There is a guideline that is not always adhered to that declares that US highways that are under 300 miles long must enter two or more states. Some US highways meet this guideline by cheating. US 223 is a good example. It is a de facto single state highway. It hops onto US 23 and crosses into Ohio, ending at the first interchange on the south side of the state line. US 400 is another cheater. U$ 195 was once a cheater but is no longer. Are there any other US highways that have useless overlaps that cross into other states and end?
US 166 does the same thing to US 400 that US 400 does to it.
US 177 is barely much better, but it doesn't have a concurrency at the end. It just goes into Kansas for a couple miles and ends.
US-131 is 269 miles long and only has about a half mile in Indiana ending at the Indiana Toll Road and continuing as IN-13. But other than that half mile in Indiana the entire route is in Michigan.
US-730 is another one only going between Boardman, Oregon and Wallula, Washington for a total of 42 miles.
US-266 is only in Oklahoma. US-211 is only in Virginia. US-311 only runs from Winston-Salem, NC to Danville, VA. US-197 is another Oregon-Washington example. US-138 in Colorado and Nebraska. US-113 in Maryland and Delaware. Of course there's US-46 only being in New Jersey. US-192 is only in Florida.
There are several U.S. highways that exist only in one state. And that policy of 300 or more miles or more than one state was written in 1991 so it doesn't surprise me that there are several U.S. highways that aren't 300 miles long or don't enter another state. So any new additions to the U.S. highway system has to serve more than one state.
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 21, 2019, 07:09:26 AM
And that policy of 300 or more miles or more than one state was written in 1991
Nope, it's existed since 1937. https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=10190
There ought to have been some sort of exclusion to that 300 mile rule based off traffic counts. You rarely hear people raise cane about US 92 which functions as a defacto surface alternate to I-4 and I-275 these days.
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 21, 2019, 04:47:04 AM
US 166 does the same thing to US 400 that US 400 does to it.
US 177 is barely much better, but it doesn't have a concurrency at the end. It just goes into Kansas for a couple miles and ends.
166 used to run to Springfield, MO until I-44 pretty much replaced it.
US 48 is not 300 miles long, and its 18 or so miles in Virginia consist of it being overlaid on existing VA 55.
US 206, which runs mostly in NJ, barely makes the criteria due to a very short (less than 1/2 mile) segment in Milford, PA where it ends at US 209.
Although two vintage button-copy BGS' (shown here (https://www.usends.com/milford.html)) still give hint of US 206 once running concurrently w/US 209 northward to US 6. Oct. 2018 GSVs still show those BGS'. Even more odd, at least based on the info. listed in the usends.com site (per the above-link), is that US 206 was truncated to US 209 circa 1946 but those BGS' are 1960s/maybe very early 70s vintage.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 21, 2019, 09:17:39 AM
There ought to have been some sort of exclusion to that 300 mile rule based off traffic counts. You rarely hear people raise cane about US 92 which functions as a defacto surface alternate to I-4 and I-275 these days.
If peninsular Florida is going to have an east-west US route, it's not going to reach 300 miles in length, so all one can ask is that it goes from shore to shore. US 92 works, but US 192 is harder to defend. However...
When AASHO set forth the 300-mile guideline in 1937, 52 routes of lesser length were eliminated within the next few years (42 became part of longer routes, and 10 became state routes). Then during the "Years of Decline" (https://www.usends.com/history.html) (1960s-1990s) another 20 intra-state US routes were deleted. But many of those more recent deletions were initiated by state DOTs, not by AASHO/AASHTO. From what I can tell, that organization hasn't made any effort to enforce the "300-mile rule" since 1970, so in effect the rule doesn't exist anymore, and I believe the 20 intra-state routes that survived both of those earlier purges are safe from AASHTO now. Of course it's possible that some individual state DOT might have a reason to get rid of one of its intra-state routes, but in my opinion that will never be motivated by an edict from AASHTO. They just don't care about that kind of stuff anymore.
Quote from: usends on March 21, 2019, 03:57:05 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 21, 2019, 09:17:39 AM
There ought to have been some sort of exclusion to that 300 mile rule based off traffic counts. You rarely hear people raise cane about US 92 which functions as a defacto surface alternate to I-4 and I-275 these days.
If peninsular Florida is going to have an east-west US route, it's not going to reach 300 miles in length, so all one can ask is that it goes from shore to shore. US 92 works, but US 192 is harder to defend. However...
When AASHO set forth the 300-mile guideline in 1937, 52 routes of lesser length were eliminated within the next few years (42 became part of longer routes, and 10 became state routes). Then during the "Years of Decline" (https://www.usends.com/history.html) (1960s-1990s) another 20 intra-state US routes were deleted. But those more recent deletions were initiated by state DOTs, not by AASHO/AASHTO. That organization hasn't made any effort to enforce the "300-mile rule" in the past 60-70 years, so in effect the rule doesn't exist anymore, and I believe the 20 intra-state routes that survived both of those earlier purges are safe from AASHTO now. Of course it's possible that some individual state DOT might have a reason to get rid of one of its intra-state routes, but in my opinion that will never be motivated by an edict from AASHTO. They just don't care about that kind of stuff anymore.
Interestingly if I recall correctly there once a push by FDOT get a US Route corridor on all of FL 50. Considering how many US Route connections that route would have had I think it was a pretty solid reasoning behind it. US 192 is hanging around probably has more to do with it being a pretty high end surface highway at this point, really the one I tend to question more is the need to have US 441 beyond Okeechobee anymore. Florida did have some interesting intra-State US Routes like US 94 and US 541 but those are long lost to time.
Quote from: NE2 on March 21, 2019, 08:59:17 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 21, 2019, 07:09:26 AM
And that policy of 300 or more miles or more than one state was written in 1991
Nope, it's existed since 1937. https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=10190
That's what I meant to say I didn't realize it said 1991. Don't know how that got there.
US 264. Only 215 miles long entirely in NC. Also, the westernmost 16 miles are concurrent with US 64.
Quote from: fillup420 on March 23, 2019, 08:37:58 PM
US 264. Only 215 miles long entirely in NC. Also, the westernmost 16 miles are concurrent with US 64.
US 117 is much shorter, and also entirely in NC.
US 46 is certainly a cheater now. Historically, it wasn't as it crossed the Portland-Columbia toll bridge to end at then US 611, similar to the US 206 situation that still exists.
US 130 is certainly a violator. 83.46 miles long, and all in NJ
US 175 is only 111 miles and it's all in Texas
US-211 in Virginia started out as only in Virginia, was extended into D.C., and then later truncated a couple times, last time back to Warrenton.
US 425 is too far west to have met its supposed parent, US 25. And we still don't know where the hell US 0 is...
Quote from: oscar on March 23, 2019, 08:45:39 PM
Quote from: fillup420 on March 23, 2019, 08:37:58 PM
US 264. Only 215 miles long entirely in NC. Also, the westernmost 16 miles are concurrent with US 64.
US 117 is much shorter, and also entirely in NC.
Current US 117 did start out as a two state route as it was also in South Carolina 1932-34...
Has anyone brought up US 163? Really it is a very short route that happens to be in two states and is far truncated from its original size. The number is much akin to US 400, 412 and 425.
Did US 220 used to connect to US 20 in NY?
US 641 never intersects US 41 nor any x41 siblings, but it used to hit US 41 in Evansville, IN
I did lay out an idea on the Fictional board to extend US 641 into IL by basically taking over IL 1 to reach Chicagoland and find its way to US 41 there: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=22867.0
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 26, 2019, 12:45:16 PM
Has anyone brought up US 163? Really it is a very short route that happens to be in two states and is far truncated from its original size. The number is much akin to US 400, 412 and 425.
US 412 actually isn't a short route and goes through or at least slightly touches 6 states. I think the entire 400 series of U.S. highways were intended to be an eye-gouge to pendantic folks like us to push those in power to make them into freeways. US-412 from Tulsa eastward to Nashville is a high-priority corridor (HPC 8) that will at least make spotty progress towards freeway upgrades in our lifetimes, but who knows if that means upgraded portions are replaced with an interstate designation eventually. It's already at least 4 lanes from Tulsa to Huntsville, AR, but I don't see much appetite for pushing through the mountains to Alpena, AR anytime soon. And I definitely don't see any push past Harrison for a couple of decades.
Quote from: https://www.usends.com/220.html
Its number may have derived from the fact that it originally did connect with its "sibling", US 120.
US-20 never met up with US-120 either.
US-412 also overlaps with US-43, US-56, US-60, US-62, US-63, US-64, US-65, and U.S. 270 and runs parallel to US-62 and US-64 in various places and intersects US-70. It's ridiculous that it can't have a spur number from anyone of those US highways.
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 26, 2019, 04:50:34 PM
US-412 also overlaps with US-43, US-56, US-60, US-62, US-63, US-64, US-65, and U.S. 270 and runs parallel to US-62 and US-64 in various places and intersects US-70. It's ridiculous that it can't have a spur number from anyone of those US highways.
Given that it's an E/W running highway, it wouldn't make sense to use any of the odd-numbered roads you mentioned. It probably runs concurrently with US-62 more than any other US highway, so I could buy into a US-462. Only changes one numeral that way. It's probably going to become an interstate between Tulsa and Lowell anyway if they bypass Siloam Springs and take care of at-grade intersections; there aren't very many in that stretch.
Quote from: MikieTimT on March 26, 2019, 05:59:16 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 26, 2019, 04:50:34 PM
US-412 also overlaps with US-43, US-56, US-60, US-62, US-63, US-64, US-65, and U.S. 270 and runs parallel to US-62 and US-64 in various places and intersects US-70. It's ridiculous that it can't have a spur number from anyone of those US highways.
Given that it's an E/W running highway, it wouldn't make sense to use any of the odd-numbered roads you mentioned. It probably runs concurrently with US-62 more than any other US highway, so I could buy into a US-462. Only changes one numeral that way. It's probably going to become an interstate between Tulsa and Lowell anyway if they bypass Siloam Springs and take care of at-grade intersections; there aren't very many in that stretch.
In my opinion, the easiest fix to US 412 is to truncate it to Guymon as the entire thing west of there is a useless overlap with US 64 and/or US 56. As for the rest of it, I like the idea of a US x64, because it tends to function as an alternate to that route through most of Oklahoma (sort of like the x83 family in the KS/OK area). I'd be quite happy with a US 464, since 164 should be used for what's currently 163, 264 is in use, and 364 is the designation for the Creek Turnpike.
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 26, 2019, 04:47:17 PM
US-20 never met up with US-120 either.
On paper it did...was originally designated to go to Erie but by 1928 was truncated. Per US Ends.com, Pennsylvania may not have gotten to signing its US routes before they changed some designations. Explicitly shown to Erie in the 1927 Clasons Atlas.
Quote from: MikieTimT on March 26, 2019, 04:30:23 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 26, 2019, 12:45:16 PM
Has anyone brought up US 163? Really it is a very short route that happens to be in two states and is far truncated from its original size. The number is much akin to US 400, 412 and 425.
US 412 actually isn't a short route and goes through or at least slightly touches 6 states. I think the entire 400 series of U.S. highways were intended to be an eye-gouge to pendantic folks like us to push those in power to make them into freeways. US-412 from Tulsa eastward to Nashville is a high-priority corridor (HPC 8) that will at least make spotty progress towards freeway upgrades in our lifetimes, but who knows if that means upgraded portions are replaced with an interstate designation eventually. It's already at least 4 lanes from Tulsa to Huntsville, AR, but I don't see much appetite for pushing through the mountains to Alpena, AR anytime soon. And I definitely don't see any push past Harrison for a couple of decades.
No way US 412 needs any type of freeway status. The route is merely a conglomeration of routes strung together to put cities on the "map."
US 8: only 278 miles long, basically a Wisconsin highway with 22 miles in Minnesota and 2 in Michigan. WI-29 is a far more efficient way across Wisconsin.
Quote from: texaskdog on March 27, 2019, 04:06:13 AM
US 8: only 278 miles long, basically a Wisconsin highway with 22 miles in Minnesota and 2 in Michigan. WI-29 is a far more efficient way across Wisconsin.
Important to note that before I-35W was completed US-8 used to go southwest into Minneapolis.
Quote from: texaskdog on March 27, 2019, 04:06:13 AM
US 8: only 278 miles long, basically a Wisconsin highway with 22 miles in Minnesota and 2 in Michigan. WI-29 is a far more efficient way across Wisconsin.
I've used US-8 before and agree with WI-29 being a better route to use to cross Wisconsin.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on March 27, 2019, 04:10:52 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on March 27, 2019, 04:06:13 AM
US 8: only 278 miles long, basically a Wisconsin highway with 22 miles in Minnesota and 2 in Michigan. WI-29 is a far more efficient way across Wisconsin.
Important to note that before I-35W was completed US-8 used to go southwest into Minneapolis.
things change
though if I had my way US 2 would follow Michigan 28 to the Soo and US 8 would have it's new direct crossing and follow current US 2 to Saint Ignace.
Quote from: texaskdog on March 27, 2019, 06:53:31 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on March 27, 2019, 04:10:52 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on March 27, 2019, 04:06:13 AM
US 8: only 278 miles long, basically a Wisconsin highway with 22 miles in Minnesota and 2 in Michigan. WI-29 is a far more efficient way across Wisconsin.
Important to note that before I-35W was completed US-8 used to go southwest into Minneapolis.
things change
though if I had my way US 2 would follow Michigan 28 to the Soo and US 8 would have it's new direct crossing and follow current US 2 to Saint Ignace.
I think M-28 should remain a state highway. I just don't see the point of adding another US highway across the UP.
And THIS thread hasn't been locked yet for going off the rails, yet someone killed the three word game in Off-Topic?
My point about inconsistent moderation gets proved yet again.
Quote from: hbelkins on March 28, 2019, 03:16:40 PM
And THIS thread hasn't been locked yet for going off the rails, yet someone killed the three word game in Off-Topic?
My point about inconsistent moderation gets proved yet again.
I agree that it shouldn't have been locked. My guess is that it's because this thread has an original topic to go back to, while the three word game didn't (even though the topic was fine).
Quote from: hbelkins on March 28, 2019, 03:16:40 PM
And THIS thread hasn't been locked yet for going off the rails, yet someone killed the three word game in Off-Topic?
My point about inconsistent moderation gets proved yet again.
That's because this thread has gone in three different directions (the original topic, the ordinal linguistic personification offshoot, and random silliness). Locking it because of the silliness kills two interesting topics, so being "consistent" here by applying a one-size-fits-all solution of locking everything that goes off the rails is actively bad moderation, which is generally considered worse than inconsistent moderation.
Ordinal linguistic personification stuff moved to https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=24739.0, will slice out the silliness shortly.
Quote from: hbelkins on March 28, 2019, 03:16:40 PM
And THIS thread hasn't been locked yet for going off the rails, yet someone killed the three word game in Off-Topic?
My point about inconsistent moderation gets proved yet again.
Go cry me a freeway.
Quote from: hbelkins on March 28, 2019, 03:16:40 PM
And THIS thread hasn't been locked yet for going off the rails, yet someone killed the three word game in Off-Topic?
My point about inconsistent moderation gets proved yet again.
You're probably the person who ought to have the LEAST interest in an uptick in moderation.
Quote from: US 89 on March 26, 2019, 06:43:44 PM
Quote from: MikieTimT on March 26, 2019, 05:59:16 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 26, 2019, 04:50:34 PM
US-412 also overlaps with US-43, US-56, US-60, US-62, US-63, US-64, US-65, and U.S. 270 and runs parallel to US-62 and US-64 in various places and intersects US-70. It's ridiculous that it can't have a spur number from anyone of those US highways.
Given that it's an E/W running highway, it wouldn't make sense to use any of the odd-numbered roads you mentioned. It probably runs concurrently with US-62 more than any other US highway, so I could buy into a US-462. Only changes one numeral that way. It's probably going to become an interstate between Tulsa and Lowell anyway if they bypass Siloam Springs and take care of at-grade intersections; there aren't very many in that stretch.
In my opinion, the easiest fix to US 412 is to truncate it to Guymon as the entire thing west of there is a useless overlap with US 64 and/or US 56. As for the rest of it, I like the idea of a US x64, because it tends to function as an alternate to that route through most of Oklahoma (sort of like the x83 family in the KS/OK area). I'd be quite happy with a US 464, since 164 should be used for what's currently 163, 264 is in use, and 364 is the designation for the Creek Turnpike.
I say renumber US 412 as US 66.
FTR, my post about US 220 and US 202, which contained both legitimate and info about their personalities, was excluded from this thread, but never placed in the parallel thread; it essentially went <poof> or was shipped off to that place that rhymes with "gallon sand" . My point was that US 220 never gets anywhere near its parent (barely makes it a few feet into the same state at its northern terminus, and is over a hundred miles from it in PA), and US 202 strays almost 500 miles from its parent at its southern terminus, and changes from north-south to east-west then back and back again.
Simply upgrading NY-34 to US-220 and connecting US-220 to US-20 in Auburn, NY would work.
US-202 makes it's connection with US-2 in Bangor, Maine so I see no problem with that one.
I think the "new" US 311 qualifies, as it is basically an east-west North Carolina highway that dips into Virginia.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on March 29, 2019, 02:38:28 AM
FTR, my post about US 220 and US 202, which contained both legitimate and info about their personalities, was excluded from this thread, but never placed in the parallel thread; it essentially went <poof> or was shipped off to that place that rhymes with "gallon sand" . My point was that US 220 never gets anywhere near its parent (barely makes it a few feet into the same state at its northern terminus, and is over a hundred miles from it in PA), and US 202 strays almost 500 miles from its parent at its southern terminus, and changes from north-south to east-west then back and back again.
It's worth noting that US 220 no longer enters NY; AASHTO approved a request to truncate it back to the PA border (creating a de facto terminus at I-86/modern NY 17).
Quote from: vdeane on March 29, 2019, 01:08:57 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on March 29, 2019, 02:38:28 AM
FTR, my post about US 220 and US 202, which contained both legitimate and info about their personalities, was excluded from this thread, but never placed in the parallel thread; it essentially went <poof> or was shipped off to that place that rhymes with "gallon sand" . My point was that US 220 never gets anywhere near its parent (barely makes it a few feet into the same state at its northern terminus, and is over a hundred miles from it in PA), and US 202 strays almost 500 miles from its parent at its southern terminus, and changes from north-south to east-west then back and back again.
It's worth noting that US 220 no longer enters NY; AASHTO approved a request to truncate it back to the PA border (creating a de facto terminus at I-86/modern NY 17).
That's probably one of the shortest truncations in history. A couple of hundred feet, maybe?
Was the truncation due that town not wanting traffic?
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on April 28, 2019, 11:23:21 PM
Was the truncation due that town not wanting traffic?
It was probably because there was no need for it to extend further. The cross road it ended at was old NY 17, but I think was just a county road or city street today.
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 27, 2019, 06:32:20 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on March 27, 2019, 04:06:13 AM
US 8: only 278 miles long, basically a Wisconsin highway with 22 miles in Minnesota and 2 in Michigan. WI-29 is a far more efficient way across Wisconsin.
I've used US-8 before and agree with WI-29 being a better route to use to cross Wisconsin.
Google Maps is telling me that starting from almost any city in northern Wisconsin east of US 51 (or the UP east of US 45), WIS 29 is a much faster route to get to the Twin Cities. Even starting from anywhere along US 8 (like Rhinelander or Cranston), Google Maps still redirects you to highway 29 because it's over 20 minutes faster.
I don't find WI 29 being faster particularly surprising, having driven it myself.
Well for the past several decades Wisconsin has put a lot of work into upgrading it into a major highway. If it didn't receive those upgrades it wouldn't be any faster than highways with a speed limit of 55 mph.
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 21, 2019, 07:09:26 AM
There are several U.S. highways that exist only in one state. And that policy of 300 or more miles or more than one state was written in 1991 so it doesn't surprise me that there are several U.S. highways that aren't 300 miles long or don't enter another state. So any new additions to the U.S. highway system has to serve more than one state.
The AASHTO (AASHO) U.S. route numbering policy actually dates back to the late 1930s. It's been violated numerous times since then, with new single-state routes being established.
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on April 30, 2019, 11:14:02 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 21, 2019, 07:09:26 AM
There are several U.S. highways that exist only in one state. And that policy of 300 or more miles or more than one state was written in 1991 so it doesn't surprise me that there are several U.S. highways that aren't 300 miles long or don't enter another state. So any new additions to the U.S. highway system has to serve more than one state.
The AASHTO (AASHO) U.S. route numbering policy actually dates back to the late 1930s. It's been violated numerous times since then, with new single-state routes being established.
Not to mention bastardized with the introduction of US 400, US 412, US 425 and US 163.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 01, 2019, 10:00:27 PM
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on April 30, 2019, 11:14:02 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 21, 2019, 07:09:26 AM
There are several U.S. highways that exist only in one state. And that policy of 300 or more miles or more than one state was written in 1991 so it doesn't surprise me that there are several U.S. highways that aren't 300 miles long or don't enter another state. So any new additions to the U.S. highway system has to serve more than one state.
The AASHTO (AASHO) U.S. route numbering policy actually dates back to the late 1930s. It's been violated numerous times since then, with new single-state routes being established.
Not to mention bastardized with the introduction of US 400, US 412, US 425 and US 163.
Let's not forget the second U.S. 164, which didn't connect to U.S. 64 at all.
Quote from: Verlanka on May 02, 2019, 08:47:47 AM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 01, 2019, 10:00:27 PM
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on April 30, 2019, 11:14:02 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 21, 2019, 07:09:26 AM
There are several U.S. highways that exist only in one state. And that policy of 300 or more miles or more than one state was written in 1991 so it doesn't surprise me that there are several U.S. highways that aren't 300 miles long or don't enter another state. So any new additions to the U.S. highway system has to serve more than one state.
The AASHTO (AASHO) U.S. route numbering policy actually dates back to the late 1930s. It's been violated numerous times since then, with new single-state routes being established.
Not to mention bastardized with the introduction of US 400, US 412, US 425 and US 163.
Let's not forget the second U.S. 164, which didn't connect to U.S. 64 at all.
Not a problem. Several other US routes get close to their parents without actually touching.
Quote from: 1 on May 02, 2019, 08:51:22 AM
Quote from: Verlanka on May 02, 2019, 08:47:47 AM
Let's not forget the second U.S. 164, which didn't connect to U.S. 64 at all.
Not a problem. Several other US routes get close to their parents without actually touching.
The second US 164 was probably numbered that way not so much because it was close to US 64 (which ended in Santa Fe at the time) but because a lot of it replaced AZ 64. That route had been extended northeast from US 89 three years prior to US 164's creation, and there were also several Arizona state routes that had been numbered as branches of AZ 64, so there would have been some interest in keeping the 64 number around.
I'm of the opinion that the modern US 163 should be renumbered to 164, but that's getting into fictional territory.
The term I use for these kinds of US routes is "stealth violators". They often escape scrutiny because they do enter a second state, but only for a very short distance, so in a practical sense they are de facto single-state routes. At the bottom of this page (https://www.usends.com/intra-state-routes.html) I've published a list of all of them that have "cheating" segments of 15 miles or less.
Quote from: MikieTimT on March 26, 2019, 04:30:23 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 26, 2019, 12:45:16 PM
Has anyone brought up US 163? Really it is a very short route that happens to be in two states and is far truncated from its original size. The number is much akin to US 400, 412 and 425.
US 412 actually isn't a short route and goes through or at least slightly touches 6 states. I think the entire 400 series of U.S. highways were intended to be an eye-gouge to pendantic folks like us to push those in power to make them into freeways. US-412 from Tulsa eastward to Nashville is a high-priority corridor (HPC 8) that will at least make spotty progress towards freeway upgrades in our lifetimes, but who knows if that means upgraded portions are replaced with an interstate designation eventually. It's already at least 4 lanes from Tulsa to Huntsville, AR, but I don't see much appetite for pushing through the mountains to Alpena, AR anytime soon. And I definitely don't see any push past Harrison for a couple of decades.
What a colossal waste of money it would be to designate an Interstate through this corridor.
IIRC, US 400 was originally planned to be a freeway-grade highway but never came to pass.
412 MAY be eventually.
US 195 barely crosses into Idaho, where it immediately intersects US 95 in an interchange. Before that was built, US 95 swerved into Washington, leaving US 195 as an intrastate route (as the northern end was chopped off by US 2 in 1946).
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on October 24, 2020, 02:13:33 PM
What a colossal waste of money it would be to designate an Interstate through this corridor.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on August 05, 2019, 05:11:53 PM
They could have just renumbered it to US 766 and put a seven over the six. That would have saved some money.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 27, 2019, 05:37:56 PM
Where is the money going to come from? The gas tax went up in Tennessee and heads rolled with the past election thereafter.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 12, 2019, 12:52:05 PM
Let me guess they will axe US 93 once the I-11 pork boondoggle project is completed.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 09, 2019, 11:19:19 AM
What a waste of money four laning I-70 across the swell.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 07, 2019, 05:01:40 PM
The entirety of I-11 is pure pork. US 93 is sufficient.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 07, 2019, 08:50:06 PM
Well since you are from North Carolina you are pretty used to Porky Pig interstate projects.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on April 08, 2019, 12:33:37 AM
Why such interest in spending hard earned tax payer money 💴 lining the pockets wth pork projects? The area was just fine with US 10. I-94 is more than sufficient.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on March 15, 2019, 01:09:05 PM
What a waste of good ole tax payer money on a boondoggle.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on February 24, 2019, 09:57:34 PM
More waste of money on red, white, and blue shields when the US highway ones more than suffice.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on January 18, 2018, 05:01:32 PM
It didn't seem like much of an issue when I went through. What a waste of money.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on November 13, 2017, 11:08:36 AM
US 74 in Monroe is already a bypass. Why does NC like to spend so much money?
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on July 27, 2017, 03:38:49 PM
What is the current to date status of I-69 signage in KY? Wasn't there pork spending involved in the signage?
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on July 25, 2017, 12:04:59 AM
I listened to the Interim Joint Committee on Transportation and a key takeaway is that Kentucky is in deep in road debt. They are looking for money as it is. Why spend that money when Louisville and Northern Kentucky need to improve?
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on January 24, 2018, 10:16:44 PM
Mention the word toll a highway in Tennessee and you would be thrown out of office.
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 25, 2020, 04:02:17 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on October 24, 2020, 02:13:33 PM
What a colossal waste of money it would be to designate an Interstate through this corridor.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on August 05, 2019, 05:11:53 PM
They could have just renumbered it to US 766 and put a seven over the six. That would have saved some money.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 27, 2019, 05:37:56 PM
Where is the money going to come from? The gas tax went up in Tennessee and heads rolled with the past election thereafter.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 12, 2019, 12:52:05 PM
Let me guess they will axe US 93 once the I-11 pork boondoggle project is completed.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 09, 2019, 11:19:19 AM
What a waste of money four laning I-70 across the swell.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 07, 2019, 05:01:40 PM
The entirety of I-11 is pure pork. US 93 is sufficient.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 07, 2019, 08:50:06 PM
Well since you are from North Carolina you are pretty used to Porky Pig interstate projects.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on April 08, 2019, 12:33:37 AM
Why such interest in spending hard earned tax payer money 💴 lining the pockets wth pork projects? The area was just fine with US 10. I-94 is more than sufficient.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on March 15, 2019, 01:09:05 PM
What a waste of good ole tax payer money on a boondoggle.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on February 24, 2019, 09:57:34 PM
More waste of money on red, white, and blue shields when the US highway ones more than suffice.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on January 18, 2018, 05:01:32 PM
It didn't seem like much of an issue when I went through. What a waste of money.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on November 13, 2017, 11:08:36 AM
US 74 in Monroe is already a bypass. Why does NC like to spend so much money?
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on July 27, 2017, 03:38:49 PM
What is the current to date status of I-69 signage in KY? Wasn't there pork spending involved in the signage?
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on July 25, 2017, 12:04:59 AM
I listened to the Interim Joint Committee on Transportation and a key takeaway is that Kentucky is in deep in road debt. They are looking for money as it is. Why spend that money when Louisville and Northern Kentucky need to improve?
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on January 24, 2018, 10:16:44 PM
Mention the word toll a highway in Tennessee and you would be thrown out of office.
Boondoggles, Porky Pig, and money.
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 25, 2020, 04:02:17 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on October 24, 2020, 02:13:33 PM
What a colossal waste of money it would be to designate an Interstate through this corridor.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on August 05, 2019, 05:11:53 PM
They could have just renumbered it to US 766 and put a seven over the six. That would have saved some money.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 27, 2019, 05:37:56 PM
Where is the money going to come from? The gas tax went up in Tennessee and heads rolled with the past election thereafter.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 12, 2019, 12:52:05 PM
Let me guess they will axe US 93 once the I-11 pork boondoggle project is completed.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 09, 2019, 11:19:19 AM
What a waste of money four laning I-70 across the swell.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 07, 2019, 05:01:40 PM
The entirety of I-11 is pure pork. US 93 is sufficient.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 07, 2019, 08:50:06 PM
Well since you are from North Carolina you are pretty used to Porky Pig interstate projects.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on April 08, 2019, 12:33:37 AM
Why such interest in spending hard earned tax payer money 💴 lining the pockets wth pork projects? The area was just fine with US 10. I-94 is more than sufficient.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on March 15, 2019, 01:09:05 PM
What a waste of good ole tax payer money on a boondoggle.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on February 24, 2019, 09:57:34 PM
More waste of money on red, white, and blue shields when the US highway ones more than suffice.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on January 18, 2018, 05:01:32 PM
It didn't seem like much of an issue when I went through. What a waste of money.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on November 13, 2017, 11:08:36 AM
US 74 in Monroe is already a bypass. Why does NC like to spend so much money?
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on July 27, 2017, 03:38:49 PM
What is the current to date status of I-69 signage in KY? Wasn't there pork spending involved in the signage?
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on July 25, 2017, 12:04:59 AM
I listened to the Interim Joint Committee on Transportation and a key takeaway is that Kentucky is in deep in road debt. They are looking for money as it is. Why spend that money when Louisville and Northern Kentucky need to improve?
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on January 24, 2018, 10:16:44 PM
Mention the word toll a highway in Tennessee and you would be thrown out of office.
Something tells me this post has been long in the works...
Quote from: debragga on March 24, 2019, 01:21:47 AM
US 175 is only 111 miles and it's all in Texas
TxDOT should probably do another measurement since the move from S.M. Wright Frwy. in Dallas to the new direct west terminus at I-45; much less the new east terminus connection that straightened the zigzag in Jacksonville in 2002.
There have been a couple of moves over the decades to extend US 175, but nothing came of them. There's never been any talk of completely chucking the US 175 designation, in favor of either a state highway or making another US route longer (although there really aren't any candidates like that in any proximity).
US 58 could be extended over TN SR 63 to I-75.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on October 26, 2020, 11:54:14 AM
US 58 could be extended over TN SR 63 to I-75.
That would actually be a logical extension of US 119, since it's part of the same ADHS corridor as 119 between Pineville and Jenkins.
Quote from: hbelkins on October 26, 2020, 12:23:29 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on October 26, 2020, 11:54:14 AM
US 58 could be extended over TN SR 63 to I-75.
That would actually be a logical extension of US 119, since it's part of the same ADHS corridor as 119 between Pineville and Jenkins.
I would guess that would make more sense. US 11W or US 11E (I-40 to I-81 if you must take the interstate) already serves the Knoxville-Bristol corridor.
Quote from: -- US 175 -- on October 26, 2020, 11:46:56 AM
Quote from: debragga on March 24, 2019, 01:21:47 AM
US 175 is only 111 miles and it's all in Texas
TxDOT should probably do another measurement since the move from S.M. Wright Frwy. in Dallas to the new direct west terminus at I-45; much less the new east terminus connection that straightened the zigzag in Jacksonville in 2002.
There have been a couple of moves over the decades to extend US 175, but nothing came of them. There's never been any talk of completely chucking the US 175 designation, in favor of either a state highway or making another US route longer (although there really aren't any candidates like that in any proximity).
I mean, its parent, US 75, ends a few miles from one of its termini...
Quote from: LilianaUwU on October 26, 2020, 03:09:15 PM
Quote from: -- US 175 -- on October 26, 2020, 11:46:56 AM
Quote from: debragga on March 24, 2019, 01:21:47 AM
US 175 is only 111 miles and it's all in Texas
TxDOT should probably do another measurement since the move from S.M. Wright Frwy. in Dallas to the new direct west terminus at I-45; much less the new east terminus connection that straightened the zigzag in Jacksonville in 2002.
There have been a couple of moves over the decades to extend US 175, but nothing came of them. There's never been any talk of completely chucking the US 175 designation, in favor of either a state highway or making another US route longer (although there really aren't any candidates like that in any proximity).
I mean, its parent, US 75, ends a few miles from one of its termini...
True, but US 75 is even shorter in TX now than US 175 is. And if Sherman (and possibly other cities) is successful in getting I-45 extended north, the possibility of US 75 still existing in TX is very slim. Taking in US 175 in favor of US 75 would likely not be considered, as it would re-encounter US 69 in Jacksonville, after having split from it in Denison. Even if the 2 were combined somehow, the 2 together wouldn't add up to 300 miles.
With all the work over the years to improve US 175, I can't see it being downgraded in naming status.
Quote from: debragga on March 24, 2019, 01:21:47 AM
US 175 is only 111 miles and it's all in Texas
US 57 is another Texas single state Route. Made to be an international route being Federal Route 57 in Mexico it connects to.
Quote from: hbelkins on October 26, 2020, 12:23:29 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on October 26, 2020, 11:54:14 AM
US 58 could be extended over TN SR 63 to I-75.
That would actually be a logical extension of US 119, since it's part of the same ADHS corridor as 119 between Pineville and Jenkins.
Both of these have been officially part of Tennessee proposals.
US 58's denied extension to Chattanooga
US 119 extension to I-75 as part of a 1979 plan by Tennessee to get rid of US 25W. This plan also replaced 25W from Knoxville to Lake City with US 441 and extended US 129 up TN 33 to Tazewell. The Norris Freeway would go back to being a state route as would US 25W north of La Folette.
https://na4.visualvault.com/app/AASHTO/Default/documentviewer?DhID=b83fb6f0-00d5-ea11-a98a-ff9beffbfef8&hidemenu=true
(TN US 25 correspondence 1979). No idea what happened to this.
AASHO has also rejected TN 63 being an extension of US 441 (1956, 1960)
Quote from: Mapmikey on October 27, 2020, 08:10:55 PM
https://na4.visualvault.com/app/AASHTO/Default/documentviewer?DhID=b83fb6f0-00d5-ea11-a98a-ff9beffbfef8&hidemenu=true
Sure that application wasn't for US 404? :-D
Quote from: hbelkins on October 28, 2020, 11:24:31 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on October 27, 2020, 08:10:55 PM
https://na4.visualvault.com/app/AASHTO/Default/documentviewer?DhID=b83fb6f0-00d5-ea11-a98a-ff9beffbfef8&hidemenu=true
Sure that application wasn't for US 404? :-D
Sorry...assumed people were used to the idea that the AASHTO database links work only if you are currently searching something at https://grmservices.grmims.com/vsearch/portal/public/na4/aashto/default
You'd be surprised what us numbers were floated (though not 404 that I am aware of). If you haven't looked through Kentucky's "other" documents for 1929-33 I highly recommend it.
KY definitely tried to get US 268 and US 327. AASHO suggested to them US 125 and US 162 on that request and none of it actually happened. US 42 extension to Louisville was requested as a US 150 extension. US 23E-W and 27E-W proposals. I believe these were in the 1929 folder.
Then there is a map in one of those KY folders with no accompanying context from the 1925-27 period that showed proposed US 123, 223, 323 and 423 in Michigan (or was it x25 routes...now fuzzy) and showed US 150 going to Newport News VA as another potential solution to the will it be US 52, 62, etc.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 27, 2020, 04:23:33 PM
Quote from: debragga on March 24, 2019, 01:21:47 AM
US 175 is only 111 miles and it's all in Texas
US 57 is another Texas single state Route. Made to be an international route being Federal Route 57 in Mexico it connects to.
Also US 96
How about US 74 in TN? It is multiplexed the entire way in TN. It rides along US 64 and then it is unsigned on I-75 just to end at the junction with I-24.