Text only | Text with Images

AARoads Forum

National Boards => General Highway Talk => Topic started by: Dirt Roads on September 24, 2020, 12:39:07 PM

Title: National Highway System redux
Post by: Dirt Roads on September 24, 2020, 12:39:07 PM
I've been watching this subthread on I-587 (Zebulon-Greenville) and it is reminding me of the old MTR discussions on the National Highway System.


Quote from: roadman65 on November 17, 2016, 08:48:29 AM
This is interesting.  Another NC Interstate designated to a US Route freeway.  I am amazed just at how many interstates have been granted to the Tar Heel State.  I knew this one was going to be one eventually, but IMO I think that 587 is not the right number for it.  Heck an even number x87 would work being it connects with two other (or it will someday) interstates.

The interesting part is they moved over the existing US routes onto these freeways and now the move over seems irrelevant now.  The old roads being mostly alternate routes of it, could have been left as is and the new freeways could have been designated as interstates to the get go.  Now, we have the unnecessary concurrency.

VDOT did that with transferring VA 168 to VA 143.  It moved it on to I-64 only to have it decommissioned later so time and funds were wasted in altering an alignment to be later removed.  Yes, I know that NCDOT won't remove US 264 like VDOT did to truncating VA 168, but still its a waste. You now have the burden with extra money of adding new shields and all for that if they had known originally that it would be part of the interstate system, US 264 would have remained its surface road alignment.

Quote from: architect77 on September 24, 2020, 11:33:27 AM
Everyone must remember NCDOT's goal for 50 years has been to bring a modern, 4-lane. divided highway to within 10 miles of 96% of the population, one that is every evenly spread across the state in every nook and cranny.

So what you see is a continued realization of the state being crisscrossed by hundreds of 4-lane divided highways about every 20 miles statewide.

Therefore the interstates will differentiate those routes from all the 4-lane highways that ultimately will be the only road type practically in the future.

Quote from: vdeane on November 17, 2016, 01:07:39 PM
Agreed.  I've never liked the idea of having a useless overlap between a US route (or any other route) and an interstate when the original alignment is still available and decent.  IMO keep the overlaps to where necessary and don't have overlaps for the sake of having overlaps.

Quote from: architect77 on September 24, 2020, 11:33:27 AM
Wouldn't it be desirable to use the best and safest roadway for all routes when they have a chance to piggyback on a big interstate?  Wouldn't it be faster too?
Title: Re: National Highway System redux
Post by: Dirt Roads on September 24, 2020, 12:55:22 PM
When the National Highway System was first proposed in the early-1990s, I was hopeful that we would be working toward an integrated highway network (and away from a hodge-podge of political historic routes).  The US Route system (first implemented by the American Automobile Association) was soon co-opted by politician wanting to connect their hometowns and districts to the national network (to which I couldn't disagree).  But nearly 75 years later, we ended up with a confusing mess.  But by the time the National Highway System Designation Act got pulled together in 1995, there was a lot of the same political danglers mixed in along with the key routes.

The discussion above highlights that routes with local importance got short shrift when originally proposed for Interstate status, but later gets approved once AASHTO realizes that the state is serious enough to produce a corridor that will eventually meet Interstate standards.

We can argue about how Interstate standards are too stringent and therefore costly, but back in those days I was hoping for a new NHS highway designation that would mimic the lettered corridors used by the Appalachian Highway Commission.  In particular, I was impressed that in Great Britain they can begin to upgrade a primary highway to Motorway requirements and simply change the route designation to flag the improvements.  The first example that I saw was the A1 being upgraded to A1(M).  After 25 years, we still don't have anything helpful for drivers to identify which roads other than Interstates are high-speed corridors.  Worse, because of GPS usage almost nobody other than us roadgeeks know how to use a map anymore.

Please keep your comments towards policy issues here. 

Title: Re: National Highway System redux
Post by: Dirt Roads on September 26, 2020, 09:09:13 AM
Just looking at Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia, I am finding several themes with respect to the National Highway System.  Using common language for now, but it would be wise for us to consider how to develop professional descriptions so that we can eventually make some serious proposals for real improvements.  Not wanting to bring up the old arguments, but for this particular post the use of the word "highway" is intended to mean four-lane arterials already interconnected to the Interstate system.  Also, the word "highway" is being used in a generic sense to describe a general traffic corridor and not necessarily follow a particular established numbered route.
With respect to the National Highway System, North Carolina has made significant progress toward upgrading its High Priority Corridors to Limited Access highways.  Virginia and West Virginia have not.  Maryland has completed MD-200 (Intercounty Connector) as a toll facility.  Some reconsideration of the original ISTEA High Priority Corridors appears to be needed.  Additionally, there are several larger cities elsewhere (think Bend, Oregon) that are still not connected to the Interstate system with highways that need some consideration.

All four of these states are part of the Appalachian Regional Commission, and a good number of Appalachian Development Highway System routes are highways that are interconnected to the Interstate system and other highways in these states.  North Carolina and West Virginia have made some progress over the past 25 years.  Maryland has not made progress towards completion of Corridor N (US-219 northward from Grantsville).  Virginia has done some big work in the past 25 years, but I'm not sure about progress.
Title: Re: National Highway System redux
Post by: Dirt Roads on September 26, 2020, 10:25:23 AM
North Carolina

Limited Access highways (over 20 miles)
Multi-state routes (over 20 miles):
Through routes (over 20 miles)
Spur routes (over 20 miles)
Not quite making the lists
Future interstate numbers not shown (just to make things simpler).  Routes are intended to have average speeds in excess of 45 mph during non-rush periods, with some traffic signals.  I suspect that I missed some sections where these routes have issues and don't qualify yet.  For such a big state, the list looks to be manageable in this format.
Title: Re: National Highway System redux
Post by: Dirt Roads on September 26, 2020, 12:04:10 PM
Virginia

Limited Access highways (over 20 miles)
Multi-state routes (over 20 miles):
Through routes (over 20 miles)
Spur routes (over 20 miles)
Not quite making the lists
Through routes and spur routes are better balanced in Virginia than North Carolina.  Did not include some of the interconnecting and spur routes in Northern Virginia because of the long rush hour periods.  Might need to downgrade VA-286 (Fairfax County Parkway), VA-234 and VA-294 (Prince William Parkway, didn't make the list) for same reason.  Otherwise, need to consider some additional rules for urban/suburban interconnectivity.

Future interstate numbers not shown (just to make things simpler).  Routes are intended to have average speeds in excess of 45 mph during non-rush periods, with some traffic signals. 
Title: Re: National Highway System redux
Post by: Dirt Roads on September 26, 2020, 02:06:02 PM
West Virginia

Limited Access highways (over 20 miles)
Multi-state routes (over 20 miles):
Through routes (over 20 miles)
Spur routes (over 20 miles)
Not quite making the lists
Title: Re: National Highway System redux
Post by: Dirt Roads on September 26, 2020, 04:26:35 PM
Maryland

Limited Access highways (over 20 miles)
Multi-state routes (over 20 miles):
Through routes (over 20 miles)
Spur routes (over 20 miles)
Not quite making the lists
Hidden interstate number (err, I-595) not shown (just to make things simpler).  Routes are intended to still have average speeds in excess of 45 mph during non-rush periods, with some traffic signals (this is more difficult to be practicable in Maryland).  I suspect that I missed some sections where these routes have issues and don't qualify yet.  Also didn't include any routes that might have been improved since I clinched them.

Rant:  US-340 west of Frederick is one of the reasons for this thread.  When I lived in the DC area, I would recommend US-15/US-340 as a main route south to get out of Suburban Maryland at rush hour.  At the time, US-340 was Partially Limited Access with a left hand slip for US-15.  Folks would take the route and come back and complain that there was no way to look at the maps and tell how good the route was.  There needs to be a new system to differentiate higher-speed arterials from "primary" routes, many of which are no longer "primary".
[/quote]
Title: Re: National Highway System redux
Post by: sparker on September 27, 2020, 01:01:23 AM
Interestingly, some of the NHS (including the STRAHNET routes, essentially NHS with a military rationale tacked on) routes in the Far West tend to "straightline" the "point-A-to-point-B" concepts.  This is particularly true in NV, where the STRAHNET route traveling on US 395 in CA's Owens Valley shifts to US 6 north of Bishop and segues onto NV 360 to US 95, another such route.   Coincidentally, this route is part of the shortest path from L.A. to the Boise/Treasure Valley section of Idaho.  And in the eastern part of the state, the N-S NHS corridor nominally along US 93 shifts to NV 318 and US 6 between Ash Springs and Ely -- again, the shortest route and one with similar facility standards to the longer US 93 routing.  The formulators of at least this region's share of NHS routes seem to be determined to provide route efficiency above other considerations, all else being roughly equal. 
Title: Re: National Highway System redux
Post by: Dirt Roads on September 28, 2020, 06:10:16 PM
South Carolina

Limited Access highways (over 20 miles)
Multi-state routes (over 20 miles)
Through routes (over 20 miles)
Spur routes (over 20 miles)
Not quite making the lists
Title: Re: National Highway System redux
Post by: Dirt Roads on September 28, 2020, 06:11:56 PM
Georgia

Limited Access highways (over 20 miles)
Multi-state routes (over 20 miles)
Through routes (over 20 miles)
Spur routes (over 20 miles)
Not quite making the lists
Title: Re: National Highway System redux
Post by: Dirt Roads on September 28, 2020, 06:26:58 PM
Florida

Limited Access highways (over 20 miles)
Multi-state routes (over 20 miles)
Through routes (over 20 miles)
Spur routes (over 20 miles)
Not quite making the lists
Florida presents an interesting quandary.  There are a number of urban/suburban routes (non-Interstate) that serve/appear to serve as preferred bypasses creating suitable interconnections.  Urban/suburban routes in Jacksonville were deleted from this list because they do not increase the number of interconnections.  Some of the ones in the Miami area have also been deleted.

I was surprised how few through routes are in Northern Florida.  Obviously, the Panhandle routes connect to towns in Alabama and Georgia, but the main issue was limited interconnections along I-75 due to congested routes.
Title: Re: National Highway System redux
Post by: Dirt Roads on September 28, 2020, 08:49:34 PM
Quote from: sparker on September 27, 2020, 01:01:23 AM
Interestingly, some of the NHS (including the STRAHNET routes, essentially NHS with a military rationale tacked on) routes in the Far West tend to "straightline" the "point-A-to-point-B" concepts.  This is particularly true in NV, where the STRAHNET route traveling on US 395 in CA's Owens Valley shifts to US 6 north of Bishop and segues onto NV 360 to US 95, another such route.   Coincidentally, this route is part of the shortest path from L.A. to the Boise/Treasure Valley section of Idaho.  And in the eastern part of the state, the N-S NHS corridor nominally along US 93 shifts to NV 318 and US 6 between Ash Springs and Ely -- again, the shortest route and one with similar facility standards to the longer US 93 routing.  The formulators of at least this region's share of NHS routes seem to be determined to provide route efficiency above other considerations, all else being roughly equal.

A good number of the four-lane corridors identified thus far are mainly in straight lines and have multiple route numbers along the way.  It makes sense, as the older route systems interconnected towns and facilities in a manner that made logistical (or political) sense back a long time ago.  Unfortunately, progress doesn't always follow the same paths.  Even on the East Coast, it is interesting how many local four-lane highways run perpendicular to the Interstate system between two or more seemingly unimportant destinations.  Many of these routes don't look like they belong on the map, but either there is sufficient traffic or politics to get them upgraded. 

Before I started down this path, I was looking as to whether STRAHNET routes would give a better view into the current status of the National Highway System.  My father was in the National Guard and Army Reserve for many years, so I was familiar with interesting routes used between Charleston, West Virginia and certain military bases (his unit was joint Army and Marines).  Anyhow, there are some major two-lane thoroughfares that deserve to be listed alongside major four-lane routes.  Might need to go back to STRAHNET to help flag some of these.

But I figured that about 25 years of progress (or lack of progress) should be sufficient to give us a new baseline.  The current overly simple methodology may have some real headaches in developing route lists for some of the states.
Title: Re: National Highway System redux
Post by: Dirt Roads on October 01, 2020, 11:49:44 PM
Alabama

Limited Access highways (over 20 miles)
Multi-state routes (over 20 miles)
Through routes (over 20 miles)
Loop routes (over 20 miles)
Spur routes (over 20 miles)
Not quite making the lists
Title: Re: National Highway System redux
Post by: Dirt Roads on October 01, 2020, 11:52:52 PM
Mississippi

Limited Access highways (over 20 miles)
Multi-state routes (over 20 miles)
Through routes (over 20 miles)
Spur routes (over 20 miles)
Not quite making the lists
Note that the connecting routes in Alabama and Mississippi are amazingly well distributed over both of the states, respectively.
Title: Re: National Highway System redux
Post by: Dirt Roads on October 03, 2020, 12:13:01 PM
Tennessee

Limited Access highways (over 20 miles)
Multi-state routes (over 20 miles)
Through routes (over 20 miles)
Spur routes (over 20 miles)
Not quite making the lists
Title: Re: National Highway System redux
Post by: Dirt Roads on October 03, 2020, 12:34:02 PM
Kentucky

Limited Access highways (over 20 miles)
Multi-state routes (over 20 miles)
Through routes (over 20 miles)
Spur routes (over 20 miles)
Not quite making the lists
Kentucky brings up some paradoxes.  First, the parkway system development resulted in fewer through corridors over US Routes and State Routes.  Second, continuous long east/west corridors are wisely divided into shorter spur routes interconnecting to the north/south Interstates (including I-24).  Both require some rethinking about how the National Highway System actually works in real life.

One other quirk is how New Circle Road (KY-4) in Lexington is still not well connected to I-64 and I-75.  The short connection via Broadway Road (US-27/US-68) always was historically overcongested, as was the eastern connection using Winchester Road (US-60).  I doubt either qualify as a minimum average 45 mph over their section.

This completes almost all of the Southeast states and should represent enough to evaluate the types of issues facing the existing National Highway System.
Title: Re: National Highway System redux
Post by: froggie on October 04, 2020, 11:10:21 AM
Quote from: Dirt Roads on October 01, 2020, 11:52:52 PM
Mississippi

Limited Access highways (over 20 miles)
  • none

Unless I'm misunderstanding your criteria, US 82 from west of Starkville to the MS/AL line should qualify.  It's about 42 miles.  US 45 from Shannon (US 45A interchange) to Saltillo comes close at just under 20 miles.
Title: Re: National Highway System redux
Post by: Dirt Roads on October 04, 2020, 12:23:41 PM
Quote from: Dirt Roads on October 01, 2020, 11:52:52 PM
Mississippi

Limited Access highways (over 20 miles)
  • none

Quote from: froggie on October 04, 2020, 11:10:21 AM
Unless I'm misunderstanding your criteria, US 82 from west of Starkville to the MS/AL line should qualify.  It's about 42 miles.  US 45 from Shannon (US 45A interchange) to Saltillo comes close at just under 20 miles.

<Deleted the incorrect response that referred to I-22>.

Oops.  Right now, only Limited Access corridors that are directly connected to Interstate highways are included.  But I should flag this under the "Not Quite Making the List" category in order to get some discussion about whether such section of highways should get preferential treatment over other four-lane sections.
Title: Re: National Highway System redux
Post by: froggie on October 05, 2020, 12:31:23 AM
^ In that case, you should also flag the US 45 segment I mentioned under "Not Quite Making the List", as it junctions with I-22 in Tupelo, but is just under 20 miles.
Title: Re: National Highway System redux
Post by: Dirt Roads on October 05, 2020, 11:10:27 AM
Quote from: froggie on October 05, 2020, 12:31:23 AM
^ In that case, you should also flag the US 45 segment I mentioned under "Not Quite Making the List", as it junctions with I-22 in Tupelo, but is just under 20 miles.

Got it.  This is an example of another quandary, the spur route in the middle of a through route.  Let's say we have two new route designations (for simplicity, lets say Green Interstate Route and Green U.S. Route).  Thinking about something like a Green Spur I-22 (or Green 3di) multiplexed with a Green US-45, or change the whole corridor number that allows a new Green 2di and Green 2dUS with the same number (or something similar).  This example is a bit easier, since the existing U.S. Route could be truncated.  Trying to stick with signage approaches that AASHTO and the individual states could live with if funding for signage becomes available.
Title: Re: National Highway System redux
Post by: hobsini2 on October 11, 2020, 11:12:59 AM
- US 68/KY 80 Hopkinsville-Mayfield
In Kentucky between Hopkinsville and Cadiz, US 68/KY 80, which does cross I-24, is already a 4 lane divided highway. West of Cadiz, the road is being upgrade (or already has) through the Land Between the Lakes area to Mayfield, stopping just a few miles short of I-69 on the Purchase Pkwy. Once the Mayfield Bypass, which according to KDOT is under construction, is completed, that section should be on the list.
Title: Re: National Highway System redux
Post by: Dirt Roads on October 11, 2020, 03:44:07 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on October 11, 2020, 11:12:59 AM
- US 68/KY 80 Hopkinsville-Mayfield
In Kentucky between Hopkinsville and Cadiz, US 68/KY 80, which does cross I-24, is already a 4 lane divided highway. West of Cadiz, the road is being upgrade (or already has) through the Land Between the Lakes area to Mayfield, stopping just a few miles short of I-69 on the Purchase Pkwy. Once the Mayfield Bypass, which according to KDOT is under construction, is completed, that section should be on the list.

Understood.  It is interesting that the most recent NHS map I could find drops off the NHS route at Aurora and not Cadiz (and shows KY-80 to Mayfield as a MAP-21 principal arterial).  I've not fully grasped all of the changes since the ISTEA-1995 legislation, but I wonder if Aurora (where US-68 branches off) is a mistake.
Text only | Text with Images