40.9209729!3s0x87433ee56a40c24f:0x99c72b2617f38c1c!3m4!1m2!1d-108.4442668!2d44.8220497!3s0x534967851ad9fdbd:0xba366260ebe1023c!3m4!1m2!1d-108.6483344!2d46.8252455!3s0x534767c9cc85b4bb:0x523f21d6729c496f!3m4!1m2!1d-111.0074613!2d47.7667689!3s0x5341f511d7e02ae1:0xb0abbb4dcd07e21e!1m5!1m1!1s0x536ab40956a8bfe7:0x510c971e6715f504!2m2!1d-109.7468011!2d48.555207!3e0)
I'm being practical. US-87 has lost it's significance as an inter-state route. Decommissioning it would allow Texas, Wyoming and Montana to control the routing of their highways without having to get Federal approval, and save money by allowing the removal of signage along hundreds of miles of useless concurrencies. As for a major re-route as you suggest, I'd love to see that (and I have a few ideas of my own), but that would require a significant amount of coordination between the states, and a compelling reason to spend the money to do it. I don't see that happening.
What's wrong with US 87's routings in New Mexico, Texas, and Montana?
Decommissioning it would be a silly waste of money. Leave it be.
Quote from: bugo on May 07, 2015, 10:01:04 AM
Quote from: halork on May 07, 2015, 08:46:58 AM
Quote from: Molandfreak on May 06, 2015, 04:23:59 AM
Quote from: halork on April 27, 2015, 06:43:39 AM
At the risk of running off onto a tangent, US-87 ought to be decertified from end-to-end anyway. It's useless outside of Texas and Montana; let those states give their sections a state route number.
I will never understand your type. Why do that when there are simply better ways of routing it? (https://www.google.ca/maps/dir/28.616346,-96.623927/2-14+U.S.+87,+Havre,+Mt+59501,+USA/@40.7290792,-88.5952743,5z/data=!4m49!4m48!1m40!3m4!1m2!1d-97.4526538!2d29.1700885!3s0x8642dfce9905251f:0xbe08656abda0f828!3m4!1m2!1d-98.9963407!2d30.4670574!3s0x865bce162706c975:0xeb714863d274933b!3m4!1m2!1d-101.402573!2d32.1078644!3s0x86f91c2657682451:0x8574c2eeaf7fd8d0!3m4!1m2!1d-105.5050374!2d37.4414765!3s0x871690b3cc091c43:0xbe41bd24512d5107!3m4!1m2!1d-107.6105973!2d40.9209729!3s0x87433ee56a40c24f:0x99c72b2617f38c1c!3m4!1m2!1d-108.4442668!2d44.8220497!3s0x534967851ad9fdbd:0xba366260ebe1023c!3m4!1m2!1d-108.6483344!2d46.8252455!3s0x534767c9cc85b4bb:0x523f21d6729c496f!3m4!1m2!1d-111.0074613!2d47.7667689!3s0x5341f511d7e02ae1:0xb0abbb4dcd07e21e!1m5!1m1!1s0x536ab40956a8bfe7:0x510c971e6715f504!2m2!1d-109.7468011!2d48.555207!3e0)
I'm being practical. US-87 has lost it's significance as an inter-state route. Decommissioning it would allow Texas, Wyoming and Montana to control the routing of their highways without having to get Federal approval, and save money by allowing the removal of signage along hundreds of miles of useless concurrencies. As for a major re-route as you suggest, I'd love to see that (and I have a few ideas of my own), but that would require a significant amount of coordination between the states, and a compelling reason to spend the money to do it. I don't see that happening.
What's wrong with US 87's routings in New Mexico, Texas, and Montana?
Decommissioning it would be a silly waste of money. Leave it be.
Actually, it would be very cheap, and cheaper in the long run. When the shields are due to be replaced, simply remove them along the concurrent sections. Texas, Montana, and Wyoming could replace markers on the stand-alone sections with state route markers.
Or they could just go with the Colorado solution, and just pull down the signs along concurrencies and forget about it. Getting back to the original topic, that is why I agree with AASHTO's suggestion to move US-87 back to the I-25 routing here. Then Wyoming could pull down all the US-87 markers at their convenience, and be done with it.
Alternatively, MDT could just extend U.S. 310 north along 87's old route, then just keep U.S. 87 as is in Texas and New Mexico.
iPhone
The U.S. and Interstate routes are supposed to be the best or fastest way between points. That's the reason the route is signed, to help people unfamiliar with the area find the best route. A long stretch of U.S. route that is parallel to an interstate contradicts that policy.
Wanting to keep it signed for historical reasons is not as important as being clear to today's driving public. Neither is a bypass -- if the interstate is closed, the DOT should be able to have detour signs up within a day. A state route number would work equally well.
AASHTO has been fairly consistent about this recently. For instance, in Reno, US 395 rereouted to I-580 while the old route became Alt US 395.
Quote from: kkt on May 07, 2015, 12:24:25 PM
The U.S. and Interstate routes are supposed to be the best or fastest way between points. That's the reason the route is signed, to help people unfamiliar with the area find the best route. A long stretch of U.S. route that is parallel to an interstate contradicts that policy.
Wanting to keep it signed for historical reasons is not as important as being clear to today's driving public. Neither is a bypass -- if the interstate is closed, the DOT should be able to have detour signs up within a day. A state route number would work equally well.
AASHTO has been fairly consistent about this recently. For instance, in Reno, US 395 rereouted to I-580 while the old route became Alt US 395.
Then why even sign it as a state route if it's that unimportant to the driving public? Detours/parallels are far from the worst of routing choices within the U.S. Highway system. :eyebrow:
Quote from: Molandfreak on May 07, 2015, 04:21:01 PM
Quote from: kkt on May 07, 2015, 12:24:25 PM
The U.S. and Interstate routes are supposed to be the best or fastest way between points. That's the reason the route is signed, to help people unfamiliar with the area find the best route. A long stretch of U.S. route that is parallel to an interstate contradicts that policy.
Wanting to keep it signed for historical reasons is not as important as being clear to today's driving public. Neither is a bypass -- if the interstate is closed, the DOT should be able to have detour signs up within a day. A state route number would work equally well.
AASHTO has been fairly consistent about this recently. For instance, in Reno, US 395 rereouted to I-580 while the old route became Alt US 395.
Then why even sign it as a state route if it's that unimportant to the driving public? Detours/parallels are far from the worst of routing choices within the U.S. Highway system. :eyebrow:
Wyoming wants it to be handled by the state, so I'm fine with it being a state route.
Since I live very close to U.S. 87 in Colorado (only as indicated by the map), I'll throw my opinion in here. U.S. 87 is either concurrent with, or closely parallel to I-25 for about 770 miles between Raton, NM and Billings, MT. It doesn't serve any communities in that long segment that are not also directly accessible from I-25. Further, when it does leave I-25 at Raton, it trends southeast, then south in Texas, but well outside the expected corridor for U.S. 87. It's more like U.S. 77 by the time it ends. Dangerously close to a Fictitious Highways thread here, but I think it would be better to repurpose U.S. 87 on a corridor further west, either along U.S. 191 or 310, or a combination of both. I have ideas for redesignating 87's route (and another route) through Texas, but will save that for the other board.
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on May 07, 2015, 04:57:57 PM
I have ideas for redesignating 87's route (and another route) through Texas, but will save that for the other board.
stop teasing
Quote from: texaskdog on May 07, 2015, 05:09:01 PM
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on May 07, 2015, 04:57:57 PM
I have ideas for redesignating 87's route (and another route) through Texas, but will save that for the other board.
stop teasing
You can exhale now; https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=15479.0
Quote from: kkt on May 07, 2015, 12:24:25 PM
The U.S. and Interstate routes are supposed to be the best or fastest way between points. That's the reason the route is signed, to help people unfamiliar with the area find the best route. A long stretch of U.S. route that is parallel to an interstate contradicts that policy.
That means that the vast majority of the US route system is wholly redundant and should be decommissioned. Pointless overlaps like those that exist between US and interstate highways out west should not be allowed to exist.
Quote from: vdeane on May 07, 2015, 09:22:54 PM
Quote from: kkt on May 07, 2015, 12:24:25 PM
The U.S. and Interstate routes are supposed to be the best or fastest way between points. That's the reason the route is signed, to help people unfamiliar with the area find the best route. A long stretch of U.S. route that is parallel to an interstate contradicts that policy.
That means that the vast majority of the US route system is wholly redundant and should be decommissioned. Pointless overlaps like those that exist between US and interstate highways out west should not be allowed to exist.
Largely true in the West, where the original routings were simply upgraded to freeway. In the Midwest and East, not so simple, and you would have to make a case-by-case argument. How far does a route stray from the Interstate that parallels it for it to meet the true definition of a U.S. route ("best or fastest route"). A lot has to do with how states deal with old routings. Minnesota, for instance, largely turned old routings back to counties, and thus there is no state highway to carry the original U.S. number.
Quote from: vdeane on May 07, 2015, 09:22:54 PM
Quote from: kkt on May 07, 2015, 12:24:25 PM
The U.S. and Interstate routes are supposed to be the best or fastest way between points. That's the reason the route is signed, to help people unfamiliar with the area find the best route. A long stretch of U.S. route that is parallel to an interstate contradicts that policy.
That means that the vast majority of the US route system is wholly redundant and should be decommissioned. Pointless overlaps like those that exist between US and interstate highways out west should not be allowed to exist.
In a lot of the west, the redundant US routes
were decommissioned in the early-mid 1960s. 99, 66, 10, 40, etc. etc. I look at some of the eastern states, the southeast especially, and wonder what all those US routes are still doing there. US 87 is an exception, probably because it was not redundant on both its ends.
Quote from: kkt on May 07, 2015, 11:42:58 PM
Quote from: vdeane on May 07, 2015, 09:22:54 PM
Quote from: kkt on May 07, 2015, 12:24:25 PM
The U.S. and Interstate routes are supposed to be the best or fastest way between points. That's the reason the route is signed, to help people unfamiliar with the area find the best route. A long stretch of U.S. route that is parallel to an interstate contradicts that policy.
That means that the vast majority of the US route system is wholly redundant and should be decommissioned. Pointless overlaps like those that exist between US and interstate highways out west should not be allowed to exist.
In a lot of the west, the redundant US routes were decommissioned in the early-mid 1960s. 99, 66, 10, 40, etc. etc. I look at some of the eastern states, the southeast especially, and wonder what all those US routes are still doing there. US 87 is an exception, probably because it was not redundant on both its ends.
No kidding, why is there no consistency? US 1 could be a predominant route again if they moved it.
US 66 and 99 should never have been decommissioned, I don't care how redundant they were.
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 08, 2015, 10:08:32 AM
US 66 and 99 should never have been decommissioned, I don't care how redundant they were.
There were parts of US-66 (being a free alternative along the Turner and Will Rogers Turnpikes) and US-99 (CA-99) that would not be redundant at all.
But anyways, I'd prefer to repourpose US-87 than to leave the large parallel/concurrent gap from Raton to Billings if given the choice, though making 87 a distinct through route from Interstates 90 and 25 as much as reasonably possible works well, too.