I'm sure that this has been discussed in a thread somewhere - probably multiple threads:
Why are US highways decommissioned in some states but not in others? For example, US25 runs parallel to I-75 through Kentucky from the Tennessee border to the Ohio River. In some places, literally a stone's throw away. And US25 exists throughout the entire state of Kentucky (I believe). But US25 has been decommissioned in Ohio. North of the Ohio river, it is OH25 and MI25. The same thing was done with US21 in Ohio. Parts of it (from north of Strasburg north to Cleveland) are OH21. Other segments have reverted to county maintenance.
So why is there a US25 in, say, Whitley County, Kentucky (I know, it's US25W) which is almost completely rural? Who makes these high-level decisions? If it's a matter of maintenance, what's the difference between OH25 and US25? Either way, ODOT pays to maintain, does it not?
California is possibly the biggest offender on decommissions of US highways. It came up in a thread on that board very recently, where someone mentioned that, at the time of all the slashing, Caltrans just had a guy that just had it out for them, and the state just went along with it. Because why would legislatures - or really anyone but roadgeeks - care? And, really, to Caltrans - and many other agencies - it doesn't matter. It's not a federal route or a state route; it's just a route.
Quote from: coatimundi on July 29, 2016, 03:47:17 PM
It's not a federal route or a state route; it's just a route.
US 5, which parallels I-91 and is no more important than nearby surface roads, stays US 5.
US 201, although it doesn't parallel a freeway, is no more important than other similar state routes. And it's only in one state! It hasn't been downgraded.
US 202 has long overlaps in several states, and it is almost completely overlapped in Maine. US 202 even has a
county-maintained section in New Jersey. But US 202 remains a US route.
If US 99, a route that is much more important than the surrounding state routes, got downgraded, why did these stay?
Quote from: 1 on July 29, 2016, 04:05:13 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on July 29, 2016, 03:47:17 PM
It's not a federal route or a state route; it's just a route.
US 5, which parallels I-91 and is no more important than nearby surface roads, stays US 5.
US 201, although it doesn't parallel a freeway, is no more important than other similar state routes. And it's only in one state! It hasn't been downgraded.
US 202 has long overlaps in several states, and it is almost completely overlapped in Maine. US 202 even has a county-maintained section in New Jersey. But US 202 remains a US route.
If US 99, a route that is much more important than the surrounding state routes, got downgraded, why did these stay?
You might want to reread coatimundi's
entire post again (reposted below w/
bold emphasis added); none of your other listed examples are located in California or even the west coast for that matter.
Quote from: coatimundi on July 29, 2016, 03:47:17 PM
California is possibly the biggest offender on decommissions of US highways. It came up in a thread on that board very recently, where someone mentioned that, at the time of all the slashing, Caltrans just had a guy that just had it out for them, and the state just went along with it. Because why would legislatures - or really anyone but roadgeeks - care? And, really, to Caltrans - and many other agencies - it doesn't matter. It's not a federal route or a state route; it's just a route.
Quote from: 1 on July 29, 2016, 04:05:13 PM
If US 99, a route that is much more important than the surrounding state routes, got downgraded, why did these stay?
I think you have the idea that there's responsibility for this at the federal level. In reality, it's up to the states. US 99 was decommissioned by California first and by Oregon and Washington later on. It wasn't a sweeping national removal. US 66 was similar. And, in another example, US 60 was long ago totally removed from California but still exists almost as it has always existed in Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, etc.
Maryland has not been all that much into decommissioning of U.S. routes.
Long sections of U.S. 40 are still signed, but now exist as multiplexes with I-68 (Keysers Ridge to Hancock); I-70 (Hancock to Big Pool; and Frederick to Marriottsville)
U.S. 111 was entirely replaced by I-83 (in function) and most of what was signed as U.S. 111 became Md. 45.
U.S. 140 became mostly today's Md. 140, though north of Westminster it followed the present-day routing of Md. 97.
U.S. 213 was converted to U.S. 50 (or Md. 662) south of Queenstown (near Wye Oak), and north of there to Elkton, it became Md. 213.
U.S. 222 south of U.S. 1 was converted to Md. 222.
U.S. 240 was mostly superseded by I-70S (I-270 today), and the portion from I-495 to the D.C. line became Md. 355.
U.S. 301 north of Bowie became Md. 3 after 301 was re-routed to follow U.S. 50 across the Chesapeake Bay Bridge and then replaced Md. 71 to the Delaware border.
U.S. 340 was (slightly) truncated in Frederick. It once followed Jefferson Street toward Patrick Street near the downtown area, now it ends at U.S. 40/U.S. 15 near the southwest edge of Frederick.
Tennessee extended US 412 to I-65 I think around 1989. US 641 was just extended over from I-40 all the way south to US 64. US 23 is still on the books after I-26 was completed.
Quote from: Fred Defender on July 29, 2016, 03:17:02 PMFor example, US25 runs parallel to I-75 through Kentucky ...
A good example of a route that has been superseded by a parallel Interstate, but still remains. But not a good example of a road that would be decommissioned. With all the route miles that the state of Kentucky is responsible for, the road would remain as a state highway in some form or another. KY probably thinks this is good enough reason to keep it as US-25. Else they'd need to re-sign it as another number.
Now if Tennessee were to make a proposal that 25W was no longer needed as a US route, they might be able to get KY to go along with them. Otherwise, there would probably be no point.
Michigan and Ohio are good examples of states that decommissioned or truncated US routes when the new Interstates were built. They also are good examples of building new freeways that replace the old US routes, and take over the route numbers, without needing to apply for Interstate numbers.
Yeah. It depends on states; some states have mileage caps and are unable to maintain both the Interstate and the US route it replaced due to money or mileage cap restrictions. Minnesota has obviously been one of those states that was/is aggressive about removing superfluous US routes.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 29, 2016, 05:50:55 PM
U.S. 301 north of Bowie became Md. 3 after 301 was re-routed to follow U.S. 50 across the Chesapeake Bay Bridge and then replaced Md. 71 to the Delaware border.
301 replaced MD 3 from Baltimore south.. when 301 was rerouted Route 3 was recommissioned from US 50 to Baltimore.. some of route 3 is now i97..
A lot of the routes were shortened when the Interstates were being complete. Basically looking back at the time almost nobody wanted to drive a US Route in the 1970s or 80s.....so why not shorten routes that were largely were thought to become obsolete?....which they really never did. Coatimundi listed California as one of the biggest offenders but there was others like Michigan who slashed like crazy with US 2, US 10, US 16, US 25 and US 27 basically being cut back or deleted completely right off the top of my head. A lot of the eastern states kept their US Routes intact since they basically acted as business loops/spurs and kept their importance. I don't think the slashing would have been drastic with modern traffic patterns and increased population sprawl seen in modern times.
I'm guessing that the states who kept the parallel US routes (like 25/25W in Kentucky) did not petition AASHTO for decertification, whereas Ohio did. And yes, Kentucky would keep state maintenance. Even the old route where US 25 joins I-75 to cross the Kentucky River has a state designation.
I'm presuming that in instances where a route was decommissioned across state lines, such as US 21 in Virginia, West Virginia and Ohio, the states were in agreement that it should be done. AASHTO can't force compliance. If Alabama wanted to do away with US 11 (which it should, since US 11 is almost entirely paralleled by Interstate routes) no one could make Mississippi or Georgia, or any of the other states it runs through, do so as well.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 29, 2016, 10:26:45 PM
A lot of the routes were shortened when the Interstates were being complete. Basically looking back at the time almost nobody wanted to drive a US Route in the 1970s or 80s.....so why not shorten routes that were largely were thought to become obsolete?....which they really never did. Coatimundi listed California as one of the biggest offenders but there was others like Michigan who slashed like crazy with US 2, US 10, US 16, US 25 and US 27 basically being cut back or deleted completely right off the top of my head. A lot of the eastern states kept their US Routes intact since they basically acted as business loops/spurs and kept their importance. I don't think the slashing would have been drastic with modern traffic patterns and increased population sprawl seen in modern times.
I don't think most of the US highways that were outright deleted would have occurred if the interstates were a new thing today. Back in the day, it was still a bit uncommon for random routes to be built up to freeway standards, so having that interstate shield was a good form of advertising.
But I do wish more US routes were retained and used for frontage roads, business loops, etc. Oregon does this with US-30, and I think it's a good idea.
Quote from: Quillz on July 29, 2016, 11:45:21 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 29, 2016, 10:26:45 PM
A lot of the routes were shortened when the Interstates were being complete. Basically looking back at the time almost nobody wanted to drive a US Route in the 1970s or 80s.....so why not shorten routes that were largely were thought to become obsolete?....which they really never did. Coatimundi listed California as one of the biggest offenders but there was others like Michigan who slashed like crazy with US 2, US 10, US 16, US 25 and US 27 basically being cut back or deleted completely right off the top of my head. A lot of the eastern states kept their US Routes intact since they basically acted as business loops/spurs and kept their importance. I don't think the slashing would have been drastic with modern traffic patterns and increased population sprawl seen in modern times.
I don't think most of the US highways that were outright deleted would have occurred if the interstates were a new thing today. Back in the day, it was still a bit uncommon for random routes to be built up to freeway standards, so having that interstate shield was a good form of advertising.
But I do wish more US routes were retained and used for frontage roads, business loops, etc. Oregon does this with US-30, and I think it's a good idea.
The best example nationwide is US 1. That whole corridor is still viable in full despite I-95 carrying the bulk of the traffic. Basically for the most part US 1 is the defacto surface and/or business route.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 29, 2016, 10:26:45 PM
...Michigan who slashed like crazy with US 2, US 10, US 16, US 25 and US 27 basically being cut back or deleted completely ...
In 1979, MDOT and FHWA did a study of guide signage near the interchange between I-296/US 131 and I-96/M-37 in Walker, northwest of downtown Grand Rapids. Out of that study, MDOT recommended, and then FHWA and AASHTO both concurred with, removing the I-296 designation from signage to simplify things. In the aftermath of that study, MDOT looked at other two- and three-way concurrencies in the state. In the department's recommendations, US 2 and US 10 were removed from I-75. US 33 was also judged to be redundant to US 31 and recommended for removal.
As for the others, given the timeline between the approval on US 27, the study of I-73 and the implementation of the removal of US 27 (1999—2002), I have a theory that MDOT may have waited to actually kill off US 27 once it was clear I-73 could or could not have been signed instead of US 127 north of Lansing. US 16 was totally replaced by I-96 in terms of function, so it made sense to ax it. US 25 was mostly functionally replaced by I-75 and I-94, and the rest could be easily assigned other numbers (M-125, M-3, M-25).
I think you'd have to look at how the upkeep of these routes is funded.
Quote from: 8.Lug on July 30, 2016, 05:45:43 AM
I think you'd have to look at how the upkeep of these routes is funded.
A lot of them out east just became state highways, so really the funding didn't change all that much. I had a discussion in some other thread about a month back about Grand River (Old M-16/US 16) becoming a single state highway again instead of several with gaps in the middle between Lansing and Detroit. Even out west a lot of the old US Routes became state highways, even here in California. US 60 mostly became CA 60, US 299 became CA 299, US 466 became CA 46/58, US 99 became CA 99 and CA 111. Really for the most part who funded the routes didn't change but the signs and traffic counts did when the Interstates came around.
Quote from: Quillz on July 29, 2016, 11:45:21 PM
But I do wish more US routes were retained and used for frontage roads, business loops, etc. Oregon does this with US-30, and I think it's a good idea.
This practice in my opinion is why the US route system sucks. Too many useless roads, it can't be relied upon. There's really no reason to have a separate category of supposedly better routes if states refuse to use them as such.
Quote from: flowmotion on July 30, 2016, 02:49:46 PM
Quote from: Quillz on July 29, 2016, 11:45:21 PM
But I do wish more US routes were retained and used for frontage roads, business loops, etc. Oregon does this with US-30, and I think it's a good idea.
This practice in my opinion is why the US route system sucks. Too many useless roads, it can't be relied upon. There's really no reason to have a separate category of supposedly better routes if states refuse to use them as such.
Using them as frontage roads is good practice, I think. But really, what I would like to see US routes do is be re-routed to provide access to more localized areas. I was doing a California renumbering, and one of the things I did was move US-60 out of downtown LA (where I-10 obsoleted it), and instead put it through the Valley to reach Ventura. I think things like this is a good way to get mileage (pun intended) out of the network. Send them into cities and towns that are satellites to the greater metropolitan areas near them.
Quote from: Quillz on July 30, 2016, 07:11:14 PM
Quote from: flowmotion on July 30, 2016, 02:49:46 PM
Quote from: Quillz on July 29, 2016, 11:45:21 PM
But I do wish more US routes were retained and used for frontage roads, business loops, etc. Oregon does this with US-30, and I think it's a good idea.
This practice in my opinion is why the US route system sucks. Too many useless roads, it can't be relied upon. There's really no reason to have a separate category of supposedly better routes if states refuse to use them as such.
Using them as frontage roads is good practice, I think. But really, what I would like to see US routes do is be re-routed to provide access to more localized areas. I was doing a California renumbering, and one of the things I did was move US-60 out of downtown LA (where I-10 obsoleted it), and instead put it through the Valley to reach Ventura. I think things like this is a good way to get mileage (pun intended) out of the network. Send them into cities and towns that are satellites to the greater metropolitan areas near them.
But that's where the "we can't or don't like change brigade," "but it isn't necessary with GPS" or something like legislative number duplicates being a no-no like California really shoot that all down. Really if you think about it there is enough available state maintained roads across the country that could be used to create a much better grid updated to fit in with the modern Interstates if there was ever a push for it. Some like a new US 60 in California along existing state routes seems to me and a whole bunch of people on this forum like a no-brainier but you have to compete with all those obstacles I just described even for a signage swap. Really there is going to probably have to be a nation wide infrastructure push that hasn't really happened since the 1960s to get people and legislative bodies interested again....
Well, exactly. Realistically, there is no need for three tiers of highways, only two.
Kansas has a lot former US Routes, too. Most of them being 3-digit routes that were wholy within the state itself.
One example being K-156. US-156 went from Dodge City to Great Bend to Ellsworth. The section between Great Bend to Ellsworth was originally K-45 (simply because it does follow a roughly 45 degree angle southwest to northeast). US-156 was given back to the State in 1982 as K-156.
Perhaps the most famous former US Route was 66. Kansas' short section of 66's final alignment is now K-66.
iPhone
The odd thing is that US-266 still exists, but wholy within Oklahoma.
iPhone
US 40 used to snake its way through Kansas along the Missouri Pacific line through northern parts of the state. It wasn't replaced by I-70, but merely realigned to I -70 itself. Old US-40 became mostly county roads, but the section between Ellsworth and Salina became K-140.
The section between Topeka and Kansas City/Kansas City is still intact. Never was realigned to the Turnpike. But, US 24 and 40 was realigned from State Avenue to I-70 between K-7 and 18th Street in 2008.
US 73's southern terminus went from at I-435 on State Avenue to at I-70 along K-7.
iPhone
US-75 used to be Gage Boulevard in Topeka, but has since been realigned to I -70 west of Gage to I-470 and then back to Gage and Topeka Boulevards just before the Turnpike.
iPhone
why was us 460 decommissioned outside of kentucky?
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 31, 2016, 03:43:07 PM
why was us 460 decommissioned outside of kentucky?
What are you talking about? It still runs through Virginia and a little bit of West Virginia.
Quote from: dvferyance on July 31, 2016, 07:59:03 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 31, 2016, 03:43:07 PM
why was us 460 decommissioned outside of kentucky?
What are you talking about? It still runs through Virginia and a little bit of West Virginia.
It used to go all the way to st Louis
I wonder if there are children routes that don't intersect their parents, but used to. I don't mean the oddballs 400, 412, 425.
I don't think 281 has ever intersected its parent though.
iPhone
Quote from: cappicard on July 31, 2016, 08:03:07 PM
I wonder if there are sibling routes that don't intersect their parents, but used to. I don't mean the oddballs 400, 412, 425.
I don't think 281 has ever intersected its parent though.
iPhone
There are some.. i don't think 206 intersects with 6.
199 still exists but parent does not exist any more
666 was like that too, but Satans highway is no more
666 was renumbered as 491 in 2003.
iPhone
I know 166 is only the only sizable child left of 66. 166 goes from Medicine Lodge, Kansas to I-44.
It seems US-266 functions mainly as a business loop for I-40. It's only 43 miles long.
iPhone
Quote from: cappicard on July 31, 2016, 08:03:07 PM
I wonder if there are children routes that don't intersect their parents, but used to. I don't mean the oddballs 400, 412, 425.
I don't think 281 has ever intersected its parent though.
iPhone
Here are a few off the top of my head...
191
212(?)
222
310
311
521
641
Abit of a tangent, how about those routes that share the same alignment as their parents at one point or another?
169 and 69 do that for very short stints throughout the KC metro area.
iPhone
Quote from: Mapmikey on July 31, 2016, 08:16:04 PM
Quote from: cappicard on July 31, 2016, 08:03:07 PM
I wonder if there are children routes that don't intersect their parents, but used to. I don't mean the oddballs 400, 412, 425.
I don't think 281 has ever intersected its parent though.
iPhone
Here are a few off the top of my head...
191
212(?)
222
310
311
521
641
212 doesn't connect to US 12 anymore but it's just barely and roughly in the same corridor.
Quote from: cappicard on July 31, 2016, 08:03:07 PM
I wonder if there are children routes that don't intersect their parents, but used to. I don't mean the oddballs 400, 412, 425.
I don't think 281 has ever intersected its parent though.
iPhone
US-395 has never touched US-95, only US-195. This has been the case even when it was first created, long before it was extended south to San Diego.
EDIT: Oh, I misread your post. Uh... I guess US-199 would qualify.
How about Bypasses?
281 Bypass in Great Bend, Kansas has never been an official bypass. AFAIK, there's never been an application to AASTHO
for it.
It's nothing more than a city street labelled as such.
iPhone
Quote from: Mapmikey212(?)
212 intersected its parent until 1983.
US 219 does not intersect US 19. It used to, however. But it does intersect US 119.
US 60 and US 460 have a one-block wrong-way concurrency in downtown Mt. Sterling, Ky.
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 31, 2016, 03:43:07 PM
why was us 460 decommissioned outside of kentucky?
I think I know the back story about this in Indiana. US 460 ran on a curvy and hilly facility through southern Indiana. The state perferred that through traffic be routed onto I-64 even though it ran well north of Evansville. I think that renumbering it to a state route helped to move those off the roadway.
Illinois was probably happy to download the road to the various counties.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on August 01, 2016, 06:57:51 PM
Illinois was probably happy to download the road to the various counties.
And yet nobody remembers the only physical object to be downloaded...
I still think California was probably right to decommission all of its in-state US routes.
What is a US route? It doesn't mean anything, they could be anything from interstate quality to a 1-lane path. They might have bridges that'll hold your truck, or they might not. They can meander all over the place.
California's visibility studies showed white on green markers to be more visible than black on white. That's important in a state with many routes subject to snowstorms or fog.
Anytime a state wants to do the smallest reroute on a US route they have to seek approval.
The US routes' navigational purpose has been replaced by Interstates, and now also GPS.
Maybe the Interstates should have continued to use the US route numbers, but that was decided a long time ago (and again, the interstates numbers actually mean something about how the road is built).
California could post the US shields like Florida did with US 27 and US 192 in green.
Quote from: cappicard on July 31, 2016, 08:03:07 PM
I don't think 281 has ever intersected its parent though.
iPhone
San Antonio?
Quote from: kkt on August 01, 2016, 07:24:37 PM
I still think California was probably right to decommission all of its in-state US routes.
What is a US route? It doesn't mean anything, they could be anything from interstate quality to a 1-lane path. They might have bridges that'll hold your truck, or they might not. They can meander all over the place.
California's visibility studies showed white on green markers to be more visible than black on white. That's important in a state with many routes subject to snowstorms or fog.
Anytime a state wants to do the smallest reroute on a US route they have to seek approval.
The US routes' navigational purpose has been replaced by Interstates, and now also GPS.
Maybe the Interstates should have continued to use the US route numbers, but that was decided a long time ago (and again, the interstates numbers actually mean something about how the road is built).
I'm actually surprised that they didn't go with something like keeping the U.S. route number. It probably had to do with route continuity since something like US 66 was replaced by several Interstates. It would be interesting to see something like how Mexico does things with the D routes. Maybe a red, white and blue US Route shield could have been used to designate Interstate quality sections?
Regardless, personally I think that the old intrastate US Route that might have been viable keeping was 299 which was pushing 300 miles even before it was converted to a state route. That connects some major corridors in some remote mountains with US 101, I-5 and U.S. 395.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on August 01, 2016, 07:55:48 PM
California could post the US shields like Florida did with US 27 and US 192 in green.
If anything modern reflective vinyl really has usurped the need for green spades. It would be pretty cool if Caltrans adopted a white design that had some flair to it similar to the originals.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on August 01, 2016, 06:57:51 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 31, 2016, 03:43:07 PM
why was us 460 decommissioned outside of kentucky?
I think I know the back story about this in Indiana. US 460 ran on a curvy and hilly facility through southern Indiana. The state perferred that through traffic be routed onto I-64 even though it ran well north of Evansville. I think that renumbering it to a state route helped to move those off the roadway.
Illinois was probably happy to download the road to the various counties.
Except all of US 460's routing through Illinois stayed marked as IL 15, IL 142, and IL 14.
I should have reviewed a map. I just could not recall a state road system along that routing. There is one along I-57.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on August 01, 2016, 07:55:48 PM
California could post the US shields like Florida did with US 27 and US 192 in green.
Kansas used to have those white-on-green US shields. I remember the green US-56 shields in Great Bend growing up. :)
iPhone
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 01, 2016, 08:27:58 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on August 01, 2016, 07:55:48 PM
California could post the US shields like Florida did with US 27 and US 192 in green.
If anything modern reflective vinyl really has usurped the need for green spades. It would be pretty cool if Caltrans adopted a white design that had some flair to it similar to the originals.
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CA/CA19591542i1.jpg)
Time for these to make a comeback.
Quote from: Quillz on August 02, 2016, 12:08:53 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 01, 2016, 08:27:58 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on August 01, 2016, 07:55:48 PM
California could post the US shields like Florida did with US 27 and US 192 in green.
If anything modern reflective vinyl really has usurped the need for green spades. It would be pretty cool if Caltrans adopted a white design that had some flair to it similar to the originals.
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CA/CA19591542i1.jpg)
Time for these to make a comeback.
Yes with the bear somewhere in there and everything will be golden.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 29, 2016, 11:48:32 PM
Basically for the most part US 1 is the defacto surface and/or business route.
Except between Jacksonville, Florida and Petersburg, Virginia, where U.S. 1 follows a much more inland route than I-95 (and U.S. 301 is in some parts of North Carolina and Virginia a frontage road or business road for I-95); again between Baltimore, Maryland and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (where U.S. 1 is more inland than I-95); and again between Portland, Maine and Houlton, Maine (where U.S. 1 takes a more "coastal" route and I-95 runs inland).
US 1 goes all the way to Raliegh, Statesville and Columbia whereas I-95 doesn't.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 02, 2016, 12:12:44 PM
Yes with the bear somewhere in there and everything will be golden.
Heh.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 01, 2016, 08:27:58 PM
If anything modern reflective vinyl really has usurped the need for green spades. It would be pretty cool if Caltrans adopted a white design that had some flair to it similar to the originals.
I'm not convinced. Black on white looks a whole lot more like wisps of fog or blowing snow than white on green.
Quote from: kkt on August 02, 2016, 01:56:17 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 01, 2016, 08:27:58 PM
If anything modern reflective vinyl really has usurped the need for green spades. It would be pretty cool if Caltrans adopted a white design that had some flair to it similar to the originals.
I'm not convinced. Black on white looks a whole lot more like wisps of fog or blowing snow than white on green.
I want that when the U.S. Route system was being planned yellow was considered for those very reasons. Lol. Hell if it stayed green and just had really sweet bear logo in there I'd be happy. No particular reason other than I think it would look cool. Just flatten the California and there should be space aplenty.
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 31, 2016, 08:00:12 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on July 31, 2016, 07:59:03 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 31, 2016, 03:43:07 PM
why was us 460 decommissioned outside of kentucky?
What are you talking about? It still runs through Virginia and a little bit of West Virginia.
It used to go all the way to st Louis
I know but it still goes outside Kentucky to the east.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 02, 2016, 02:52:30 PM
Quote from: kkt on August 02, 2016, 01:56:17 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 01, 2016, 08:27:58 PM
If anything modern reflective vinyl really has usurped the need for green spades. It would be pretty cool if Caltrans adopted a white design that had some flair to it similar to the originals.
I'm not convinced. Black on white looks a whole lot more like wisps of fog or blowing snow than white on green.
I want that when the U.S. Route system was being planned yellow was considered for those very reasons. Lol. Hell if it stayed green and just had really sweet bear logo in there I'd be happy. No particular reason other than I think it would look cool. Just flatten the California and there should be space aplenty.
I don't know if those results were ever published, but I would conclude that black-on-yellow was not considered as legible as black-on-white, even in the snow. Some other states, I believe Iowa, also tried on white-on-black for the same reasons. I think what also didn't help was even in 1926, yellow was starting to be used as a code color for cautionary information.
Quote from: Quillz on August 02, 2016, 10:03:40 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 02, 2016, 02:52:30 PM
Quote from: kkt on August 02, 2016, 01:56:17 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 01, 2016, 08:27:58 PM
If anything modern reflective vinyl really has usurped the need for green spades. It would be pretty cool if Caltrans adopted a white design that had some flair to it similar to the originals.
I'm not convinced. Black on white looks a whole lot more like wisps of fog or blowing snow than white on green.
I want that when the U.S. Route system was being planned yellow was considered for those very reasons. Lol. Hell if it stayed green and just had really sweet bear logo in there I'd be happy. No particular reason other than I think it would look cool. Just flatten the California and there should be space aplenty.
I don't know if those results were ever published, but I would conclude that black-on-yellow was not considered as legible as black-on-white, even in the snow. Some other states, I believe Iowa, also tried on white-on-black for the same reasons. I think what also didn't help was even in 1926, yellow was starting to be used as a code color for cautionary information.
Even still it's funny to think that there could be a boat load of yellow embossed 16 gauge signs in favor of the white we got. Granted we're talking the 1920s and reflective anything as far as road signage was a ways off until reflectors came to be.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 02, 2016, 10:48:21 PM
Quote from: Quillz on August 02, 2016, 10:03:40 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 02, 2016, 02:52:30 PM
Quote from: kkt on August 02, 2016, 01:56:17 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 01, 2016, 08:27:58 PM
If anything modern reflective vinyl really has usurped the need for green spades. It would be pretty cool if Caltrans adopted a white design that had some flair to it similar to the originals.
I'm not convinced. Black on white looks a whole lot more like wisps of fog or blowing snow than white on green.
I want that when the U.S. Route system was being planned yellow was considered for those very reasons. Lol. Hell if it stayed green and just had really sweet bear logo in there I'd be happy. No particular reason other than I think it would look cool. Just flatten the California and there should be space aplenty.
I don't know if those results were ever published, but I would conclude that black-on-yellow was not considered as legible as black-on-white, even in the snow. Some other states, I believe Iowa, also tried on white-on-black for the same reasons. I think what also didn't help was even in 1926, yellow was starting to be used as a code color for cautionary information.
Even still it's funny to think that there could be a boat load of yellow embossed 16 gauge signs in favor of the white we got. Granted we're talking the 1920s and reflective anything as far as road signage was a ways off until reflectors came to be.
I think realistically, either color scheme would have been fine. But I do think they were perhaps looking ahead a bit and realized it might be good to use colors for standard purposes. I think using white for general purpose and regulatory information is good, reserving yellow strictly for cautionary information. (In the same vein that purple seems to been unofficially adopted for toll information).
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on August 01, 2016, 06:57:51 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 31, 2016, 03:43:07 PM
why was us 460 decommissioned outside of kentucky?
I think I know the back story about this in Indiana. US 460 ran on a curvy and hilly facility through southern Indiana. The state perferred that through traffic be routed onto I-64 even though it ran well north of Evansville. I think that renumbering it to a state route helped to move those off the roadway.
Illinois was probably happy to download the road to the various counties.
US-460 is now IL-15, IL-142, and IL-14.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on August 01, 2016, 06:57:51 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 31, 2016, 03:43:07 PM
why was us 460 decommissioned outside of kentucky?
I think I know the back story about this in Indiana. US 460 ran on a curvy and hilly facility through southern Indiana. The state perferred that through traffic be routed onto I-64 even though it ran well north of Evansville. I think that renumbering it to a state route helped to move those off the roadway.
Illinois was probably happy to download the road to the various counties.
That explanation probably makes the most sense on this. I always thought it was strange that US 460 got the ax so quickly by INDOT, while other totally useless ones, such as US 150, still remain. The section from Shoals to New Albany could easily be served by a state route, and the pointless multi-plexing with US 50 and 41 eliminated. I have never heard anyone refer to the US 41 section between Vincennes and Terre Haute as US 41-150.
At least if US 460 was still around, the New Harmony bridge would probably still be in operation.
Quote from: Captain Jack on August 08, 2016, 10:09:04 AM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on August 01, 2016, 06:57:51 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 31, 2016, 03:43:07 PM
why was us 460 decommissioned outside of kentucky?
I think I know the back story about this in Indiana. US 460 ran on a curvy and hilly facility through southern Indiana. The state perferred that through traffic be routed onto I-64 even though it ran well north of Evansville. I think that renumbering it to a state route helped to move those off the roadway.
Illinois was probably happy to download the road to the various counties.
That explanation probably makes the most sense on this. I always thought it was strange that US 460 got the ax so quickly by INDOT, while other totally useless ones, such as US 150, still remain. The section from Shoals to New Albany could easily be served by a state route, and the pointless multi-plexing with US 50 and 41 eliminated. I have never heard anyone refer to the US 41 section between Vincennes and Terre Haute as US 41-150.
At least if US 460 was still around, the New Harmony bridge would probably still be in operation.
The reason why 150 isn't gone is likely because of Illinois and Kentucky still wanting it, but that's my guess on the matter.
Nexus 6P
TXDOT's approach to decommissioning of US highways seems, IMO, to be the most reasonable and measured of all the post-Interstate activities re the US highway network. Where there is an independent section of US highway beyond the Interstate multiplex or close parallel (i.e., US 67 and I-30 or US 87 and I-27 or I-10, and US 90 and I-10), the US highway is retained. That also pertains to sections in adjoining or ensuing states along the Interstate route; if such a state wishes to retain their US route designation, TX will follow suit. An example of this would be US 80 west of Dallas; it continued to be signed alongside I-20 and I-10 until NM and AZ decommissioned their portions of that route, at which time TX also decommissioned that route. "Useless/terminal" multiplexes, such as US 75 on/along I-45 south of Dallas and US 81 on I-35W and I-35 south of Fort Worth also prompt decommisioning of the US route. Divergence of the alignments of the Interstate route and original paralleling US highway, such as US 80 and I-20 between Dallas and the LA state line have meant retention of the US route.
It will be interesting to see the fate of US 59 in TX when and if the various I-69 iterations are fully developed, since there is no section of that highway in the state that is not slated for replacement by an Interstate facility.
Texas is a termni state. Some of this would not work in other places. US 75 could easily have been retained on the surface segments. US 80 could stick around as well.
Avalanchez 71 is correct; TX is indeed a border/seaboard state, intrinsically situated for terminating routes, both Interstate and U.S. While there are several instances of remaining parallel facilities -- Conroe to Streetman alongside I-45, currently signed as TX 75, is a prime example -- the concept of a superseded US highway multiplexing with the Interstate and then subsequently leaving for an independent parallel facility (that more often than not happened to be the original US route alignment) -- and doing so multiple times -- was apparently not considered to be terribly efficient or useful by TXDOT. It seems they prioritized system efficiency -- and minimal multiplexing -- over the retention of US routes. Since much of the Interstate mileage in south and west Texas was deployed right on top of the original route, particularly in rural regions or hilly terrain (similar to much of California Interstate alignments), the choice for TXDOT would have been to multiplex the US route or sign it along the frontage roads (hardly worth the signage expense!). Also, business Interstate loops (reasonably well-signed in TX) served the cities & towns along the Interstates; there was no need to string a US route along for the ride just to serve as a de facto business route.
Even into the early 2000's, when I still lived there, they had US 75 shields on some of the service roads on I-45 in Houston. I specifically recall them being at the Wayside intersection. Some of the old street signs in Oak Ridge North also used to either say "Dallas Highway" or "US 75".
Having dual shields is a lot of extra shields when you consider the entire former multiplexed route from Galveston to Conroe as game for it and the fact that each intersection typically has 6-8 sets of shields. And this adds absolutely no benefit for drivers. Same reason 81 was removed. I mean, the only reason 90 is still multiplexed and signed onto I-10 is because it's not on there for as long, and it would disrupt the larger route significantly to remove it.
Then why bother with the TX SH75 designation in that area? They could have just left it as US 75.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on August 08, 2016, 03:01:04 PM
Then why bother with the TX SH75 designation in that area? They could have just left it as US 75.
If you look at the route of SH 75, it did not take over the totality of the former US 75 routing: it ends well south of Dallas, where US 75 now begins.
As for why US 75 was not just carried over on I-45 for the short distance between the northern end of SH 75 and US 75 kept on what is now SH 75, 75 south of Streetman clearly parallels I-45 and, thus, does not have a purpose in the scope of the federal system.
Meanwhile, the state would have had to relinquish the former routing to drop it from the system entirely. That would not make sense though because much of the route maintains a local importance, even now. It also provides the terminus for a number of other state-maintained routes, and Texas does not seem to like having state routes terminate at county roads.
This is just a guess though.
It's also important, I think, to keep a sense of perspective with regards to US routes. The nostalgia for these routes among the non-roadgeek public is fairly recent. Aside from 66, most people just did not care about US highways 10-20 years ago. I don't know that it's actually changed that much either.
Quote from: sparker on August 08, 2016, 12:15:06 PM
TXDOT's approach to decommissioning of US highways seems, IMO, to be the most reasonable and measured of all the post-Interstate activities re the US highway network. Where there is an independent section of US highway beyond the Interstate multiplex or close parallel (i.e., US 67 and I-30 or US 87 and I-27 or I-10, and US 90 and I-10), the US highway is retained. That also pertains to sections in adjoining or ensuing states along the Interstate route; if such a state wishes to retain their US route designation, TX will follow suit. An example of this would be US 80 west of Dallas; it continued to be signed alongside I-20 and I-10 until NM and AZ decommissioned their portions of that route, at which time TX also decommissioned that route. "Useless/terminal" multiplexes, such as US 75 on/along I-45 south of Dallas and US 81 on I-35W and I-35 south of Fort Worth also prompt decommisioning of the US route. Divergence of the alignments of the Interstate route and original paralleling US highway, such as US 80 and I-20 between Dallas and the LA state line have meant retention of the US route.
It will be interesting to see the fate of US 59 in TX when and if the various I-69 iterations are fully developed, since there is no section of that highway in the state that is not slated for replacement by an Interstate facility.
Begs the question... Why have they held on to US-85? Has New Mexico not actually decommissioned it?
I'd take an educated guess that US 85 is still commissioned in Texas because the local political powers in the El Paso area want to retain state maintenance of Paisano Drive and the rest of 85 -- and requesting both a decommissioning of US 85 and a recommissioning as a state route would be "rocking the boat" by calling attention to the corridor, causing TXDOT to question whether the route is actually necessary for through traffic to the border crossing, given the proximity of US 54/I-110 as the primary route to the border from I-10. As a corollary, those same El Paso figures have probably reasoned that most commercial traffic will utilize -- and thus congest -- the I-110 crossing, with local cross-border traffic diverting itself to US 85 for both convenience and efficiency. Letting TXDOT maintain the egress to that in-city crossing likely saves El Paso a significant chunk of change!
Quote from: cappicard on July 31, 2016, 08:03:07 PM
I wonder if there are children routes that don't intersect their parents, but used to.
Quite a few: there is a list at the bottom of this page: http://usends.com/Admin/violations.html