Was this something that was planned when the interstates began? Was it just something they realized was redundant after many years (why spend money making unnecessary signs, etc)? Anyone familiar with the history?
I think this has been something going on long before the interstates were built. It's been policy on the AASHTO books since the 1930s to decommission intrastate US routes of fewer than 300 miles in length, although obviously that hasn't been enforced in a number of cases.
I'm not a big fan of AASHTO's policies on US Highways and here's why.
1) US highways are so much easier to follow than state highways because they don't change numbers at state lines and throughout the state. Look at US 85 in New Mexico (now decommissioned). It changes numbers at least 8 times now from Albuquerque to El Paso.
2) The thing that really bugs me is when they build a new interstate quality highway and route the US highway onto it and rename the old 2 lane highway Business Route XX, 1XX, or pull a New Mexico and name it something totally different. Then 5 years later that interstate quality highway actually becomes an interstate. It is so stupid that they don't allow you to route that US highway back onto its old route (that is still state maintained). Then we end up decommissioning US Highways instead of doing the logical thing and just simply putting them back onto their old routes. Then we're also stuck with that new designation that really made no sense. For example I'd rather see US 78 rerouted onto MS 178 (Old US 78) rather than decommissioned. In fact I'd like to see US 78 rerouted onto its old route regardless.
Yes it's funny. Out west they love to decommission everything. Out east you frequently have roads that will cross the interstate dozens of times (US 11, US 78....)
Sometimes it's nice to keep the old road. US 12 in Wisconsin was a nice alternate when I-94 was under construction. If you take the signs down it's near impossible to use the alternate route anymore.
I don't think US route decommissioning was ever planned at the national level. I think it depends on the particular state and the part of the country involved, as well as issues with geography, population density and how close to the ocean or the Canada/Mexican border states are. Also, do particular state DOT's have mileage caps? For example California decommissioned most of their US routes decades ago. In other states like Tennessee, Georgia or Kentucky, few if any have been decommissioned.
QuoteThe thing that really bugs me is when they build a new interstate quality highway and route the US highway onto it and rename the old 2 lane highway Business Route XX, 1XX, or pull a New Mexico and name it something totally different. Then 5 years later that interstate quality highway actually becomes an interstate. It is so stupid that they don't allow you to route that US highway back onto its old route (that is still state maintained). Then we end up decommissioning US Highways instead of doing the logical thing and just simply putting them back onto their old routes. Then we're also stuck with that new designation that really made no sense. For example I'd rather see US 78 rerouted onto MS 178 (Old US 78) rather than decommissioned. In fact I'd like to see US 78 rerouted onto its old route regardless.
I disagree with this premise. The US route system was intended both as a uniform marking system and
"to facilitate travel on the main interstate lines, over the shortest routes and the best roads." You don't get the latter by rerouting a U.S. route from a freeway back to its old road. Obviously, the route purists don't like that, but it's quite logical from a hierarchy and operational standpoint. Your more important routes follow the more important road types.
And as RoadWarrior noted, it's up to the states whether they want to decommission/reroute or not. All AASHTO does is evaluate the decommissioning/reroute and approve/disapprove.
And yes, some states doe have mileage caps (Minnesota is one), which would also explain some decommissionings.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on May 12, 2016, 01:56:46 AM
I think this has been something going on long before the interstates were built. It's been policy on the AASHTO books since the 1930s to decommission intrastate US routes of fewer than 300 miles in length, although obviously that hasn't been enforced in a number of cases.
Yeah, New Jersey clearly hasn't gotten the message, as evidenced by US 46, US 130, and US 206.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on May 12, 2016, 01:56:46 AM
I think this has been something going on long before the interstates were built. It's been policy on the AASHTO books since the 1930s to decommission intrastate US routes of fewer than 300 miles in length, although obviously that hasn't been enforced in a number of cases.
Some aren't really can't or rather should be enforced because they serve viable corridors. US 92 and US 192 are prime examples of that down in Florida. If I recall correct FDOT wanted another sub-300 miler along FL 50 that got rejected by the AASHTO.
Quote from: texaskdog on May 12, 2016, 07:35:51 AM
Yes it's funny. Out west they love to decommission everything. Out east you frequently have roads that will cross the interstate dozens of times (US 11, US 78....)
Sometimes it's nice to keep the old road. US 12 in Wisconsin was a nice alternate when I-94 was under construction. If you take the signs down it's near impossible to use the alternate route anymore.
Actually more like....California loved to decomission everything. Sometimes there was no logic in what they got rid of like with US 60 not being realigned on CA 62 so it still could serve downtown L.A. and at least US 99 from Sacramento to Wheeler Ridge...which ironically wouldn't have violated the 300 mile intrastate AASHTO policy. US 466 is iffy because of how important of a trucking route it is but at least the logical route beginning at Barstow would have left it well short of 300 miles. US 70 should have never been extended to California in the first place along US 60 and US 80 really had nowhere to go with I-8 being built. US 299 is another iffy one and was close to 300 miles between US 395 and US 101, especially when you consider US 199 probably only survived because it goes into Oregon.
Quote from: dgolub on May 12, 2016, 08:28:35 AM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on May 12, 2016, 01:56:46 AM
I think this has been something going on long before the interstates were built. It's been policy on the AASHTO books since the 1930s to decommission intrastate US routes of fewer than 300 miles in length, although obviously that hasn't been enforced in a number of cases.
Yeah, New Jersey clearly hasn't gotten the message, as evidenced by US 46, US 130, and US 206.
With US 46 and 130 yes....but they still serve a corridor much like US 92/US 192 do in Florida. 206 actually crosses into PA.
Quote from: US 41 on May 12, 2016, 06:22:58 AMThe thing that really bugs me is when they build a new interstate quality highway and route the US highway onto it and rename the old 2 lane highway Business Route XX, 1XX, or pull a New Mexico and name it something totally different.
Some states will redesignate the old road as either US or SR XXA or ALT US XX. The above-rerouting scenario you're describing alone and of itself, I have no problem with such.
Quote from: US 41 on May 12, 2016, 06:22:58 AMThen 5 years later that interstate quality highway actually becomes an interstate. It is so stupid that they don't allow you to route that US highway back onto its old route (that is still state maintained). Then we end up decommissioning US Highways instead of doing the logical thing and just simply putting them back onto their old routes. Then we're also stuck with that new designation that really made no sense.
I do agree with you in principle there. Although I personally don't know of a new US highway being built and then receiving an Interstate designation
within a 5-year period unless such was the initial intent the moment the highway construction was approved.
An example of where such designation/redesignation was done properly IMHO was when an older part of what would later become I-95 was built in the North Shore part of MA during the early-to-mid 1950s. Construction of this stretch of highway, from Topsfield northward, predated the establishment of the Interstate Highway system; and was initially designated & signed as (the new/relocated) US 1. The old, non-freeway US 1 in the area was redesignated as MA 17; MA 1A already existed (& still exists) several miles east of these corridors so a redesignation of the old US 1 to MA 1A was not an option at this location.
Once the Interstate Highway Act took hold; the then-new highway became I-95 and the old road (MA 17) reverted back to its previous US 1 designation and remains to this day nearly 6 decades later.
Today, there seems to be 2 scenarios (that I'm aware of anyway) where a US highway is multiplexed with an Interstate highway:
1. Whenever an existing freeway that's part of a US route gets designated as an Interstate (regardless of whether its a 2 or 3-digit route); examples include I-68 vs. US 40 in MD and I-99 vs. US 220 in PA. Segments of the old roads are either marked as Business US XX, Scenic US XX or have no route number at all.
2. An existing US route is rerouted onto and multiplexed with an
existing highway that's an Interstate; examples include US 1 in the Boston area being rerouted on much of I-93 (and a piece of I-95) circa 1989 or portions of US 6 in CT being rerouted onto I-84. The old, pre-highway corridors remain but have no route numbers on them.
IMHO, if a US route
has to be redesignated as an Interstate or
has to be rerouted onto an existing Interstate but has places where the US route leaves the freeway(s) and becomes its own route on both ends of the Interstate; I would use/erect the US shields for the reassurance markers only... similar to how ConnDOT does with its longish I-84/US 6 multiplexes. Another option would be to erect a ground-mounted BGS just outside of the multiplexes that reads:
XX NSEW* (US route)
FOLLOW
YY NSEW* (Interstate route)
* Appropriate
NORTH, SOUTH, EAST, WEST direction cardinal
... and not place US shields in the multiplexed portions at all.
OTOH, if a US route is multiplexed through its terminus w/an Interstate; IMHO, the US route
should either be rerouted back to its pre-freeway corridor if possible or simply be truncated at Interstate merge.
Quote from: dgolub on May 12, 2016, 08:28:35 AM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on May 12, 2016, 01:56:46 AM
I think this has been something going on long before the interstates were built. It's been policy on the AASHTO books since the 1930s to decommission intrastate US routes of fewer than 300 miles in length, although obviously that hasn't been enforced in a number of cases.
Yeah, New Jersey clearly hasn't gotten the message, as evidenced by US 46, US 130, and US 206.
I would say 206 is very much still functional (and quite well traveled especially up north). First, in the absence of the Somerset Freeway, it's an essential link between I-295 and I-287 (aka Trenton to Somerville and onward to NYC). Second, it's the best way in NJ from I-80 to I-84 (and an important crossing from NJ to PA and indirectly NY). Third, it actually leaves the state and is a vital link in the US (6, 209, 202, 22, 30) and Interstate (295, 287, 80, 84) systems.
As for 130 and especially 46, I agree that they should have been decommissioned and/or downgraded to state routes.
Quote from: dgolub on May 12, 2016, 08:28:35 AM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on May 12, 2016, 01:56:46 AM
I think this has been something going on long before the interstates were built. It's been policy on the AASHTO books since the 1930s to decommission intrastate US routes of fewer than 300 miles in length, although obviously that hasn't been enforced in a number of cases.
Yeah, New Jersey clearly hasn't gotten the message, as evidenced by US 46, US 130, and US 206.
One could argue similar for the Hershey to King of Prussia, PA stretch of US 422; although, in that case, PennDOT considers US 422 to be continuous via a silent/unsigned concurrency with portions of US 22 & 322 between the
two 422s but AASHTO does not.
Quote from: bzakharin on May 12, 2016, 01:58:03 PMAs for 130 and especially 46, I agree that they should have been decommissioned and/or downgraded to state routes.
On the Fiction boards, a few have suggested that US 301 be extended northward in NJ (via US 40, 13 & I-295) and have it replace all of US 130 (where it would end on US 1).
AASHTO doesn't push anyone to decommission U.S. Routes, its up to the states if they see value in them or not. California, prime example, did not, thus tried to remove most out of the state.
Quote from: WashuOtaku on May 12, 2016, 09:02:15 PM
AASHTO doesn't push anyone to decommission U.S. Routes, its up to the states if they see value in them or not. California, prime example, did not, thus tried to remove most out of the state.
Yeah but California led the whole charge on thinking the US Route system was obsolete and it didn't turn out to be. Now there is a hacked up grid out west because of the actions they took in the 1960s and 1970s.
And now there is "historic 101" on the coast
Quote from: texaskdog on May 12, 2016, 10:32:53 PM
And now there is "historic 101" on the coast
Yes but you'll find most of those signs near San Diego where I-5 took over. For the most part northern California US 101 sticks to the coastal mountains before emerging to the coast near Fortuna.
The one US route I don't get is 46. It's only in New Jersey, and it's not even 80 miles long. Plus, it doesn't fit in the grid, being way north of US Route 30.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 12, 2016, 10:40:18 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on May 12, 2016, 10:32:53 PM
And now there is "historic 101" on the coast
Yes but you'll find most of those signs near San Diego where I-5 took over.
And Historic US6 signs where CA14 took over. Historic US91 signs where it's state routes. Sure there's places (US395/I-15, US40/I-80, US66/I-10/15/40, US99/I-5) where the interstates replaced them, but there's places where it's just state routes. There's no reason why CA14 can't be US6
"There's no reason why CA14 can't be US6"
I had read on a website years ago that the primary reason that most of US 6 was decommissioned in California was due to its long concurrency with US 395 south of Bishop. They were trying to eliminate as many route concurrencies as possible back at that time.
Quote from: RoadWarrior56 on May 13, 2016, 06:41:20 AM
"There's no reason why CA14 can't be US6"
I had read on a website years ago that the primary reason that most of US 6 was decommissioned in California was due to its long concurrency with US 395 south of Bishop. They were trying to eliminate as many route concurrencies as possible back at that time.
Still an active policy in California, multiplexes are supposed to be minimal in length. I'm surprised that 99 actually is concurrent with US 50 and I-5 for as long as it is in Sacramento.
Quote from: dgolub on May 12, 2016, 08:28:35 AM
Yeah, New Jersey clearly hasn't gotten the message, as evidenced by US 46, US 130, and US 206.
Aren't three-digit routes usually an exception to these rules anyhow, since they're mostly auxiliary routes of two-digit ones (US 101 being the exception to that)? As for US 46, I'd still like to see that multiplexed with I-80 and brought back into Pennsylvania.
If you want an example of states not California removing US Routes, then how about Ohio and West Virginia, which both removed US 21 in favor of I-77. US 21 now truncates in Wytheville, VA. This is the typical reason why a US Routes are decommissioned, they were completely replaced by an interstate; main reason why all of US 66 was removed in favor of I-40/I-44/I-55 back in the 1980s.
A better example would be Pennsylvania which has removed several US routes with and without an interstate: 111, 120, 122, 230, 309, 611
Quote from: Mapmikey on May 13, 2016, 11:02:06 AM
A better example would be Pennsylvania which has removed several US routes with and without an interstate: 111, 120, 122, 230, 309, 611
I'm surprised that PennDOT didn't consider decommissioning the eastern portion of US 422 when it decommissioned those other US routes.
Don't forget US 140; such was removed in PA (and replaced w/PA 97) as well.
Quote from: WashuOtaku on May 13, 2016, 08:29:00 AM
If you want an example of states not California removing US Routes, then how about Ohio and West Virginia, which both removed US 21 in favor of I-77. US 21 now truncates in Wytheville, VA. This is the typical reason why a US Routes are decommissioned, they were completely replaced by an interstate; main reason why all of US 66 was removed in favor of I-40/I-44/I-55 back in the 1980s.
Another recent example would be US 27 from Fort Wayne all the way into mid-Michigan. Although that truncation was back in 2001 and it existed multiplexed with I-69 largely north of Fort Wayne. Most of the eastern routes that still exist near Interstate corridors run on separate roadways....at least the multiplexes tend to be more minimal. Hypothetically a Route like 66 could have stayed on enough surface streets to justify exists...but unlike the east coast there wasn't any populace on said roads to justify it...
Speaking of California, why exactly did it do away with so many of its US routes? US 60, specifically? I was asked this question and wasn't really sure of the answer. Is there a definitive link to which I can refer my friend?
Quote from: hbelkins on May 14, 2016, 04:57:00 PM
Speaking of California, why exactly did it do away with so many of its US routes? US 60, specifically? I was asked this question and wasn't really sure of the answer. Is there a definitive link to which I can refer my friend?
A lot of it is based in the 1964 California highway remembering. There was a huge mess of state routes and big multiplexes that were elimated at the time. Basically you had stupid long multiplexes like US 60 and 70 traveling across the desert for hundreds of miles. Basically that simplification only escalated as Interstates claimed more of the alignments of US Routes.
Here is some good links that might explain things a bit better:
http://www.cahighways.org/pre-inst.html
http://www.cahighways.org/chronlgy.html
Where California is concerned, keep one thing in mind. Even if there are only 6 US routes left, 3 of them are still very important routes within the state, and of those, the north-south routes of 101 and 395 have very long mileage within the state, despite earlier truncations in SoCA.
I was in Northern CA last Christmas and the exit numbers were in the high 700's and low 800's. There is still a lot of US highway mileage in CA. The only one IMO that should had not been eliminated would had been US 99 between the Grapevine and Sacramento. BTW US 50 would be the other important route IMO.
Quote from: RoadWarrior56 on May 14, 2016, 09:16:37 PM
Where California is concerned, keep one thing in mind. Even if there are only 6 US routes left, 3 of them are still very important routes within the state, and of those, the north-south routes of 101 and 395 have very long mileage within the state, despite earlier truncations in SoCA.
I was in Northern CA last Christmas and the exit numbers were in the high 700's and low 800's. There is still a lot of US highway mileage in CA. The only one IMO that should had not been eliminated would had been US 99 between the Grapevine and Sacramento. BTW US 50 would be the other important route IMO.
US 50 being truncated to first to the original alignment of I-80 in Sacramento was perfect and the current route to I-5 works too. Basically US 50 being duplicated to San Francisco with US 40 never mad much sense nor did routing it Manteca. It's actually a fairly useful alternate over the Sierras even in the winter time.
That would be 808 miles of US 101 and 556 of US 395 to be exact. Both those truncations made sense...so did US 6 but I heard a recent suggestion that was pretty good. Basically the premise was that US 6 be extended as a seasonal US Highway over Tioga Pass via CA 120 with a western termination point at I-5 in Manteca...which is ironically close the original alignment of US 48 of all things. It would be nice to have a couple more east/west routes through California like an extended US 60 via CA 62 and CA 60 to downtown L.A. and something for CA 299. The only problem 299 has that it is under the 300 mile AASHTO guidance if it's cut back to US 395 and extending it along to the state line with old NV8a doesn't really make a lot of sense given the poor dirt quality. I'm assuming CA 58 from I-40 to I-5 will SOMEDAY be an Interstate so my preference would be a CA 40 until that happens...which granted might be decades if ever...
Quote from: hbelkins on May 14, 2016, 04:57:00 PM
Speaking of California, why exactly did it do away with so many of its US routes? US 60, specifically? I was asked this question and wasn't really sure of the answer. Is there a definitive link to which I can refer my friend?
They banned concurrencies which meant that almost every US Highway in the state, which by 1964 mostly were concurrent with interstates, became obsolete. This also meant that freeway portions of US 60 and 99 were orphaned from their segments in other states, so they became
State Route 60 and 99.
Quote from: AMLNet49 on May 15, 2016, 07:48:41 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 14, 2016, 04:57:00 PM
Speaking of California, why exactly did it do away with so many of its US routes? US 60, specifically? I was asked this question and wasn't really sure of the answer. Is there a definitive link to which I can refer my friend?
They banned concurrencies which meant that almost every US Highway in the state, which by 1964 mostly were concurrent with interstates, became obsolete. This also meant that freeway portions of US 60 and 99 were orphaned from their segments in other states, so they became
State Route 60 and 99.
91 has an orphaned freeway segment as well in addition to the first two.
I saw a photo on here that you can still see the "ears" of a US 60 shield under a CA 60 shield on a freeway sign that wasn't greened out properly.
Each state has its own policy on decommissioning US Highways. Michigan really likes to decommission US highways parralel to interstates.
Us 10, US 16, US 25, and US 27 are roads that were shortened or decommissioned entirely in Michigan. If a road parallels an interstate, Michigan prefers to get rid of the US route.
Wisconsin only decommissioned US 16 because Minnesota and South Dakota wanted to. The entire route in Wisconsin became Wis 16. Other than US 141 becoming decommissioned south of Green Bay, the US highways in Wisconsin remain unchanged. Could make the case that US 51 and US 41 could be decommissioned, but they're both concurrent with interstates.
Minnesota decommissioned US 61 north of Minneapolis and made the stretch north of Duluth MN 61. It also makes US 52 and US 12 "invisible" for large stretches with one US X follow I-X sign where the concurrency begins. Could say that Minnesota prefers to "ignore" us routes.
Quote from: peterj920 on May 16, 2016, 04:18:22 AM
Each state has its own policy on decommissioning US Highways. Michigan really likes to decommission US highways parralel to interstates.
Us 10, US 16, US 25, and US 27 are roads that were shortened or decommissioned entirely in Michigan. If a road parallels an interstate, Michigan prefers to get rid of the US route.
Wisconsin only decommissioned US 16 because Minnesota and South Dakota wanted to. The entire route in Wisconsin became Wis 16. Other than US 141 becoming decommissioned south of Green Bay, the US highways in Wisconsin remain unchanged. Could make the case that US 51 and US 41 could be decommissioned, but they're both concurrent with interstates.
Minnesota decommissioned US 61 north of Minneapolis and made the stretch north of Duluth MN 61. It also makes US 52 and US 12 "invisible" for large stretches with one US X follow I-X sign where the concurrency begins. Could say that Minnesota prefers to "ignore" us routes.
The weird one was US 27 since it lasted until 2001 despite being almost completely multiplexed with I-69 south of Lansing.. I actually have a bunch of family that lived on one of the few sections of surface US 27 in Lansing when it was decomissioned. A lot of people back then were really upset that US 127 took over north of St. Johns and thought that US 27 ought to absorb the route to Cincinnati.
Yeah why not make 27 overtake 127? why increase the length of the 3dus?
Quote from: texaskdog on May 16, 2016, 09:53:17 AM
Yeah why not make 27 overtake 127? why increase the length of the 3dus?
I think a lot of it had to do with the equally strong rumors at he time that US 127 from I-94 north to Graying would become part of the once proposed extension of I-73. Hell I still think US 10 ought to have moved over to M15 so it could reach US 24 in Waterford Township and take Wodoward Ave back to downtown Detroit.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 16, 2016, 10:09:05 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on May 16, 2016, 09:53:17 AM
Yeah why not make 27 overtake 127? why increase the length of the 3dus?
I think a lot of it had to do with the equally strong rumors at he time that US 127 from I-94 north to Graying would become part of the once proposed extension of I-73. Hell I still think US 10 ought to have moved over to M15 so it could reach US 24 in Waterford Township and take Wodoward Ave back to downtown Detroit.
I think the more likely reason is that INDOT would have objected to losing the US-27 designation for the perfectly good road that connects Ft. Wayne, Richmond, and Cincinnati.
Quote from: theline on May 16, 2016, 01:46:52 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 16, 2016, 10:09:05 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on May 16, 2016, 09:53:17 AM
Yeah why not make 27 overtake 127? why increase the length of the 3dus?
I think a lot of it had to do with the equally strong rumors at he time that US 127 from I-94 north to Graying would become part of the once proposed extension of I-73. Hell I still think US 10 ought to have moved over to M15 so it could reach US 24 in Waterford Township and take Wodoward Ave back to downtown Detroit.
Swap it with US 127, seems like a simple fix to me. Wouldn't a two digit US Route make more sense heading through a large freeway artery heading to a state capital like Lansing make more sense while the three digit went to Fort Wayne?
I think the more likely reason is that INDOT would have objected to losing the US-27 designation for the perfectly good road that connects Ft. Wayne, Richmond, and Cincinnati.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 16, 2016, 10:07:43 PM
Quote from: theline on May 16, 2016, 01:46:52 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 16, 2016, 10:09:05 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on May 16, 2016, 09:53:17 AM
Yeah why not make 27 overtake 127? why increase the length of the 3dus?
I think a lot of it had to do with the equally strong rumors at he time that US 127 from I-94 north to Graying would become part of the once proposed extension of I-73. Hell I still think US 10 ought to have moved over to M15 so it could reach US 24 in Waterford Township and take Wodoward Ave back to downtown Detroit.
I think the more likely reason is that INDOT would have objected to losing the US-27 designation for the perfectly good road that connects Ft. Wayne, Richmond, and Cincinnati.
Swap it with US 127, seems like a simple fix to me. Wouldn't a two digit US Route make more sense heading through a large freeway artery heading to a state capital like Lansing make more sense while the three digit went to Fort Wayne?
Max, somehow your quote ended up getting attributed to me in your posting. I've pulled it out and put it where it belongs in the quote here.
My point was about the locations of the two highways in Indiana and Ohio. Both are two lane roads over most of their paths in those states, though there are some four-lane sections of 27 in the Ft. Wayne area and of both roads in the Cincinnati area. I apparently very poorly expressed my opinion that 27 and 127 would not be swapped in those states, because 27 serves as a good connection between Ft. Wayne, Cincinnati, and points between.
If you want to swap 27 and 127 in Michigan, how does 27 get back to Ft. Wayne to connect with the FW-Cincinnati section? I don't think Indiana will go for renumbering that road, so you've got to make them connect. If they are discontinuous, they at least need to line up.
As state routes, Caltrans can relocate them or discontinue them whenever they want, without waiting for permission.
Caltrans claimed the white on green shields are more visible in marginal conditions than the black on white.
They felt strongly that long concurrencies were more confusing than helpful and not that many people took them the whole route. So they eliminated most of them.
Quote from: kkt on May 17, 2016, 02:20:55 PM
As state routes, Caltrans can relocate them or discontinue them whenever they want, without waiting for permission.
Caltrans claimed the white on green shields are more visible in marginal conditions than the black on white.
They felt strongly that long concurrencies were more confusing than helpful and not that many people took them the whole route. So they eliminated most of them.
That statement would make a lot more sense if there was any logic to the route numbers in California. There so many tiny little routes less than 5 miles that could be just outright dropped or have hidden designations...at least more than are already. A state like California ought to enact a grid like Florida does if they want to claim the state route markers make more sense for navigation. I think even for the most casual driver the U.S. Route shield is a lot more recognizable by a large margin over any state highway shield. Plus the U.S. Route system was planned as a grid from the beginning. If color is a problem why not just make the U.S. Route shields red/white/blue cutouts rather than the standard white?
Are states allowed to post colored variations on the U.S. route shield? California, of course, does use a cutout U.S. route shield, but still white on black.
Quote from: kkt on May 17, 2016, 04:21:41 PM
Are states allowed to post colored variations on the U.S. route shield? California, of course, does use a cutout U.S. route shield, but still white on black.
I don't think so. Florida was famous for having colored US shields, and they were eventually told to stop using them.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on May 17, 2016, 07:30:44 PM
Quote from: kkt on May 17, 2016, 04:21:41 PM
Are states allowed to post colored variations on the U.S. route shield? California, of course, does use a cutout U.S. route shield, but still white on black.
I don't think so. Florida was famous for having colored US shields, and they were eventually told to stop using them.
Wasn't there a funding supplement they were going to stop getting in Florida if they didn't switch to the MUTCD compliant black and white US Route signs? There are still a handful out in the field here and there.