Serious Debate Thread™ time. Branching off a topic in the Rockies forum. Question of the day is:
When an Interstate is introduced to a U.S. route corridor, what should happen to the old U.S. route? Should it be moved onto the new Interstate, or left on the old alignment? What if the Interstate was built by directly upgrading the old road? And if they are co-routed, should they be signed?
Let's try and use examples and citations to justify our positions.
I am against the routing of U.S. routes with Interstates generally, but for practical reasons.
Take a look at US-77 and I-35's relationship in Oklahoma. This is a direct result of Governor Henry Bellmon's policy when the interstate was being built–the interstate was to be within one mile of US-77 at all times but not subsume it.[1] This was done to protect the US-77 towns in Southern Oklahoma. As a result, we now have a good-quality state highway running parallel to the interstate throughout the entire state. As a result, if you encounter any traffic problems, construction, or incident along I-35, it is incredibly trivial to bail on 35 and take 77 instead to bypass the incident.
This is a good use of the number, as opposed to simply tacking it onto the freeway as some sort of anachronistic dinosaur. Consider US-81...for most of Kansas, US-81 is subservient to I-135. Think anyone actually uses the 81 number for navigation? No...people direct others onto I-135 and follow I-135. There's really no use in corouting them. May as well leave 81 on the old alignment and keep it around as an alternate for the Interstate.
[1] McNichol, Dan. The Roads That Built America
As strange as this sounds, I think the case of Route 66 actually fits your example just as well Scott - so the route is decomissioned by 1985, but just a few years later the "historic" signage starts popping up everywhere (most notable example I can think of is actual, modern US 66 shields on current State Route 66 in San Bernardino County). With so much of it signed as "historic," why not have it as a mapped/official alternate to the freeway routes, especially when in some cases (Oklahoma) the replacement state route of the same number does do this task already?
Eastern states seem to have taken this route much more than western states, i.e. I-87 and US 9, I-80 and US 46, I-78 and US 22.
I don't think that interstates and US rotues should be cosigned. Interstates are a big influence. Let's say you were driving down an interstate that was cosigned with a US highway. You get lost. You take the nearest exit with services, and ask for directions. You will almost always hear someone who lives near such a interstate/US duplex refer to the interstate's number over the US route's number.
Another thing to point out is that how many state DOTs sign an interstate/US concurrence. They vaguely sign the US route, but obviously sign the interstate route (Let's except unsigned interstates, here). Wanna know if the US route already left? Has the duplex started? You won't know.
Quote from: City on November 17, 2009, 05:54:33 PM
I don't think that interstates and US rotues should be cosigned. Interstates are a big influence. Let's say you were driving down an interstate that was cosigned with a US highway. You get lost. You take the nearest exit with services, and ask for directions. You will almost always hear someone who lives near such a interstate/US duplex refer to the interstate's number over the US route's number.
The only counterexample I can think of is US 40/I-64 in St. Louis, given that I-64 was introduced to that freeway much later in its history...
It seems to depend on the state. Personally, I don't think they should be run on the same road since I think an alternate is always a good idea. However, here is how they seem to be done in a few states,
Illinois routes them (for the most part) on their own road, separate from the interstate. Examples of this would be US-40 along I-70, US-6 along I-80, and US-150 along I-74. In a few places they have been combined with the interstate such as US-51 concurrent with I-39. However, that was done because the freeway was originally meant to be US-51. I-39 was tacked on later. My thoughts? Put US-51 back on IL-251 from Bloomington to South Beloit.
Indiana seems to be inconsistent. Some, the US routes around Indianapolis, US-6 in the Calumet Region, are routed concurrent with the local interstates. Others, US-31 along I-65, are on their own roads. Still yet others, US-27, get decommissioned.
Michigan seems to go for the decommissioning route. US-27 was decommissioned due to the concurrency with I-69. US-16 was done for the same reason as it paralleled I-96. Ditto for US-10 south of Bay City, US-25, and US-2 north of St Ignace. US-12 was moved onto US-112 to avoid decommissioning. The freeways were originally built as US-xx Relocated (I-94 is US-12 Relocated).
Wisconsin seems to have both concurrency and separation, and some decommissioning, a la Indiana. US-141 was decommissioned south of Green Bay while US-41 and US-51 share substantial pavement with interstates. US-12 and US-18 have their own roads.
U.S. 19 merges with I-285 between Georgia 400 and S.R. 9/Roswell Road.
Also, U.S. 41 and I-75 are co-signed in South Georgia, around Valdosta, I think.
Be well,
Bryant
Brandon: In Indiana's case, they have that state-maintenance milage cap which explains the lack of through numbered highways on surface streets in Indianapolis (and the resultant unsigned concurrencies on I-465).
California aggressively went the route of decomissioning as a result of having several major duplicates (US 80, US 40) - interesting considering that Illinois has always had both US 24 and I-24 from the start, on opposite ends of the state. (California did propose some alternative numbering from the federal plan - i.e. I-76 for I-80, I-30 for I-40, I-7 and I-11 for a segment of I-5W (now I-505) and all of I-5/I-5E - had I-30 been approved for I-40, I think the gap between I-44 and I-64 in the grid would have been resolved! - so I suspect they originally hoped to retain both, but then decided against it when 80 and 40 became the interstate #s in use.)
Additionally, U.S. 278 is co-signed with I-20, between S.R. 124 and Covington.
---
To answer your question, it doesn't bother me. Sometimes, it's a quicker way to move the route along.
Be well,
Bryant
yes, yes they should. then the old route is forgotten, and lots of old signs are conveniently left unreplaced.
Quote from: City on November 17, 2009, 05:54:33 PM
Another thing to point out is that how many state DOTs sign an interstate/US concurrence. They vaguely sign the US route, but obviously sign the interstate route (Let's except unsigned interstates, here). Wanna know if the US route already left? Has the duplex started? You won't know.
PennDOT does it all the time. US-22/30 are well posted along I-376 (well except they aren't shown on the BGS's unless they are leaving the highway).
I personally think in (generally) shorter cases where there is no other available facility, putting the US Route on the Interstate is the best bet. After all, US Routes are supposed carry the heaviest traffic flow along a given route that usually isn't served by an Interstate. Some good examples of this are I-15/US-6, I-15/US-50, and I-70/US-89 in Utah (all are well-signed except the I-15/US-50 portion).
My problem is when a state just decides to run a US Route along an Interstate for pretty much its entire portion in that given state when there are some available facilities. These routes are often forgot about and unsigned. The ultimate example is US-85 only existing in AASHTO logs in New Mexico. Other cases include I-25/US-87 in Colorado and Wyoming and potentially I-70/US-50 in Utah (though the only other reasonable facility, UT-24, would take drivers over 40, maybe 50 miles south of I-70 at some points, but it would be the only option).
The solutions to the problems, in my opinion, would be to reroute the US Routes like US-85 in NM/CO and US-87 in CO along a route that roughly parallels the Interstate, in case of traffic problems, etc.
That's the reason why I mentioned in the Rocky Mountain thread that routing US-85 along CO-86 and CO-83 back to I-25 just before the Springs (provided that CoDOT would get control of the Interquest Parkway from CO-21/83 to I-25) could be a good alternative to I-25 while giving it some of its own pavement. As far as I know, CO-83 never really ventures too far from I-25 once out of greater Denver, staying within about 20 miles the whole way to Colorado Springs. In New Mexico, sending US-85 down NM-3 and US-54 to El Paso would still end it within the vicinity of its original southern terminus while giving it a route of its own.
Then again, if I had my way with US-87, then I might instead completely reroute it down US-191 and split the Harve/Great Falls/US-191, US-191/MT-200/Billings (MT), and Clayton, NM/Port Lavaca, TX portions among separate state and US Routes. Going from Billings, MT to Raton, NM with only 2 independant portions of pavement is way too long for a US Route to be concurrently routed along an Interstate, unless it is given a significant portion of independant pavement (which it isn't).
To sum it all up: There are some cases where there isn't an easy answer (I-70/US-50, UT), or even an answer at all(I-70/US-6, CO), but I think that some state DOTs should examine and see what facilities are available to route the US Route in a somewhat parallel manner to the Interstate.
QuoteMy problem is when a state just decides to run a US Route along an Interstate for pretty much its entire portion in that given state when there are some available facilities. These routes are often forgot about and unsigned. The ultimate example is US-85 only existing in AASHTO logs in New Mexico. Other cases include I-25/US-87 in Colorado and Wyoming and potentially I-70/US-50 in Utah (though the only other reasonable facility, UT-24, would take drivers over 40, maybe 50 miles south of I-70 at some points, but it would be the only option).
As a Wyoming resident, I take offense to that. :no: US-87 A) deviates from I-25 from Casper to Glenrock and B) is incredibly well signed throughout the whole state
IMHO I prefer the US route to stay on the "old road" unless the interstate was built on top of it. Like several others have said, it provides an easily distinguishable alternate route.
Tennessee generally leaves the US route off the interstate, though there are exceptions.
Some of them are (NOT a comprehensive list.)
US 19W and 23 following I-26 (former I-181). (well signed)
I-24 and US 64 (Not well signed)
I-24 and US 41A between exits 134 and 135. (no reassurance signs, but proximity of exits make that unnecessary)
I-24 and US 27 in Chattanooga (not well signed)
I-65 and US 31 from Exit 1 in TN to Exit 354 in AL. (totally unsigned)
IMHO, in cases where the original alignment of a U.S. route was moved to a freeway alignment, then co-signed with a new Interstate route number, the U.S. route should be moved back to the original aligment, such as U.S. 220 in central Pennsylvania, and U.S. 50 in Maryland (reveal I-595). Many of these original alignments are still state highways or business routes.
I like the Oregon model for dealing with US/interstate concurrencies. That is, especially in the mountain west where long stretches of old alignments are usually unavailable, use US Routes as business loops in lieu of green interstates, where they leave the interstate to run through towns.
In instances where an old alignment runs parallel but is no longer state maintained, run along the interstate. I get irritated, though, when I see an old alignment designated as a state highway with the US Route running along the interstate. If we're going to keep it up to standards, you may as well give it the US designation- if for no reason other to save on signage costs (why have three routes on two alignments when you can have two)
Mostly though, I just want to see them signed no matter where they run- especially in states like Colorado that just ignore them when they're on interstates
Long concurrencies should be dealt with by either truncating the US route or rerouting it to a parallel corridor farther away.
Though policymakers and some roadgeeks may think otherwise, the US route system really was subsumed by the Interstates. In a nutshell, they've lost a focus.
That isn't to say that they couldn't again have a focus. IMO, NHS corridors and major INTERregional corridors that aren't served by an Interstate would be a good purpose for the modern US route.
Alas, those waters have been muddied by states that don't prune routes already paralleling Interstate corridors (a large number of them), routes of dubious value (US 159 comes to mind), or routes created by overzealous transportation departments (Arkansas, anyone?).
Scott brought up a point in the original post about routes paralleling Interstates that could serve as an alternative in the event of an incident along the Interstate. All well and good, but I'm of the opinion that it doesn't have to be a US route. Any numbered route will fit that bill. Minnesota, for example, does quite well with county routes that parallel the Interstate in the case of incidents.
US 6 through western and central Connecticut is paired with I-84 WAY TOO MUCH. If you have to jump on the interstate to cross the river, that's one thing, but when a perfectly good surface road exists adjacent, but the US route is "signed" on the interstate... then that just gets me.
And I use the word "signed" loosely. If you've tried to follow US 6 from Farmington to Manchester CT, you'll know what I mean!
Quote from: froggie on November 17, 2009, 10:55:24 PM
Scott brought up a point in the original post about routes paralleling Interstates that could serve as an alternative in the event of an incident along the Interstate. All well and good, but I'm of the opinion that it doesn't have to be a US route. Any numbered route will fit that bill. Minnesota, for example, does quite well with county routes that parallel the Interstate in the case of incidents.
True, it doesn't
have to be a U.S. Route, but having it be a U.S. Route helps provide assurance that "yes, this road isn't going to randomly terminate in the middle of some town you've never heard of". It also helps continue the history of the old route.
If there's going to be a long concurrency between US and I routes due to on-the-spot upgrading, I'd just as soon have the U.S. route truncated.
And then you have messed up ol' Akron again with the I-76/277 US 224 concurrency where most people still call it "Route 224."
Even on ads, like the rather common radio ads for the Fred Martin Superstore off "Route 224 exit 16."
I've tried giving people directions using I-76, and that throws people off. "What? What?" "How about 224?" "Oh, yeah!"
Leave it to Akron.
QuoteTrue, it doesn't have to be a U.S. Route, but having it be a U.S. Route helps provide assurance that "yes, this road isn't going to randomly terminate in the middle of some town you've never heard of". It also helps continue the history of the old route.
Since the "reroute-in-case-of-incident option" would likely be for just for a few exits, I don't see the "random termination" bit being a problem, especially if there's adequate trailblazer signage along the side route. Or you simply do what states such as Pennsylvania (with their colored alternate routes) or Wisconsin (with "Alternate I-94" signed along parts of US 12) have done.
Again, it doesn't have to be a U.S. route, especially since if we're strictly following AASHTO's definition of the purpose of the U.S. highway system, i.e.
"to facilitate travel on the main interstate lines, over the shortest routes and the best roads", then the U.S. routes would be co-located along the Interstates anyway, since those are the "best roads" and often the "shortest routes".
Cases where I could see keeping the parallel U.S. route:
- as a toll-free route in cases where the Interstate is tolled. Examples include much of US 20, US 9W south of Albany, and US 1 between NH and Portland, ME. This argument could also be made for reinstating US 66 between OKC and Joplin, MO.
- where the U.S. route is a 4-lane corridor in its own right. US 1 between Richmond, VA and Baltimore, MD is an example of this, as is US 40 between Baltimore and Wilmington.
- Where the U.S. route is on the National Highway System. An example of this is the stretch of US 202/206 in Jersey that closely parallels I-287.
- where the U.S. route is far enough away from the Interstate where it has independent utility. US 1 between Baltimore and Philly is an example of this.
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on November 17, 2009, 07:46:48 PM
PennDOT does it all the time. US-22/30 are well posted along I-376 (well except they aren't shown on the BGS's unless they are leaving the highway).
The only respect PennDOT gives US 22/30 in the I-376 (and former I-279) duplex (& triplex) is pretty much just the roadside shields. I-79 & PA-51 use signs before the junction saying "22/30 Follow 376". Most approaching entrance ramps completely ignore them and refer only to 376. (EX: The BGS's for the ramps to the Parkway from the Blvd. of the Allies refer only to I-376, as do most junctions)
(EDIT- It seems I've just said in a lot more words what the quoted post said.)Quote from: akotchi on November 17, 2009, 08:31:45 PM
IMHO, in cases where the original alignment of a U.S. route was moved to a freeway alignment, then co-signed with a new Interstate route number, the U.S. route should be moved back to the original aligment, such as U.S. 220 in central Pennsylvania
I agree with this... And this example in particular. You can maybe keep "Business 220" in Altoona, where it seems more appropriate because of all the businesses, but otherwise I'd put it back where it was.
Quoteand U.S. 50 in Maryland (reveal I-595). Many of these original alignments are still state highways or business routes.
I will have to completely disagree with this specific example. I support with the decision not to sign this particular interstate (and leave it as 50).
I agree with the posts referencing the parallel alignments as U.S. highways for alternate routes in case of incidents. I have done this a number of times where I leave the Interstate and follow the U.S. highway to avoid traffic congestion, accidents, etc. One such case was along U.S. 29 through Gaffney, SC.
Another case, and this is only because I researched it ahead of time, was along Interstate 95 in southern South Carolina. There is a stretch where U.S. 17 merges onto the freeway, leaving no signed alternate. This particular stretch is just four lanes and subject to increasing traffic congestion. Throw and incident or a holiday in there and potential gridlock ensues.
One trip back I noted the congestion and followed the old alignment of U.S. 17, which you have to know about ahead of time to take. While drivers along I-95 trudged at 15 mph, I continued south at 65 mph on the two-lane frontage road. Once U.S. 17 officially split from Interstate 95, 10 tractor trailers immediately departed the freeway for the parallel two-lane road. I was still able to go faster than the freeway, but it was obvious that drivers were following signed U.S. 17 to avoid the congestion.
Having county or state roads with differing numbers works for those well informed, but the general public is not loaded with roadgeeks, and having one number, i.e. a U.S. highway to follow, will work at mitigating congestion around incidents with an alternate route.
I guess I am sort of an odd duck here in that I think the US highways numbering scheme should be reserved for routes that are not parallel to an Interstate since the US numbered highway system was the "interstate" system before the "Interstate" system was built.
I think that any US route that closely parallels an Interstate for a significant distance should be decommissioned or truncated. Case in point is US 11. From its southern terminus in Louisiana it is never more than a few miles away from I-59, I-24, I-75, I-40 or I-81. In a few places it is actually signed on the Interstate. Nowhere does it carry interstate traffic with the possible exception of the E-W split in Tennessee. I would decommission it from its southern terminus at least to the Harrisburg, Pa. area.
If there are chunks of US highway that parallel Interstates for a few miles but carry regional or interstate traffic, I'd sign them on the Interstates. US 60 is a good example. It crosses the southern portion of Missouri as a major through route and enters Kentucky after briefly going through Illinois and once it gets to Louisville, it parallels I-64 all the way to past Charleston, WV. I'd put US 60 on I-264 (the Watterson Expressway was originally built as a US 60 bypass) and I-64, have it keep its Midland Trail alignment, stick it back on I-64 from Sam Black Church, WV all the way to Lexington, Va., let it fly solo to Richmond, then stick it back on I-64 all the way to the Hampton Roads area. The state could label the old route with any number it wanted and maps would still show it as a viable alternative in case of an incident.
I'd also kill US 19 north of where Corridor L merges into I-79 in West Virginia. How much through traffic uses US 19 between Flatwoods, WV and Erie, Pa. anyway? And I'd kill US 25 north of Corbin, Ky. I'd turn US 25E into US 25 and either sign US 25W as a state route or, if needed, extend US 129 north from Knoxville.
The US route system is supposed to be an interstate highway network for through traffic. Lots of the existing routes, not near an interstate, serve that purpose nicely. In my area US 27, US 19, US 35, US 29, US 119, US 460, US 23 and any number of other routes still serve their original purpose. The ones that don't should either be signed on the Interstates or done away with. I know some will consider that heresy but so be it.
HB: What would your thoughts then be on the US 31W/31E split? It seems that 31E runs significantly more independent of I-65 than 31W, though both take entirely different corridors north from about Elizabethtown to Louisville (with Route 61 paralleling the old KY Turnpike)...
Quote from: TheStranger on November 18, 2009, 02:31:00 PM
HB: What would your thoughts then be on the US 31W/31E split? It seems that 31E runs significantly more independent of I-65 than 31W, though both take entirely different corridors north from about Elizabethtown to Louisville (with Route 61 paralleling the old KY Turnpike)...
AASHTO frowns on the splits. Concerning the 31E-31W split, 31E really is a major north-south corridor and large chunks of it have been improved. 31W from Nashville to E-town is really a parallel route to I-65 and doesn't carry through or regional traffic. Between E-town and Louisville, however, it sees a lot of traffic since Ft. Knox is in the middle.
If the split should be done away with, I'd put 31 on the eastern corridor and downgrade the western corridor to a state route.
And no, I'm not going to sing an ode to "US Federal Route Thirty-One Dub" to accompany a crappy video...
:pan:
Quote from: hbelkins on November 18, 2009, 02:14:47 PM
I'd also kill US 19 north of where Corridor L merges into I-79 in West Virginia. How much through traffic uses US 19 between Flatwoods, WV and Erie, Pa. anyway?
US-19 is extremely well used between Washington, PA and Zelienople, PA.
Quote from: exit322 on November 18, 2009, 08:15:44 AM
And then you have messed up ol' Akron again with the I-76/277 US 224 concurrency where most people still call it "Route 224."
Even on ads, like the rather common radio ads for the Fred Martin Superstore off "Route 224 exit 16."
I've tried giving people directions using I-76, and that throws people off. "What? What?" "How about 224?" "Oh, yeah!"
Leave it to Akron.
Hmm. I lived in the Akron/Cuyahoga Falls area for 10 years (1985-1995) and I didn't run into any of what you said.
I'm not trying to say the you're wrong. I'm just wondering why you and I have had completely opposite experiences.
Quote from: hbelkins on November 18, 2009, 02:14:47 PM
I think that any US route that closely parallels an Interstate for a significant distance should be decommissioned or truncated. Case in point is US 11. From its southern terminus in Louisiana it is never more than a few miles away from I-59, I-24, I-75, I-40 or I-81. In a few places it is actually signed on the Interstate. Nowhere does it carry interstate traffic with the possible exception of the E-W split in Tennessee. I would decommission it from its southern terminus at least to the Harrisburg, Pa. area.
By your criteria, it would make sense to remove it up to Harrisburg, PA. But, it definitely should remain between Harrisburg and Scranton. US 11 follows the Susquehanna River valley the entire way while I-81 goes from mountaintop to mountaintop many miles to the east. In the winter time, US 11 can be a much safer route than I-81 between H'burg and Scranton.
Of course, North of Scranton, US 11 and I-81 closely parallel each other until 11 turns eastward in far upstate New York. In that case, you could decommission all of US 11. The stretch east of I-81 could be a East-West state route or 3dus (US x02 or x09?). And, 11 could be removed from the concurrency with US 15 between Harrisburg and the Sunbury area. That stretch of 11 between Sunbury and Scranton could be also be given a predominant state or 3dus route #. (US x15 or x06?) Or, even reroute US 15 to Scranton as it the current routing will likely be truncated in Williamsport once I-99 is finished.
I say bring back US-40 to extend along I-80 from Salt Lake City to Oakland as an emergency route.
QuoteI say bring back US-40 to extend along I-80 from Salt Lake City to Oakland as an emergency route.
Along what alignment? Lots of I-80 in that stretch was built directly over US-40
maybe along 40A over Beckwourth Pass? Now California state route 70.
Quote from: Brandon on November 17, 2009, 06:20:23 PM
Illinois routes them (for the most part) on their own road, separate from the interstate. Examples of this would be US-40 along I-70, US-6 along I-80, and US-150 along I-74. In a few places they have been combined with the interstate such as US-51 concurrent with I-39. However, that was done because the freeway was originally meant to be US-51. I-39 was tacked on later. My thoughts? Put US-51 back on IL-251 from Bloomington to South Beloit.
A few years ago IDOT rerouted US 51 onto I-57 between IL 3 and a new interchange just north of Dongola. Here the old US 51 alignment was extremely narrow:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=37.328809,-89.156628&spn=0,359.890137&z=14&layer=c&cbll=37.338375,-89.170736&panoid=ktFvCuNlsYrKahfKb8UWBA&cbp=12,348.36,,0,10.63 (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=37.328809,-89.156628&spn=0,359.890137&z=14&layer=c&cbll=37.338375,-89.170736&panoid=ktFvCuNlsYrKahfKb8UWBA&cbp=12,348.36,,0,10.63)
The case of I-72 and US 36 west of Springfield is mostly the same as that for I-39 and US 51, with the freeway originally being intended for US 36 alone. East of Springfield I'm not sure though whether I-72 was constructed first and US 36 relocated onto the route, or a freeway for US 36 built and the I-72 designation acquired later.
I'm guessing the concurrence of I-70 and US 40 at the Indiana border is due to part of the original US 40 alignment being absorbed by I-70 starting just short of the state line.
In Missouri, most of the concurrences are due to the US Route being upgraded into the interstate. Exceptions are found for US 50 in the St. Louis area and probably a few in Kansas City where the original route had been turned over to the city.
Then there can be states like Kansas, where I believe most of the US - Interstate concurrences are due to the [sarcasm]wonderful[/sarcasm] mileage cap.
I agree with Froggie's point that US highway system should reflect "the shortest routes and the best roads" between population centers. If that means that US highways become discontinuous, so be it. (They already effectively are because duplex signage is often missing or inconsistent.)
Roadgeeks may also tend to underestimate the implications of sign clutter, map clutter, and inconsistent signs on the average driver. IMO the importance of a high quality highway system outweighs any particular hobbiest concerns.
I have mixed feelings on his topic. I feel that US 87 and US 85 have no business being signed with I-25 out west, but as far as roads like US 11 & US 19 are concerned I would leave them be. Yes the interstate is right there but US 19 & US 11 go through population centers. It's sort of like the conflict with Michigan removing US 12 after 94 was built- today, Michigan could have used the old US 12 routing going through K'zoo, Battle Creek, Jackson, and Ann Arbor. Florida is one of those states also that leaves the US routings where they are despite an interstate being a mile away like US 90, US 41, & US 92
Quote from: corco on November 18, 2009, 11:56:02 PM
QuoteI say bring back US-40 to extend along I-80 from Salt Lake City to Oakland as an emergency route.
Along what alignment? Lots of I-80 in that stretch was built directly over US-40
Run it concurrent with 80 where the old alignment was assimilated or is no longer passable.
Actually, I like this approach in general. Business loop "interstates" bother me as they are mere surface streets and are thus not worthy of an interstate designation. Use the old US route instead.
Although, when you have miles and miles at a time of an interstate being built right on top of an old US route or the old road getting abandoned, it probably is best to downplay the concurrency. Nobody but a roadgeek would ever be trying to follow US 40 from Salt Lake City to Oakland, so you don't need reassurance shields along the freeway. And indeed, that would only serve to deemphasize I-80 and unnecessarily clutter up shield assemblies. US 40 can be allowed to appear to blip in and out of existence exactly the same way BL 80 does.
Really, just the old surface bits are actually functionally important. The parts where it's on the freeway only need carry the designation for the sake of continuity, and it's fine if that designation is kept merely on paper and left implied in the field.
Quote from: Duke87 on November 25, 2009, 01:15:43 AM
Although, when you have miles and miles at a time of an interstate being built right on top of an old US route or the old road getting abandoned, it probably is best to downplay the concurrency. Nobody but a roadgeek would ever be trying to follow US 40 from Salt Lake City to Oakland, so you don't need reassurance shields along the freeway. And indeed, that would only serve to deemphasize I-80 and unnecessarily clutter up shield assemblies. US 40 can be allowed to appear to blip in and out of existence exactly the same way BL 80 does.
Really, just the old surface bits are actually functionally important. The parts where it's on the freeway only need carry the designation for the sake of continuity, and it's fine if that designation is kept merely on paper and left implied in the field.
sounds like how US-50 and I-70 coexist in Utah. 50 isn't signed nearly as often. The only exception being, 50 does not go into towns - Bus Loop 70 does.
Like other have said, leaving the US routes on their original alignments does allow for an alternative. Down here, having a county route be an alternative to an interstate isn't the best idea as some are maintained hideously. It's all about connectivity.
QuoteDown here, having a county route be an alternative to an interstate isn't the best idea as some are maintained hideously. It's all about connectivity.
Make it a state route then, if county routes are so poor down there. That problem doesn't exist in other states, though...Upper Midwest in particular.
Quote from: florida on November 25, 2009, 02:41:21 AM
Like other have said, leaving the US routes on their original alignments does allow for an alternative. Down here, having a county route be an alternative to an interstate isn't the best idea as some are maintained hideously. It's all about connectivity.
Sometimes it's nice to have the more "original" alternative just for the hell of it.
A few years back the family & I headed down to near Harrisonburg VA, and not being in any kind of hurry at all, we decided to take US-11 (from S of Winchester) just for "fun".
Quote from: froggie on November 25, 2009, 08:29:21 AM
QuoteDown here, having a county route be an alternative to an interstate isn't the best idea as some are maintained hideously. It's all about connectivity.
Make it a state route then, if county routes are so poor down there. That problem doesn't exist in other states, though...Upper Midwest in particular.
Don't tell me, tell FDOT ;-)
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 17, 2009, 05:31:27 PM
When an Interstate is introduced to a U.S. route corridor, what should happen to the old U.S. route? Should it be moved onto the new Interstate, or left on the old alignment? What if the Interstate was built by directly upgrading the old road? And if they are co-routed, should they be signed?
Tough call. There are a few instances in Louisiana where the Interstate was built on top of a US Route (I-10/US 90). What do we do then? The co-route IS signed, BTW. One prime example is Calcasieu River near Lake Charles.
I'm a believer in one highway = one designation. If a U.S. route uses an interstate concurrently for a relatively short distance before taking off in another direction, then that's one thing - for example, U.S. 71 on I-29 north of Kansas City. That only covers about 70 miles. But, U.S. 52 on I-94 in North Dakota and Minnesota for 340 miles with no independent segment of its own, I think that's too long. The U.S. 52 segment in North Dakota really has no continuity with the segment in Minnesota. Now, if you were to propose replacing U.S. 10 in Minnesota with 52, thus reducing the concurrency to 90 miles or so in North Dakota, I might think differently about it.
I also disagree with using Interstate-concurrent U.S. routes as business routes, either posted as Business (U.S. Route) like Kansas or as the mainline. Nothing wrong or difficult to understand with an interstate business route, since by definition that is a surface street that (usually) provides a loop through an urban area. But, how much do through travelers really use business routes, especially in larger towns? Travel-oriented business have largely relocated from main streets to locations near and visible from freeways, because that's where the business is coming from.
The interstate system has created numbering redundancies, but this is an opportunity to fine tune some of the U.S. highway system to correct some awkward routings imposed in the 1920s and 1930s. Maybe that's another thread altogether...
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on November 29, 2009, 06:25:03 PM
The interstate system has created numbering redundancies, but this is an opportunity to fine tune some of the U.S. highway system to correct some awkward routings imposed in the 1920s and 1930s. Maybe that's another thread altogether...
I'm not sure what you mean by "awkward routings." What do you think are examples of this? When an interstate was routed along an existing US Highway, doesn't that imply it had a pretty important routing?
Quote from: florida on November 25, 2009, 02:41:21 AM
Like other have said, leaving the US routes on their original alignments does allow for an alternative. Down here, having a county route be an alternative to an interstate isn't the best idea as some are maintained hideously. It's all about connectivity.
I'm all for keeping a US route off the Interstate counterpart route if at all possible.
1) It does provide for a marked alternative route in the event of a traffic alternative or a marked detour route.
I have been one of many who were stuck in interstate traffic, seeing what looked to be a parallel highway or frontage road that could bypass or travel faster than the pace on the freeway, only to find that the road either does not return to the interstate at a further point or goes in a whole different direction. Or on the flip side, not taking a chance on a paralleling road, continuing to suffer through the traffic mess and then finding out that there was a perfectly good alternative road I could have taken.
2) It should be marked as a paralleling through route (especially in sparsely populated areas with equally sparse roads) for those vehicles that may not be suitable for interstate traffic (slower vehicles and people who just don't like driving the interstates).
3) If, like others said, the freeway was built atop the original alignment, then that section should be fully marked on all signage for that stretch of interstate for the route(s) involved, and when there is an opportunity for the old US highway to return to a regular road, then the exit should be labeled as such -- something that is overlooked by C-DOT in Colorado, especially on I-70.
Quote from: thenetwork on November 29, 2009, 08:45:09 PM
I have been one of many who were stuck in interstate traffic, seeing what looked to be a parallel highway or frontage road that could bypass or travel faster than the pace on the freeway, only to find that the road either does not return to the interstate at a further point or goes in a whole different direction. Or on the flip side, not taking a chance on a paralleling road, continuing to suffer through the traffic mess and then finding out that there was a perfectly good alternative road I could have taken.
yes, but then people will
know about it and that, too, will get just as clogged. There should be
some advantage to carrying a 1947 map around!
Even a US route is not a guaranteed alternative. Let's say you were traveling on I-90 east in NY and heard that there were huge backups in Buffalo. So you go onto US 20 to avoid it. Good luck getting back though - once you hit Buffalo, I-90 and US 20 diverge, not to meet again until Albany!
Quote from: xonhulu on November 29, 2009, 07:05:05 PM
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on November 29, 2009, 06:25:03 PM
The interstate system has created numbering redundancies, but this is an opportunity to fine tune some of the U.S. highway system to correct some awkward routings imposed in the 1920s and 1930s. Maybe that's another thread altogether...
I'm not sure what you mean by "awkward routings." What do you think are examples of this? When an interstate was routed along an existing US Highway, doesn't that imply it had a pretty important routing?
U.S. 87, for one. It bears almost due north-south from Montana, eventually joining what became I-90 and I-25. But then, when it again becomes an independent route at Raton NM, it bears sharply southeast into Texas. It finally ends up east of San Antonio. This was a mid-1930s addition to the system.
If one were to redraw 87 to eliminate its 600 mile concurrency with Interstates, one could bring it down through central Wyoming and (as another poster in this thread suggested) replace at least part of U.S. 191. As I said before, what you could do with the rest of the orphaned sections is probably another topic.
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on November 29, 2009, 10:46:29 PM
U.S. 87, for one. It bears almost due north-south from Montana, eventually joining what became I-90 and I-25. But then, when it again becomes an independent route at Raton NM, it bears sharply southeast into Texas. It finally ends up east of San Antonio. This was a mid-1930s addition to the system.
If one were to redraw 87 to eliminate its 600 mile concurrency with Interstates, one could bring it down through central Wyoming and (as another poster in this thread suggested) replace at least part of U.S. 191. As I said before, what you could do with the rest of the orphaned sections is probably another topic.
87 between Denver and the Gulf of Mexico is an important enough truck route to merit a single number. It was the original Colorado to Gulf Highway (as was US-287; one was mountainous and the other was windy over the prairie - drivers could decide which one they wanted).
Quote from: agentsteel53 on November 29, 2009, 10:53:09 PM
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on November 29, 2009, 10:46:29 PM
U.S. 87, for one. It bears almost due north-south from Montana, eventually joining what became I-90 and I-25. But then, when it again becomes an independent route at Raton NM, it bears sharply southeast into Texas. It finally ends up east of San Antonio. This was a mid-1930s addition to the system.
If one were to redraw 87 to eliminate its 600 mile concurrency with Interstates, one could bring it down through central Wyoming and (as another poster in this thread suggested) replace at least part of U.S. 191. As I said before, what you could do with the rest of the orphaned sections is probably another topic.
87 between Denver and the Gulf of Mexico is an important enough truck route to merit a single number. It was the original Colorado to Gulf Highway (as was US-287; one was mountainous and the other was windy over the prairie - drivers could decide which one they wanted).
The modern version of that is now the Ports to Plains Highway (which is routed not on U.S. 87 all the way across Texas but rather further west, in part). It also uses U.S. 287 or U.S. 87 and I-25 from Amarillo north.
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on November 29, 2009, 10:46:29 PM
U.S. 87, for one. It bears almost due north-south from Montana, eventually joining what became I-90 and I-25. But then, when it again becomes an independent route at Raton NM, it bears sharply southeast into Texas. It finally ends up east of San Antonio. This was a mid-1930s addition to the system.
If one were to redraw 87 to eliminate its 600 mile concurrency with Interstates, one could bring it down through central Wyoming and (as another poster in this thread suggested) replace at least part of U.S. 191. As I said before, what you could do with the rest of the orphaned sections is probably another topic.
I could agree with this suggestion. Of course, then US 491 has to change numbers yet again... :angry:
One thing I've noticed in western MD (and this probably occurs in other areas where a US route is routed along an interstate) is that the locals often refer to the old US highway routing (regardless of its current designation) as the original route. So in the case of western MD, the freeway is always referred to as I-68, but people refer to the old routing of US 40 as "Route 40," even though it's actually Alt US 40, Scenic US 40 or MD 144 depending on where you are.
Quote from: algorerhythms on November 30, 2009, 02:24:57 PM
One thing I've noticed in western MD (and this probably occurs in other areas where a US route is routed along an interstate) is that the locals often refer to the old US highway routing (regardless of its current designation) as the original route. So in the case of western MD, the freeway is always referred to as I-68, but people refer to the old routing of US 40 as "Route 40," even though it's actually Alt US 40, Scenic US 40 or MD 144 depending on where you are.
all the much better reason to put US-40 back on that alignment!
Quote from: corco on November 17, 2009, 08:09:11 PM
As a Wyoming resident, I take offense to that. :no: US-87 A) deviates from I-25 from Casper to Glenrock and B) is incredibly well signed throughout the whole state
Sorry; I've never really been to that part of Wyoming. The thing with me, though, is that a US Route should be moved to another, somewhat parallel alignment to the Interstate.
Quote from: algorerhythms on November 30, 2009, 02:24:57 PM
One thing I've noticed in western MD (and this probably occurs in other areas where a US route is routed along an interstate) is that the locals often refer to the old US highway routing (regardless of its current designation) as the original route. So in the case of western MD, the freeway is always referred to as I-68, but people refer to the old routing of US 40 as "Route 40," even though it's actually Alt US 40, Scenic US 40 or MD 144 depending on where you are.
I've been on I-68 myself and ALTs and Scenics are for the locals living along the freeway; I think the main US 40 should still be multiplexed with 68. I really take the Scenic and Alt. 40 as counterparts to the Emergency I-94 in Michigan. In case of a snow storm or a bad accident on 68, drivers have a route to take.
Personally, I feel that ALL routes should be signed along a multiplex. I do agree that the importance and recognition value of the Interstate route will supercede that of the US- or State-route, however, there are circumstances where individuals are following the US- or State-route and knowing that it is multiplexed with the Interstate route is very important.
An example of this would be as follows --
Driving Springfield, MO to Vicksburg, MS. One drives along US-65 south the entire route (except for a few miles from Tallulah to Vicksburg). However, once you get to Conway, AR, US-65 multiplexes with I-40 and Arkansas does not sign US-65 on this multiplex. US-65 then follows I-30 west across the Arkansas River to Little Rock and then I-530 south to Pine Bluff, where it begins being signed as US-65 again. If you don't inherantly know this, it's pretty hard to follow US-65. I realize that this would require distribution of more signs for AHTD, but in my opinion, all of the I-40 assemblies between Conway and North Little Rock should include US-65 trailblazers, and the same for I-30 and I-530.
There are some states that are better about this than others...a good example would be North Carolina. They seem to be pretty good about signing all routes along a multiplex (sometimes to the point of overkill), but more information is always better than no information.
I have mostly always thought that the US route should be signed. Wyoming does an exceptional job of this, really to the point of overkill. Trying to follow any US Highway through Colorado is frustrating, to say the least.
That said, a couple months ago I was going from Phoenix to Vegas with some friends, and it was the rare instance where I had nothing to do with the navigation. We were going to take 10 to 95 to Vegas, but the directions my friend gave to the other car were "Take the 10 west to the 95, then take the 95 north to the 40, then take the 40 west for a few miles and get back on the 95"
A little later I said "Couldn't you have just said take the 10 to the 95 and the 95 to Vegas?" and he seemed quite surprised to know that 95 would even be signed along I-40. I get the impression the general public generally operates that way, so maybe it doesn't matter. The higher class route is (with a few notable exceptions in certain cities) ALWAYS the one used in directions, even when it may not need to be. If I were giving directions from Thermpolis WY to Lusk WY, I'd probably say "Follow US-20 East to I-25 in Casper, then take I-25 South to the US-18 split at Orin Junction, and follow 18 to Lusk." If it were a Wyomingite I were giving directions to, I'd say "Take 789 South to 20 East in Shoshoni, then take I-25 South to the US-18 split at Orin Junction, and follow 18 to Lusk." even though the whole time you're on US-20.** 789 is the overriding route number for the Billings-Rawlins corridor for people within Wyoming (although sometimes you'll hear 287 for the stretch from Lander to Rawlins)- no idea why.
People who don't look at signs at all, which is an unfortunately high percentage, aren't benefited by extra signage. They're largely going to pay attention to the highest class of route and ignore the rest.
Especially in this age of GPSes and Mapquest, where the GPS/Mapquest would say "take the 10 to 95 and then I-40/US-95 to US-95" etc, with the primary class route listed first.
It sucks, but I totally understand why DOTs don't bother to sign lower class routes on concurrencies
**I'm an idiot as that's not US-20 the whole time- 20 parallels 25 from Casper to Glenrock- but pretend it is for purposes of this argument
This reminds me of when I was driving around the Twin Cities a few years back. I was driving around, and followed US 52 out of St Paul for a ways; when I turned around, I took up US 10 to MN 610.
Clean, clearcut: US 52, US10, MN 610
Had I consulted anyone for directions, or relied on online maps, that would have translated to:
US 52, I-94, I-35E, I-694, US 10, I-35W, US 10, MN 610.
or
US 52, I-94/US10/US52/US61, I-35E/US10, I-694/US10, US10, I-35W/US10, US10, MN610
MNDOT does a decent job of signing concurrent US routes if they're not following an interstate indefinitely. Otherwise, they'll put up a sign at the beginning of the multiplex saying: US 52 follow I-94 or US 12 follow I-394 and I-94.
Those are the only three I/US multiplexes that are like that, though I'd like to point out that US 12 is signed at the I-94/I-394 interchange.
I can't recall: Is US 12 signed as Follow I-394 at I-494/Follow I-94 at the WI/MN line?
Look at the first westbound photo (http://www.ajfroggie.com/roadpics/mn/i094/) and the first "other photo" (http://www.ajfroggie.com/roadpics/mn/i394/index.html).
Quote from: froggie on January 08, 2010, 07:24:00 PM
Look at the first westbound photo (http://www.ajfroggie.com/roadpics/mn/i094/) and the first "other photo" (http://www.ajfroggie.com/roadpics/mn/i394/index.html).
They have something similar on US-89 NB with its concurrency with I-70 through Utah's Sevier Valley, which says when NB US-89 meets with I-70:
"US-89 Traffic/Follow I-70 to Salina"
(The "/" means line break)
Of course, this is likely the best-signed Interstate/US concurrency in the state (I-15/US-6 is probably second, but the US-6 shields are noticeably smaller than the I-15 shields), probably because of US-89's prominence and duration (I would say that US-89 is Utah's
Main State Street, next to Historic US-91, and will never be completely replaced), but still.
I don't know if there is one SB, but I like the idea; all Interstate/US concurrencies should have this, whether the US Route is signed or not (I'd prefer that the US is signed, though).