- US 65 should go to New Orleans, not 61
- US 87 should follow 287.
- US 50 is an XL US 40S.
- US 40 should be decommissioned
- US 34 and 44 should be branch routes of 6.
- US 62 and 82 should be swapped west of brownfield.
- US 93 should go to Phoenix, but it should also replace SR 87, 77, and 79 to go to Tucson.
- US 70 should go west of globe, not 60.
- US 73 should've been the one replacing US 69 south of Kansas city. But honestly 75, 77, 59, 69, (71 and 81 at some point) and their branch routes are wayyy too close together.
- US 26 and 136 should be one route. Also, west of Douglas 26 is just a glorified 20 ALT.
- US 49 should've never been extended further northwest of Brinkley. It should've instead replaced 167 north of Bald Knob or something else becauses its route north of there is very indirect and it changes direction of the highway.
-US 41 should've been truncated going up north instead of 61.
- US 6 should've replaced 24 from Napoleon till it's present terminus, US 38 should've taken over the rest.
Interstates and any other routes are included.
US 191 and US 91 should swap designations. Grid perfection seems to be why that one gets rebuked so often in the road community.
Quote from: kenarmy on January 25, 2021, 08:13:54 PM
- US 70 should go west of globe, not 60.
For me, in addition to that, US 66 west of Springfield should've stayed as US 60, makes more sense as a corridor than the US 60 what we have now, which seems like to take a more convoluted routing between Springfield and LA, because US 66 took the preferred routing. Not sure what the obsession of keeping LA to Chicago on a single number is. Why not route US 30 east of Pittsburgh on the US 22 corridor instead to have Chicago to NYC on a single number, if this is what they're going with?
US Highways should be deleted if they don't serve an important corridor (delete US 5 and most of US 11)
Quote from: kenarmy on January 25, 2021, 08:13:54 PM
Idk if this is already a thread buttt:
- US 65 should go to New Orleans, not 61
- US 87 should follow 287.
- US 50 is an XL US 40S.
- US 40 should be decommissioned
- US 34 and 44 should be branch routes of 6.
- US 62 and 82 should be swapped west of brownfield.
- US 93 should go to Phoenix, but it should also replace SR 87, 77, and 79 to go to Tucson.
- US 70 should go west of globe, not 60.
- US 73 should've been the one replacing US 69 south of Kansas city. But honestly 75, 77, 59, 69, (71 and 81 at some point) and their branch routes are wayyy too close together.
- US 26 and 136 should be one route. Also, west of Douglas 26 is just a glorified 20 ALT.
- US 49 should've never been extended further northwest of Brinkley. It should've instead replaced 167 north of Bald Knob or something else becauses its route north of there is very indirect and it changes direction of the highway.
-US 41 should've been truncated going up north instead of 61.
- US 6 should've replaced 24 from Napoleon till it's present terminus, US 38 should've taken over the rest.
US 61 is a x1 US Highway so that is why that one goes to New Orleans.
No mention of combining 72 and 76?
Quote from: 1 on January 26, 2021, 07:54:09 AM
No mention of combining 72 and 76?
Combine them into 76, then change 74 to 72.
Quote from: SkyPesos on January 25, 2021, 08:22:02 PM
Quote from: kenarmy on January 25, 2021, 08:13:54 PM
- US 70 should go west of globe, not 60.
For me, in addition to that, US 66 west of Springfield should've stayed as US 60, makes more sense as a corridor than the US 60 what we have now, which seems like to take a more convoluted routing between Springfield and LA, because US 66 took the preferred routing. Not sure what the obsession of keeping LA to Chicago on a single number is. Why not route US 30 east of Pittsburgh on the US 22 corridor instead to have Chicago to NYC on a single number, if this is what they're going with?
Why US 70? One could argue it had no business going west of Globe to begin with given it was always multiplexed with another US Route into Los Angeles (mostly US 60). I could see an argument if US 60 moved to; AZ 260, AZ 87, and AZ 202 given that corridor is the arguably the more modern route of travel from Phoenix-Show Low once it gets to the mountains.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 25, 2021, 08:36:11 PM
US Highways should be deleted if they don't serve an important corridor (delete US 5 and most of US 11)
Why? They serve as good alternate routes for the Interstate system. How is US-11 not an important corridor? It's a major highway.
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 26, 2021, 08:12:23 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 25, 2021, 08:36:11 PM
US Highways should be deleted if they don't serve an important corridor (delete US 5 and most of US 11)
Why? They serve as good alternate routes for the Interstate system. How is US-11 not an important corridor? It's a major highway.
And I would refer to the west coast where that duplication often does not exist. One trip on I-5 over the Grapevine Grade or I-10 out in the Sonoran Desert where traffic stops for some reason really makes you wish a US Route was still around.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 26, 2021, 08:15:46 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 26, 2021, 08:12:23 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 25, 2021, 08:36:11 PM
US Highways should be deleted if they don't serve an important corridor (delete US 5 and most of US 11)
Why? They serve as good alternate routes for the Interstate system. How is US-11 not an important corridor? It's a major highway.
And I would refer to the west coast where that duplication often does not exist. One trip on I-5 over the Grapevine Grade or I-10 out in the Sonoran Desert where traffic stops for some reason really makes you wish a US Route was still around.
Yeah seriously even an example in Michigan of a US highway getting replaced with a freeway and still being a US highway is US-23 between Flint and Ann Arbor where Old US-23 runs right next to the freeway and serves as a good alternate in case the freeway is backed up with traffic which often happens on 23 between Flint and Ann Arbor.
But I like how US-41 is still a highway in Georgia and Florida with I-75 following it. One thing I don't understand is if an old US highway is replaced with an Interstate but the old US highway is downgraded to a state highway why is it needed to be downgraded to a state highway? Like OH-25 in Ohio, M-125, M-85, M-3, M-29 and M-25 in Michigan with US-25. could have run concurrent with I-75, replaced US-68 and ran concurrent with US-42. Just one example.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 26, 2021, 08:08:50 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on January 25, 2021, 08:22:02 PM
Quote from: kenarmy on January 25, 2021, 08:13:54 PM
- US 70 should go west of globe, not 60.
For me, in addition to that, US 66 west of Springfield should've stayed as US 60, makes more sense as a corridor than the US 60 what we have now, which seems like to take a more convoluted routing between Springfield and LA, because US 66 took the preferred routing. Not sure what the obsession of keeping LA to Chicago on a single number is. Why not route US 30 east of Pittsburgh on the US 22 corridor instead to have Chicago to NYC on a single number, if this is what they're going with?
Why US 70? One could argue it had no business going west of Globe to begin with given it was always multiplexed with another US Route into Los Angeles (mostly US 60). I could see an argument if US 60 moved to; AZ 260, AZ 87, and AZ 202 given that corridor is the arguably the more modern route of travel from Phoenix-Show Low once it gets to the mountains.
But, 70 is supposed to be further south than 60, and it would be right above US 80. Like sky said, 66 was the route being used from Springfield to LA and that made 60 way more indirect. And also, yes, I meant to put 72 and 76 as one route on there.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 25, 2021, 08:36:11 PM
US Highways should be deleted if they don't serve an important corridor (delete US 5 and most of US 11)
US 11 is an important corridor to route traffic from New Orleans to Canada. It serves as a good signed alternative to the interstate highway. It also serves as a business route of sorts for I-75 & I-81 in Tennessee. It veers well away from I-81 in the form of US 11E & US 11W.
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 26, 2021, 08:12:23 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 25, 2021, 08:36:11 PM
US Highways should be deleted if they don't serve an important corridor (delete US 5 and most of US 11)
Why? They serve as good alternate routes for the Interstate system. How is US-11 not an important corridor? It's a major highway.
Make it a state highway. US highways are supposed to be a tier above state highways.
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 26, 2021, 08:12:23 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 25, 2021, 08:36:11 PM
US Highways should be deleted if they don't serve an important corridor (delete US 5 and most of US 11)
Why? They serve as good alternate routes for the Interstate system. How is US-11 not an important corridor? It's a major highway.
I would argue that much of US 11 is
not a "major highway". The vast bulk of that function has been taken over by the Interstates (specifically 59, 75, and 81) and much of US 11 sees a pittance of traffic as a result.
"Alternatives to the Interstate highway" are valid in general, but those alternatives do not necessarily need to be a U.S. route.
Keep in mind that the US highways that either parallel an interstate or decommissioned because of an interstate used to be the most important in the country. After all, there is a reason why those highways are chosen for interstate corridors at the start. Of course almost all of them lost their importance as a route after the interstate took over.
Quote from: SkyPesos on January 26, 2021, 09:52:35 AM
Keep in mind that the US highways that either parallel an interstate or decommissioned because of an interstate used to be the most important in the country. After all, there is a reason why those highways are chosen for interstate corridors at the start. Of course almost all of them lost their importance as a route after the interstate took over.
Exactly! If a highway is really unimportant, they wouldn't have an interstate built on the corridor. So while it functionally may not be a major highway for traffic, it still
is a major route.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 26, 2021, 09:26:42 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 26, 2021, 08:12:23 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 25, 2021, 08:36:11 PM
US Highways should be deleted if they don't serve an important corridor (delete US 5 and most of US 11)
Why? They serve as good alternate routes for the Interstate system. How is US-11 not an important corridor? It's a major highway.
Make it a state highway. US highways are supposed to be a tier above state highways.
Doesn't make any sense at all to switch signage on a highway just so it becomes a state highway over a US highway especially when the state DOT maintains both at the same level. If it is more than 300 miles long and connects between two or more states than the US highway should be retained not downgraded to a state highway. It's a waste of time and money to do that.
Quote from: froggie on January 26, 2021, 09:48:23 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 26, 2021, 08:12:23 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 25, 2021, 08:36:11 PM
US Highways should be deleted if they don't serve an important corridor (delete US 5 and most of US 11)
Why? They serve as good alternate routes for the Interstate system. How is US-11 not an important corridor? It's a major highway.
I would argue that much of US 11 is not a "major highway". The vast bulk of that function has been taken over by the Interstates (specifically 59, 75, and 81) and much of US 11 sees a pittance of traffic as a result.
"Alternatives to the Interstate highway" are valid in general, but those alternatives do not necessarily need to be a U.S. route.
Well if US-11 isn't a major highway then why was it's corridor chosen for multiple Interstate highways to follow it?
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 26, 2021, 01:29:13 PM
Quote from: froggie on January 26, 2021, 09:48:23 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 26, 2021, 08:12:23 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 25, 2021, 08:36:11 PM
US Highways should be deleted if they don't serve an important corridor (delete US 5 and most of US 11)
Why? They serve as good alternate routes for the Interstate system. How is US-11 not an important corridor? It's a major highway.
I would argue that much of US 11 is not a "major highway". The vast bulk of that function has been taken over by the Interstates (specifically 59, 75, and 81) and much of US 11 sees a pittance of traffic as a result.
"Alternatives to the Interstate highway" are valid in general, but those alternatives do not necessarily need to be a U.S. route.
Well if US-11 isn't a major highway then why was it's corridor chosen for multiple Interstate highways to follow it?
It was a major highway. It's not anymore now that it's main purpose is now used by I-81, 75, and 59.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 26, 2021, 02:04:13 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 26, 2021, 01:29:13 PM
Quote from: froggie on January 26, 2021, 09:48:23 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 26, 2021, 08:12:23 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 25, 2021, 08:36:11 PM
US Highways should be deleted if they don't serve an important corridor (delete US 5 and most of US 11)
Why? They serve as good alternate routes for the Interstate system. How is US-11 not an important corridor? It's a major highway.
I would argue that much of US 11 is not a "major highway". The vast bulk of that function has been taken over by the Interstates (specifically 59, 75, and 81) and much of US 11 sees a pittance of traffic as a result.
"Alternatives to the Interstate highway" are valid in general, but those alternatives do not necessarily need to be a U.S. route.
Well if US-11 isn't a major highway then why was it's corridor chosen for multiple Interstate highways to follow it?
It was a major highway. It's not anymore now that it's main purpose is now used by I-81, 75, and 59.
You're proving our point... Because several interstates have been established to use it's corridor and the fact it's still around means that it's a major highway. US 72 for example didn't have an interstate built to parallel it because it isn't a major highway.
Quote from: kenarmy on January 26, 2021, 08:57:08 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 26, 2021, 08:08:50 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on January 25, 2021, 08:22:02 PM
Quote from: kenarmy on January 25, 2021, 08:13:54 PM
- US 70 should go west of globe, not 60.
For me, in addition to that, US 66 west of Springfield should've stayed as US 60, makes more sense as a corridor than the US 60 what we have now, which seems like to take a more convoluted routing between Springfield and LA, because US 66 took the preferred routing. Not sure what the obsession of keeping LA to Chicago on a single number is. Why not route US 30 east of Pittsburgh on the US 22 corridor instead to have Chicago to NYC on a single number, if this is what they're going with?
Why US 70? One could argue it had no business going west of Globe to begin with given it was always multiplexed with another US Route into Los Angeles (mostly US 60). I could see an argument if US 60 moved to; AZ 260, AZ 87, and AZ 202 given that corridor is the arguably the more modern route of travel from Phoenix-Show Low once it gets to the mountains.
But, 70 is supposed to be further south than 60, and it would be right above US 80. Like sky said, 66 was the route being used from Springfield to LA and that made 60 way more indirect. And also, yes, I meant to put 72 and 76 as one route on there.
US 60 can be re-tooled to serve primarily Northern AZ without dipping into Phoenix. It could potentially replace several routes: AZ 260, AZ 169, part of AZ 69, AZ 89, and AZ 71. If slow curve and rough terrain are a consideration, the route would lose Salt River Canyon and gain Yarnell Hill.
US 70 would become the sole route for the corridor between Tempe and Lordsburg.
AZ 77 would become the sole route number (a few short jogs aside) between Tucson and Holbrook.
Yes I think it's a great idea!
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 26, 2021, 01:29:13 PM
Quote from: froggie on January 26, 2021, 09:48:23 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 26, 2021, 08:12:23 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 25, 2021, 08:36:11 PM
US Highways should be deleted if they don't serve an important corridor (delete US 5 and most of US 11)
Why? They serve as good alternate routes for the Interstate system. How is US-11 not an important corridor? It's a major highway.
I would argue that much of US 11 is not a "major highway". The vast bulk of that function has been taken over by the Interstates (specifically 59, 75, and 81) and much of US 11 sees a pittance of traffic as a result.
"Alternatives to the Interstate highway" are valid in general, but those alternatives do not necessarily need to be a U.S. route.
Well if US-11 isn't a major highway then why was it's corridor chosen for multiple Interstate highways to follow it?
It
was a major highway. It no longer is, because of the existence of parallel interstates. If routes such as US 11 are to be retained, they should be put on the interstates (such as US 40 along I-70 through much of Kansas) and have the old route turned over to state or local maintenance. If those routes are to be used as detours, they can still be used even if US 11 becomes VA 11 or WV 11 or MD 11 or PA 11.
I would decommission all the redundant US routes that have been supplanted by interstates, or move the US designation to the freeway.
And here's an unpopular opinion: US 66 is overrated.
Here's some more:
- US 52 gets more hate than it deserves, its an important route
- US 59 should use 259 and it shouldn't go north of its junction with 69 south of Kansas city. Honestly this could get the 191 treatment and become a branch route of one of the many routes it parallels.
- US 49 should've been extended to replace US 63 via US 61 and Memphis. Neither 63 nor 49 would have ugly curves if this was the case. Obviously im biased so I would name the route 49. And on top of that, it ends just west of 51 at the northern end. Didn't Arkansas propose this?
- US 17 and US 1 should be swapped north of Jacksonville. I wonder why 1 wasn't sought out to use the coastal route anyway..
- I love 51, but it should be truncated to Memphis.
- 17 and 301 should be swapped south of jacksonville.
- 45 should follow 43 through Alabama, and then connect with its present route somewhere in TN. Its current routing in MS isn't worthy of a US Route.
- US 8 should subsume US 212. Wasn't this a proposal?
- I think US 53 should use 12's current corridor through Chicago from Eau Claire, and I think 10 should've been completely decommissioned with 12 using its former route from Eau Claire to Michigan. When 12 gets past Chicago, it parallels not only several interstates, but also several US routes.
Ill think of some more later.
- US 14 should be truncated to Madison. Its route east of there is pretty unnecessary.
- US 16 should've been completely decommissioned and 14 should use its present routing instead of the long overlap with 20
Quote from: kenarmy on January 26, 2021, 02:46:47 PM
- US 17 and US 1 should be swapped north of Jacksonville. I wonder why 1 wasn't sought out to use the coastal route anyway..
Not like Wikipedia is the most accurate source, but this is quoted directly from the US 1 article:
Quote
While US 1 is generally the easternmost of the main north–south U.S. Highways, parts of several others occupy corridors closer to the ocean. When the road system was laid out in the 1920s, US 1 was mostly assigned to the existing Atlantic Highway, which followed the Fall Line between the Piedmont and the Atlantic Coastal Plain north of Augusta, Georgia. At the time, the highways farther east were of lower quality and did not serve the major population centers.
US routes were generally built along auto trails of that time. For example, there's US 25 and 41 on the Dixie Hwy, US 40 on the Victory Hwy, US 30 on the Lincoln Hwy, etc. Of course most of those got further replaced by interstates, but you can still roughly trace back I-75 to the Dixie Hwy, I-70 to the Victory Hwy and I-80 to the Lincoln Hwy.
US 220 should be renumbered US 311 as it no longer connects to US 120 and never connected to US 20.
US 311 should be alternate US 311.
North of Bedford, PA US 220 should be dropped as it's concurrent with I-99 and I-80.
North of I-80 it should be PA 220.
South of Greensboro I-73 is just fine.
Quote from: roadman65 on January 26, 2021, 03:10:22 PM
US 220 should be renumbered US 311 as it no longer connects to US 120 and never connected to US 20.
In my mind, US 220 is long enough for a 2 digit number. US 17 would fit the grid there, and current US 17 can be something else.
Other 3 digit US routes long enough for me for a 2 digit number:
US 421 -> US 37
US 231 -> US 39
US 190 -> US 86
US 61 should return north of MSP, but it should stay on I-35 to Duluth. It doesn't need to go back on its old alignment.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on January 26, 2021, 03:18:44 PM
US 61 should return north of MSP, but it should stay on I-35 to Duluth. It doesn't need to go back on its old alignment.
So what you're saying is "Highway 61 doesn't need to be revisited". :awesomeface:
Quote from: kenarmy on January 25, 2021, 08:13:54 PM
- US 40 should be decommissioned
Have a better number you'd prefer for UT/CO/KS where it's not just a supplement to an existing interstate at best?
Chris
Quote from: jayhawkco on January 26, 2021, 06:27:37 PM
Quote from: kenarmy on January 25, 2021, 08:13:54 PM
- US 40 should be decommissioned
Have a better number you'd prefer for UT/CO/KS where it's not just a supplement to an existing interstate at best?
Chris
And for PA-MD. The section of US 40 between PA 43 and I-68 is part of the fastest route from most cities on I-70 in the Midwest to DC/Baltimore from a couple of Google Maps searches, and it bypasses Breezewood too (!)
US 4 needs to take over NY 7 (east of Troy and Cohoes) and then MSR 9 to Rochester, NH to what is left of US 4 south of the Spalding Turnpike and make the existing US 4 a 3 digit route like a reboot of defunct US 104 or US 204.
Quote from: SkyPesos on January 26, 2021, 06:30:16 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on January 26, 2021, 06:27:37 PM
Quote from: kenarmy on January 25, 2021, 08:13:54 PM
- US 40 should be decommissioned
Have a better number you'd prefer for UT/CO/KS where it's not just a supplement to an existing interstate at best?
Chris
And for PA-MD. The section of US 40 between PA 43 and I-68 is part of the fastest route from most cities on I-70 in the Midwest to DC/Baltimore from a couple of Google Maps searches, and it bypasses Breezewood too (!)
How about leave the PA-MD section as a 3dus, or else keep the number US-40, or maybe downgrade it into a couple of state routes. The KS-CO portion could become state routes. The Denver-SLC corridor could become a 3dus, maybe US-306. Then the rest can be decommissioned.
Quote from: SkyPesos on January 26, 2021, 06:30:16 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on January 26, 2021, 06:27:37 PM
Quote from: kenarmy on January 25, 2021, 08:13:54 PM
- US 40 should be decommissioned
Have a better number you'd prefer for UT/CO/KS where it's not just a supplement to an existing interstate at best?
Chris
And for PA-MD. The section of US 40 between PA 43 and I-68 is part of the fastest route from most cities on I-70 in the Midwest to DC/Baltimore from a couple of Google Maps searches, and it bypasses Breezewood too (!)
Eh, I would say it could stay only between Denver and its current west terminus.
Regarding the other independent parts:
- It's route between Oakley and Limon could become US 24. 24 probably was overlapped with 40 on this route a while ago anyway..
- From there... ALL THE WAY to pennsylvania is a long distance. And that independent portion is less than 40 (hehe) miles long.
Quote from: kphoger on January 26, 2021, 06:41:07 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on January 26, 2021, 06:30:16 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on January 26, 2021, 06:27:37 PM
Quote from: kenarmy on January 25, 2021, 08:13:54 PM
- US 40 should be decommissioned
Have a better number you'd prefer for UT/CO/KS where it's not just a supplement to an existing interstate at best?
Chris
And for PA-MD. The section of US 40 between PA 43 and I-68 is part of the fastest route from most cities on I-70 in the Midwest to DC/Baltimore from a couple of Google Maps searches, and it bypasses Breezewood too (!)
How about leave the PA-MD section as a 3dus, or else keep the number US-40, or maybe downgrade it into a couple of state routes. The KS-CO portion could become state routes. The Denver-SLC corridor could become a 3dus, maybe US-306. Then the rest can be decommissioned.
If anything, I'd think the DEN-SLC stretch is more worth of a 2dus (40) than the far shorter PA-MD segment. Yes, probably lower AADT, but more "important" IMO.
Chris
Quote from: kenarmy on January 26, 2021, 06:55:13 PM
Eh, I would say it could stay only between Denver and its current west terminus.
Regarding the other independent parts:
- It's route between Oakley and Limon could become US 24. 24 probably was overlapped with 40 on this route a while ago anyway..
- From there... ALL THE WAY to pennsylvania is a long distance. And that independent portion is less than 40 (hehe) miles long.
If you made the Oakley-Limon part US24, then it would also make more sense to swap US24 between the Springs and Limon with CO94. Otherwise US24 does a whole up-down-up-down thing.
Chris
Quote from: jayhawkco on January 26, 2021, 06:57:51 PM
Quote from: kenarmy on January 26, 2021, 06:55:13 PM
Eh, I would say it could stay only between Denver and its current west terminus.
Regarding the other independent parts:
- It's route between Oakley and Limon could become US 24. 24 probably was overlapped with 40 on this route a while ago anyway..
- From there... ALL THE WAY to pennsylvania is a long distance. And that independent portion is less than 40 (hehe) miles long.
If you made the Oakley-Limon part US24, then it would also make more sense to swap US24 between the Springs and Limon with CO94. Otherwise US24 does a whole up-down-up-down thing.
Chris
Yeah thanks for pointing that out.. Now the only remaining portion would be concurrent with US 287. :bigass: This makes US 99's decommissioning look dumb though since it is way more separated from 5 than 40 is from 70.
Quote from: kenarmy on January 26, 2021, 07:04:57 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on January 26, 2021, 06:57:51 PM
Quote from: kenarmy on January 26, 2021, 06:55:13 PM
Eh, I would say it could stay only between Denver and its current west terminus.
Regarding the other independent parts:
- It's route between Oakley and Limon could become US 24. 24 probably was overlapped with 40 on this route a while ago anyway..
- From there... ALL THE WAY to pennsylvania is a long distance. And that independent portion is less than 40 (hehe) miles long.
If you made the Oakley-Limon part US24, then it would also make more sense to swap US24 between the Springs and Limon with CO94. Otherwise US24 does a whole up-down-up-down thing.
Chris
Yeah thanks for pointing that out.. Now the only remaining portion would be concurrent with US 287. :bigass: This makes US 99's decommissioning look dumb though since it is way more separated from 5 than 40 is from 70.
And you'd probably have to have US24 run concurrently with US83 from Oakley to the current intersection with US24 and create a couple new KS state highways to tie off the ends of what currently connects to I-70 in Colby and Oakley.
Chris
Speaking of Kansas, that US 69 bump off and on at Merriam is a crazy thing. You have the route going SB on I-35 with a short concurrency exit at Metcalf Avenue and then follow Metcalf to Shawnee Mission Parkway and then get back on the freeway two exits later having no purpose but to maintain an inventory in KDOT.
Yes, US 69 was always on Metcalf and continued south out of the KC area on that arterial until the freeways were built. However, it should have been pulled off of it when both I-35 and the US 69 freeway opened to bypass it later on.
Recently they realigned US 169 as it for a while used Metcalf south of US 69 to I-435 and then west to I-35. Now it continues on Shawnee Mission with US 56 and enters I-35 from Merriam and Metcalf Avenue is number less south of the cloverleaf at Metcalf and Shawnee Mission and I-435 is no longer concurrent with US 169 at all. You figured they would have realigned US 69 when US 169 was realigned as well, but noooo!
Quote from: kenarmy on January 26, 2021, 06:55:13 PM
Eh, I would say it could stay only between Denver and its current west terminus.
Regarding the other independent parts:
- It's route between Oakley and Limon could become US 24. 24 probably was overlapped with 40 on this route a while ago anyway..
- From there... ALL THE WAY to pennsylvania is a long distance. And that independent portion is less than 40 (hehe) miles long.
Sometimes, I wonder what it would be like if US 40 was chosen instead of US 6 for I-70's western extension from Denver? Would I-80 be retained on what used to be I-80N to Portland instead of it getting renumbered to I-84, and I-70 take over I-80 to the Bay Area? Interestingly, this would have I-70 parallel US 40 and I-80 parallel US 30 more.
Quote from: kenarmy on January 25, 2021, 08:13:54 PM
- US 93 should go to Phoenix, but it should also replace SR 87, 77, and 79 to go to Tucson.
Moot point. Once I-11 is finally built, US 93 will no longer exist in Arizona. AZ 87, 77, and 79 are perfectly fine the way they are.
Quote- US 70 should go west of globe, not 60.
Why, and what difference does it make? One can make an argument for ending US 60 at I-10 in Tempe, and renumbering the segment between I-17/Thomas Rd. and I-10 near the California line to something else, but there's no reason to change US 60 between Tempe and Globe.
I'd have had US 101 be US 99.
99 could've been 97.
97 could've been maybe 197?
Quote from: OCGuy81 on January 26, 2021, 09:55:24 PM
97 could've been maybe 197?
97 can be US 420 for having a terminus at Weed, CA
And 101 can be a child route of US 1, maybe on current US 17 with my idea of US 220 renumbered to US 17 above.
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on January 26, 2021, 09:44:48 PM
Quote from: kenarmy on January 25, 2021, 08:13:54 PM
- US 93 should go to Phoenix, but it should also replace SR 87, 77, and 79 to go to Tucson.
Moot point. Once I-11 is finally built, US 93 will no longer exist in Arizona. AZ 87, 77, and 79 are perfectly fine the way they are.
Quote- US 70 should go west of globe, not 60.
Why, and what difference does it make? One can make an argument for ending US 60 at I-10 in Tempe, and renumbering the segment between I-17/Thomas Rd. and I-10 near the California line to something else, but there's no reason to change US 60 between Tempe and Globe.
You realize the title is
opinion, right? 11 isn't going to get finished anytime soon. And my proposal could've taken place as early as 1993 when it was extended to its current terminus. and here's my
opinion on why it should be 70.
- US 70 is the fastest route from globe to where 60 and 70 intersect again
- US 70 indicates that it is supposed to be further south than 60. Why not have (going N-S) 60-70-80? that is literally perfect. 70-60-80 isn't. 80 is now decommissioned but my point still stands.
- Even when 60 went to LA, 66 was more direct between there and springfield. 66 never junctioned 70 east of the city (not its current routing anyway). Actually, 60 junctioned with 66 quite a few times.
- Albeit not on its current route, 70 has been in Arizona ever since it was created. 60 entered 8 years afterwards, and that was when it was multiplexed all the way to LA with 70. So yeah..
If you're wondering, I'm aware this won't happen.
This thread should be moved to fictional.
Quote from: Rothman on January 26, 2021, 10:35:55 PM
This thread should be moved to fictional.
Why? It's just an opinion thread, not any new proposals. How about you tell me yours?
Quote from: kenarmy on January 26, 2021, 10:44:35 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 26, 2021, 10:35:55 PM
This thread should be moved to fictional.
Why? It's just an opinion thread, not any new proposals. How about you tell me yours?
There are plenty of proposals for reroutings in here. Fictional territory.
Quote from: kenarmy on January 25, 2021, 08:13:54 PM
Idk if this is already a thread buttt:
I can answer for some of what I've driven on or ridden a bus on. Out of curiosity have you been on the roads you propose changes and decommissioning?
Quote from: kenarmy on January 25, 2021, 08:13:54 PM
- US 34 and 44 should be branch routes of 6.
US 34 west of Galesburg was busy the few times I have been on it. I don't see what it has to do with US 6 other than the overlap between Wyanett and Princeton.
Quote from: kenarmy on January 25, 2021, 08:13:54 PM
- US 50 is an XL US 40S.
US 50 is fairly important through Illinois and Indiana. Ohio it has been replaced by OH 32 until Athens Ohio. Between Athens OH and Bridgeport WV US 50 has become a popular alternative to people going east to hook up with I-68. I can't remember ever riding across it from Bridgeport to Washington DC but east of Washington DC US 50 is the connection to the Delmarva Peninsula. It really doesn't do the same things US 40 does at least east of St Louis.
Quote from: kenarmy on January 25, 2021, 08:13:54 PM
- US 40 should be decommissioned
Send out the Police in Riot gear before you remove the signs in Ohio and Indiana.
Jim
Decommission US 49 and remove it from existence including deleting all avatars for it off this board.
;)
Also, US 1's Boston routing is a crime against humanity.
QuoteDecommission US 49 and remove it from existence including deleting all avatars for it off this board.
49 Slander won't be tolerated :verymad:
Quote from: tq-07fan on January 26, 2021, 11:52:46 PM
Quote from: kenarmy on January 25, 2021, 08:13:54 PM
Idk if this is already a thread buttt:
I can answer for some of what I've driven on or ridden a bus on. Out of curiosity have you been on the roads you propose changes and decommissioning?
Quote from: kenarmy on January 25, 2021, 08:13:54 PM
- US 34 and 44 should be branch routes of 6.
US 34 west of Galesburg was busy the few times I have been on it. I don't see what it has to do with US 6 other than the overlap between Wyanett and Princeton.
Quote from: kenarmy on January 25, 2021, 08:13:54 PM
- US 50 is an XL US 40S.
US 50 is fairly important through Illinois and Indiana. Ohio it has been replaced by OH 32 until Athens Ohio. Between Athens OH and Bridgeport WV US 50 has become a popular alternative to people going east to hook up with I-68. I can't remember ever riding across it from Bridgeport to Washington DC but east of Washington DC US 50 is the connection to the Delmarva Peninsula. It really doesn't do the same things US 40 does at least east of St Louis.
Quote from: kenarmy on January 25, 2021, 08:13:54 PM
- US 40 should be decommissioned
Send out the Police in Riot gear before you remove the signs in Ohio and Indiana.
Jim
- I've driven on some of them
- I'm not saying 34 or 50 are unimportant, but 34 has 3 or 4 concurrencies with 6 and it never goes far away from it. And I think 50 is more important than 40, but between Pueblo and St. Louis, it seems more like a 40s. but ESPECIALLY between St. Louis and Kansas City.
CO 94 should be US 40S.
Quote from: hbelkins on January 26, 2021, 02:19:39 PM
And here's an unpopular opinion: US 66 is overrated.
Overrated? Possibly. But it is unique and not "just another number". Even as a roadgeek, there is something special about the US-66 corridor that you don't get on US-81, or US-270, or US-62.
Quote from: roadman65 on January 26, 2021, 07:23:38 PM
Speaking of Kansas, that US 69 bump off and on at Merriam is a crazy thing. You have the route going SB on I-35 with a short concurrency exit at Metcalf Avenue and then follow Metcalf to Shawnee Mission Parkway and then get back on the freeway two exits later having no purpose but to maintain an inventory in KDOT.
It's the result of an unfortunate interaction in Kansas law and KDOT policies, which is that 1) no road can be state-maintained without a highway designation and 2) no highway entirely within city limits can carry a K-number. So if you tried to change US-69 to a more sensible routing, you would
have to turn the old routing over to the cities it passes through, since you couldn't make like a K-269 or something like that to take over the routing (the way Missouri does with things like MO-744).
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 27, 2021, 02:54:37 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 26, 2021, 02:19:39 PM
And here's an unpopular opinion: US 66 is overrated.
Overrated? Possibly. But it is unique and not "just another number". Even as a roadgeek, there is something special about the US-66 corridor that you don't get on US-81, or US-270, or US-62.
66 came into being right at the time the Southwest was booming into the final frontier for mass population migration in the US, so I think it became the Oregon Trail of its generation.
US 422 in Pennsylvania should be a continuous route.
Quote from: epzik8 on January 28, 2021, 07:10:31 AM
US 422 in Pennsylvania should be a continuous route.
Yeah that gap don't make much sense, I wonder why it doesn't just run concurrent with US-22 and US-322.
Quote from: kphoger on January 26, 2021, 03:23:53 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on January 26, 2021, 03:18:44 PM
US 61 should return north of MSP, but it should stay on I-35 to Duluth. It doesn't need to go back on its old alignment.
So what you're saying is "Highway 61 doesn't need to be revisited". :awesomeface:
*high fives you for the Dylan reference on a post about US 61 that mentions Duluth–double Dylan references*
- US-31 and US-231 should swap routings south of Montgomery, with US-31 going to the Redneck Riviera (aka PCB) and US-231 paralleling I-65 to Spanish Fort
- US-127 in TN should be rerouted onto TN 111
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 25, 2021, 08:20:51 PM
US 191 and US 91 should swap designations. Grid perfection seems to be why that one gets rebuked so often in the road community.
Agreed! Or renumber US191 as US89, and change US89 to US91.
- I think US 10 should've been rerouted to follow US 12 from Minneapolis to the Billings area when it became extremely redundant, and 12 should've followed 212. But instead of dipping south in Billings like 212, the new 12 would go north and reconnect with its former route and that's where the new 10 would end. Or we could have a wrong-way concurrency and have it go to Billings.
And what about the orphaned section of 10 from Fargo to Minnie? Name it 212. *Drops Mic*
- I know some people think 12 should just be renamed 10 altogether, but this is a solution where it wouldn't have to be decommissioned
US 52 should be decommissioned west of St Paul. The part between Jamestown and Minot could be an extension of US 10. The rest of it could be downgraded to state routes.
Quote from: dvferyance on January 28, 2021, 06:32:26 PM
US 52 should be decommissioned west of St Paul. The part between Jamestown and Minot could be an extension of US 10. The rest of it could be downgraded to state routes.
Imo US 52 can be decommissioned west of US 41. The section in Illinois can be downgraded to various state routes. US 61 can be rerouted onto the Rochester-St Paul freeway segment with a reroute in IA onto US 218 and US 63 (this will decommission US 218). This will keep the AotS in a single US highway number. US 67 rerouted onto the US 61 freeway north of Quad Cities, and a possible combination with US 53 into a single route.
How about US 57 and US 96 and they're wrong directions given their numbers, and not fitting into the grid?
Could 96 be a branch of 90?
57 gets a pass since it connects with Mexico 57, I think 57 should be extended along I-35 and SR 21 so that it could subsume US 79. They go in the same direction and it's fitting. This is out of the grid, but 59 is too.
But 96 isn't even worthy of a US route. The only major city it touches is Beaumont, and when it reaches that city it is overlapped with another route(s). I can't think of a logical extension for it. It's just a glorified SR 87.
Quote from: jayhawkco on January 26, 2021, 06:27:37 PM
Quote from: kenarmy on January 25, 2021, 08:13:54 PM
- US 40 should be decommissioned
Have a better number you'd prefer for UT/CO/KS where it's not just a supplement to an existing interstate at best?
Chris
US 40 between I-80 at Park City and I-70 at Empire can be renumbered as US 32 (not in use as US highway). CDOT no longer has a highway with that number, and UDOT can easily renumber SR 32 (formerly US 189) as SR 40. A relatively simple swap that would not really cause that much confusion. And frankly, US 40 between US 287 and Oakley (KS) doesn't even need to be a US highway; it can just be renumbered as SH 40/K-40. The independent part between Topeka and K-10 can simply be renumbered as K-340, or even turned over to Douglas and Shawnee Counties.
Do the above, and one can pull back US 40 to at least Terre Haute (IN).
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on January 28, 2021, 12:28:17 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 27, 2021, 02:54:37 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 26, 2021, 02:19:39 PM
And here's an unpopular opinion: US 66 is overrated.
Overrated? Possibly. But it is unique and not "just another number". Even as a roadgeek, there is something special about the US-66 corridor that you don't get on US-81, or US-270, or US-62.
66 came into being right at the time the Southwest was booming into the final frontier for mass population migration in the US, so I think it became the Oregon Trail of its generation.
One unintended consequence of mass decommissioning of US 66 is a general reluctance among both state DOTs and AASHTO to mass decommissioning of other routes. Past the end of Bush 41's term in office, the only mass decommissioning of a US route has been US 27 in Michigan+Indiana, and THAT was mainly replaced by US 127.
Quote from: brad2971 on January 28, 2021, 10:24:04 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on January 26, 2021, 06:27:37 PM
Quote from: kenarmy on January 25, 2021, 08:13:54 PM
- US 40 should be decommissioned
Have a better number you'd prefer for UT/CO/KS where it's not just a supplement to an existing interstate at best?
Chris
US 40 between I-80 at Park City and I-70 at Empire can be renumbered as US 32 (not in use as US highway). CDOT no longer has a highway with that number, and UDOT can easily renumber SR 32 (formerly US 189) as SR 40. A relatively simple swap that would not really cause that much confusion. And frankly, US 40 between US 287 and Oakley (KS) doesn't even need to be a US highway; it can just be renumbered as SH 40/K-40. The independent part between Topeka and K-10 can simply be renumbered as K-340, or even turned over to Douglas and Shawnee Counties.
Do the above, and one can pull back US 40 to at least Terre Haute (IN).
CO40 already exists. Are you saying extend that to the border? I personally like the US24 switch better. When it separates from I-70 in eastern Colorado, it's not particularly useful.
Chris
Quote from: jayhawkco on January 29, 2021, 12:31:46 AM
Quote from: brad2971 on January 28, 2021, 10:24:04 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on January 26, 2021, 06:27:37 PM
Quote from: kenarmy on January 25, 2021, 08:13:54 PM
- US 40 should be decommissioned
Have a better number you'd prefer for UT/CO/KS where it's not just a supplement to an existing interstate at best?
Chris
US 40 between I-80 at Park City and I-70 at Empire can be renumbered as US 32 (not in use as US highway). CDOT no longer has a highway with that number, and UDOT can easily renumber SR 32 (formerly US 189) as SR 40. A relatively simple swap that would not really cause that much confusion. And frankly, US 40 between US 287 and Oakley (KS) doesn't even need to be a US highway; it can just be renumbered as SH 40/K-40. The independent part between Topeka and K-10 can simply be renumbered as K-340, or even turned over to Douglas and Shawnee Counties.
Do the above, and one can pull back US 40 to at least Terre Haute (IN).
CO40 already exists. Are you saying extend that to the border? I personally like the US24 switch better. When it separates from I-70 in eastern Colorado, it's not particularly useful.
Chris
CDOT's Online transportation system (OTIS) considers both SH 40 and US 40 as sections of the same highway. From Empire eastward to the KS line, CDOT can just as easily change out the US highways signs for the flag shield.
Quote from: kenarmy on January 27, 2021, 12:19:32 AM
QuoteDecommission US 49 and remove it from existence including deleting all avatars for it off this board.
49 Slander won't be tolerated :verymad:
Well, I don't tolerate US 40 slander, so...
Quote from: US 89 on January 29, 2021, 01:00:31 AM
Quote from: kenarmy on January 27, 2021, 12:19:32 AM
QuoteDecommission US 49 and remove it from existence including deleting all avatars for it off this board.
49 Slander won't be tolerated :verymad:
Well, I don't tolerate US 40 slander, so...
Here's an idea, decommission its replacement I-70 so US 40 can be the most important US route from SF to Atlantic City as it's almost all freeway. There's justice for our highway farty ;)
I think US 70 through the triple split in Tennessee should be changed to US 70N between Pegram and Lebanon, US 70S between Sparta and Crossville and US 70C between Lebanon and Sparta.
Unpopular opinion: This whole thread should be in Fictional Highways.
Popular opinion: I'm not a mod, so I can't do anything about it.
Middle-ground opinion: US routes that are so un-cared for that they don't get signed consistently (even US 1 somehow ends up in that category in Rhode Island) should either be re-routed and signed consistently, truncated, or decommissioned.
Quote from: kenarmy on January 26, 2021, 02:46:47 PM
Here's some more:
- US 16 should've been completely decommissioned and 14 should use its present routing instead of the long overlap with 20
South Dakota's Depts of Tourism and Transportation would scream bloody murder at this idea, and the reason is quite obvious. No, if you're wanting a single route from I-90 into Yellowstone Natl Park, you can do this:
1. Have US 16 replace US 14 from Gillette westward to Yellowstone's east gate. Including US 14A in WY changed to US16A.
2. Have US 20 run on current US 26 from Shoshoni to Idaho Falls, and turn US 26 in Oregon into state highway 26. Which would leave US 26 only in existence from I-25 to Ogallala since all the rest of it piggy backs onto US 20, US 30, and I-84.
3. Turn the existing part of US 20 from Idaho Falls to West Yellowstone, and US 287 in Montana, into an extension of US 91.
4. Truncate US 14 to Pierre, since it would be a redundant highway from Pierre westward.
Quote from: US 89 on January 29, 2021, 01:00:31 AM
Quote from: kenarmy on January 27, 2021, 12:19:32 AM
QuoteDecommission US 49 and remove it from existence including deleting all avatars for it off this board.
49 Slander won't be tolerated :verymad:
Well, I don't tolerate US 40 slander, so...
Rather it is more important or not, 49 isn't redundant to an interstate for nearly all its route like 40. and I didn't entirely decommission it I changed my mind!
No US route should be decommissioned just because it parallels an Interstate. It provides a valid alternate route in cases of congestion or road closures, and it's a major route for the cities it serves. For example, US 5 (which parallels I-91 throughout almost its entire length) is a major corridor in the Springfield, MA area and Hartford, CT areas locally. The US route system is already a secondary system.
How is it US-40's fault that an Interstate parallels it? I-70 was built after US-40 as well. US-40 is also a major US highway, US-49 is not.
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 29, 2021, 08:49:25 AM
How is it US-40's fault that an Interstate parallels it? I-70 was built after US-40 as well. US-40 is also a major US highway, US-49 is not.
US 40 didn't do anything wrong, interstates are main corridors now, US highways are kind of redundant now and should be left for major corridors that are not interstates. Doesn't need to be super major, like US 4 can stay, but if it's within 10 miles of an interstate for the whole time, it's just a glorified state highway at that point.
Quote from: 1 on January 29, 2021, 08:37:48 AM
No US route should be decommissioned just because it parallels an Interstate. It provides a valid alternate route in cases of congestion or road closures, and it's a major route for the cities it serves. For example, US 5 (which parallels I-91 throughout almost its entire length) is a major corridor in the Springfield, MA area and Hartford, CT areas locally. The US route system is already a secondary system.
I would say that MA 2 is a more major corridor in Massachusetts. And MA 146, MA 9, MA 24...
Quote from: 1No US route should be decommissioned just because it parallels an Interstate. It provides a valid alternate route in cases of congestion or road closures, and it's a major route for the cities it serves.
As has been demonstrated in a number of states, such "parallel alternative routes" do not necessarily need to be a U.S. route. Furthermore, those states that retain closely parallel U.S. routes are technically breaking AASHTO policy on U.S. routes (http://sp.route.transportation.org/Documents/HO1_Policy_Establ_Develop_USRN.pdf), where the very first line states:
QuoteThe purpose of the U.S. road numbering and marking system is to facilitate travel on the main interstate lines, over the shortest routes and the best roads.
(emphasis mine)
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 29, 2021, 08:55:26 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 29, 2021, 08:49:25 AM
How is it US-40's fault that an Interstate parallels it? I-70 was built after US-40 as well. US-40 is also a major US highway, US-49 is not.
US 40 didn't do anything wrong, interstates are main corridors now, US highways are kind of redundant now and should be left for major corridors that are not interstates. Doesn't need to be super major, like US 4 can stay, but if it's within 10 miles of an interstate for the whole time, it's just a glorified state highway at that point.
Quote from: 1 on January 29, 2021, 08:37:48 AM
No US route should be decommissioned just because it parallels an Interstate. It provides a valid alternate route in cases of congestion or road closures, and it's a major route for the cities it serves. For example, US 5 (which parallels I-91 throughout almost its entire length) is a major corridor in the Springfield, MA area and Hartford, CT areas locally. The US route system is already a secondary system.
I would say that MA 2 is a more major corridor in Massachusetts. And MA 146, MA 9, MA 24...
I disagree. The US highway system is fine the way it is and no US highway should be deleted just because an Interstate highway follows it. US-40 should stay the way it is, US-41 should stay the way it is. As far as 1's example he was giving one example not a statewide example.
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 29, 2021, 09:16:22 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 29, 2021, 08:55:26 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 29, 2021, 08:49:25 AM
How is it US-40's fault that an Interstate parallels it? I-70 was built after US-40 as well. US-40 is also a major US highway, US-49 is not.
US 40 didn't do anything wrong, interstates are main corridors now, US highways are kind of redundant now and should be left for major corridors that are not interstates. Doesn't need to be super major, like US 4 can stay, but if it's within 10 miles of an interstate for the whole time, it's just a glorified state highway at that point.
Quote from: 1 on January 29, 2021, 08:37:48 AM
No US route should be decommissioned just because it parallels an Interstate. It provides a valid alternate route in cases of congestion or road closures, and it's a major route for the cities it serves. For example, US 5 (which parallels I-91 throughout almost its entire length) is a major corridor in the Springfield, MA area and Hartford, CT areas locally. The US route system is already a secondary system.
I would say that MA 2 is a more major corridor in Massachusetts. And MA 146, MA 9, MA 24...
I disagree. The US highway system is fine the way it is and no US highway should be deleted just because an Interstate highway follows it. US-40 should stay the way it is, US-41 should stay the way it is. As far as 1's example he was giving one example not a statewide example.
Maybe keep US 5, but move it to the CT/MA 8 corridor.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 29, 2021, 09:34:35 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 29, 2021, 09:16:22 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 29, 2021, 08:55:26 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 29, 2021, 08:49:25 AM
How is it US-40's fault that an Interstate parallels it? I-70 was built after US-40 as well. US-40 is also a major US highway, US-49 is not.
US 40 didn't do anything wrong, interstates are main corridors now, US highways are kind of redundant now and should be left for major corridors that are not interstates. Doesn't need to be super major, like US 4 can stay, but if it's within 10 miles of an interstate for the whole time, it's just a glorified state highway at that point.
Quote from: 1 on January 29, 2021, 08:37:48 AM
No US route should be decommissioned just because it parallels an Interstate. It provides a valid alternate route in cases of congestion or road closures, and it's a major route for the cities it serves. For example, US 5 (which parallels I-91 throughout almost its entire length) is a major corridor in the Springfield, MA area and Hartford, CT areas locally. The US route system is already a secondary system.
I would say that MA 2 is a more major corridor in Massachusetts. And MA 146, MA 9, MA 24...
I disagree. The US highway system is fine the way it is and no US highway should be deleted just because an Interstate highway follows it. US-40 should stay the way it is, US-41 should stay the way it is. As far as 1's example he was giving one example not a statewide example.
Maybe keep US 5, but move it to the CT/MA 8 corridor.
No highway needs to be moved. US-5 is a local business and alternate route to I-91 moving it isn't going to change anything. If something happened on I-91 then you'd know you could follow US-5 and still be going in the same direction. There isn't a need to confuse people.
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 29, 2021, 08:49:25 AM
How is it US-40's fault that an Interstate parallels it? I-70 was built after US-40 as well. US-40 is also a major US highway, US-49 is not.
Besides those two independent sections discussed above, 49 is more important than US 40! 40 serves as a local alternate for a faster interstate for most of its route. Like Froggie quoted above, The purpose of the U.S. road numbering and marking system is to facilitate travel on the main interstate lines, over the
shortest routes and the best roads. 49 does this (connecting the coastal cities to Jackson for example, using interstates makes this trip wayyy longer). 40 doesn't. No, I don't want a mass decommissioning but I think most of 40 could be gotten rid of. Routes like 99 that deviate from the Interstate and serve other important cities should be the ones kept around.
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 29, 2021, 09:41:54 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 29, 2021, 09:34:35 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 29, 2021, 09:16:22 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 29, 2021, 08:55:26 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 29, 2021, 08:49:25 AM
How is it US-40's fault that an Interstate parallels it? I-70 was built after US-40 as well. US-40 is also a major US highway, US-49 is not.
US 40 didn't do anything wrong, interstates are main corridors now, US highways are kind of redundant now and should be left for major corridors that are not interstates. Doesn't need to be super major, like US 4 can stay, but if it's within 10 miles of an interstate for the whole time, it's just a glorified state highway at that point.
Quote from: 1 on January 29, 2021, 08:37:48 AM
No US route should be decommissioned just because it parallels an Interstate. It provides a valid alternate route in cases of congestion or road closures, and it's a major route for the cities it serves. For example, US 5 (which parallels I-91 throughout almost its entire length) is a major corridor in the Springfield, MA area and Hartford, CT areas locally. The US route system is already a secondary system.
I would say that MA 2 is a more major corridor in Massachusetts. And MA 146, MA 9, MA 24...
I disagree. The US highway system is fine the way it is and no US highway should be deleted just because an Interstate highway follows it. US-40 should stay the way it is, US-41 should stay the way it is. As far as 1's example he was giving one example not a statewide example.
Maybe keep US 5, but move it to the CT/MA 8 corridor.
No highway needs to be moved. US-5 is a local business and alternate route to I-91 moving it isn't going to change anything. If something happened on I-91 then you'd know you could follow US-5 and still be going in the same direction. There isn't a need to confuse people.
Then it could be MA 5 and have the same function. It's not 1980, people don't use route numbers to know what road to follow, they just use their GPS.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 29, 2021, 08:55:26 AM
I would say that MA 2 is a more major corridor in Massachusetts. And MA 146, MA 9, MA 24...
Which is why MA 2 has a prominent state route number. But it's hard to argue that it or any of those other roads serve a major, lengthy (even by New England standards)
interstate corridor the same way that the other MA US routes do.
My unpopular opinion is that 1) it's fine that US routes that are separate roads on major interstate corridors that now have Interstates still exist as US routes and 2) it's ok that the system is somewhat arbitrary and weird.
Quote from: dkblake on January 29, 2021, 11:16:11 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 29, 2021, 08:55:26 AM
I would say that MA 2 is a more major corridor in Massachusetts. And MA 146, MA 9, MA 24...
Which is why MA 2 has a prominent state route number. But it's hard to argue that it or any of those other roads serve a major, lengthy (even by New England standards) interstate corridor the same way that the other MA US routes do.
My unpopular opinion is that 1) it's fine that US routes that are separate roads on major interstate corridors that now have Interstates still exist as US routes and 2) it's ok that the system is somewhat arbitrary and weird.
I think state route freeways are fine the way they are, especially if it's an intrastate corridor. Similar to MA, it seems like that OH also uses the lowest numbers for the longest and most important state route corridors. Like OH 2, despite being parallel with 2 US routes, and 2 interstates between Toledo and Cleveland, it's still a freeway for a good chunk of that portion.
Quote from: dkblake on January 29, 2021, 11:16:11 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 29, 2021, 08:55:26 AM
I would say that MA 2 is a more major corridor in Massachusetts. And MA 146, MA 9, MA 24...
Which is why MA 2 has a prominent state route number. But it's hard to argue that it or any of those other roads serve a major, lengthy (even by New England standards) interstate corridor the same way that the other MA US routes do.
My unpopular opinion is that 1) it's fine that US routes that are separate roads on major interstate corridors that now have Interstates still exist as US routes and 2) it's ok that the system is somewhat arbitrary and weird.
US 5 doesn't serve an important corridor. Local Springfield street doesn't count.
Quote from: kenarmy on January 29, 2021, 10:28:03 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 29, 2021, 08:49:25 AM
How is it US-40's fault that an Interstate parallels it? I-70 was built after US-40 as well. US-40 is also a major US highway, US-49 is not.
Besides those two independent sections discussed above, 49 is more important than US 40! 40 serves as a local alternate for a faster interstate for most of its route. Like Froggie quoted above, The purpose of the U.S. road numbering and marking system is to facilitate travel on the main interstate lines, over the shortest routes and the best roads. 49 does this (connecting the coastal cities to Jackson for example, using interstates makes this trip wayyy longer). 40 doesn't. No, I don't want a mass decommissioning but I think most of 40 could be gotten rid of. Routes like 99 that deviate from the Interstate and serve other important cities should be the ones kept around.
It doesn't make much sense to get rid of them when they are multi state routes it's like a multi state highway but with one shield and you know that if it's a US highway that it's a bit more important than a state route. The US highway system goes places that the Interstate does not and in some places can not due to the terrain involved like putting an Interstate along switchbacks in the mountains where a US highway serves that purpose fine. I get what you are saying but a major highway like US-40 should remain in tact the way it is.
Now US-40 and I-70 come into play for an example I can make. I spent the night in Cloverdale, Indiana back last summer one night. After checking into my hotel I proceeded to go to a Petro truck stop at the corner of IN-59 and IN-42. As I was traveling westbound on I-70 I noticed a significant traffic jam on the eastbound side. I did GPS it back or anything I just asked at the truck stop I'm trying to get back to Cloverdale and there is a traffic jam on EB I-70 what is I-70's alternate route in this area I can't remember? She said US-40. I didn't take US-40 though, I took IN-42 instead but that's a good example of a time where you need an alternate route vs. getting caught up in a significant traffic jam.
Quote from: SkyPesos on January 28, 2021, 07:25:03 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on January 28, 2021, 06:32:26 PM
US 52 should be decommissioned west of St Paul. The part between Jamestown and Minot could be an extension of US 10. The rest of it could be downgraded to state routes.
Imo US 52 can be decommissioned west of US 41. The section in Illinois can be downgraded to various state routes. US 61 can be rerouted onto the Rochester-St Paul freeway segment with a reroute in IA onto US 218 and US 63 (this will decommission US 218). This will keep the AotS in a single US highway number. US 67 rerouted onto the US 61 freeway north of Quad Cities, and a possible combination with US 53 into a single route.
I disagree. Cross-posting from another forum...
Quote from: kphoger on January 26, 2021, 11:50:33 AM
But to get from Fargo to Edmonton, Alaska-bound traffic exits I-94 at Jamestown and takes US-52 from there to the Canadian border.
This means that traffic traveling between Alaska and a huge chunk of the lower 48 uses the entirety of US-52 in North Dakota (with the exception of Jamestown itself, which has a bypass).
Then too, for a sizeable portion of the nation farther west (such as here in Wichita), the shortest/fastest route to Alberta and Alaska includes all of US-52 northwest of I-94–even if it doesn't include the part multiplexed with I-94, having entered ND from the south instead.
Edit: tl;dr – From the Twin Cities to Alberta and Alaska, just follow US-52 all the way to Canada (unless you want to bypass Jamestown, ND). It's a single route number the whole way, using the shortest route. Decommissioning US-52 or changing part of its number would break that continuity.
Quote from: kphoger on January 29, 2021, 01:26:29 PM
I disagree. Cross-posting from another forum...
Quote from: kphoger on January 26, 2021, 11:50:33 AM
But to get from Fargo to Edmonton, Alaska-bound traffic exits I-94 at Jamestown and takes US-52 from there to the Canadian border.
This means that traffic traveling between Alaska and a huge chunk of the lower 48 uses the entirety of US-52 in North Dakota (with the exception of Jamestown itself, which has a bypass).
Then too, for a sizeable portion of the nation farther west (such as here in Wichita), the shortest/fastest route to Alberta and Alaska includes all of US-52 northwest of I-94—even if it doesn't include the part multiplexed with I-94, having entered ND from the south instead.
Edit: tl;dr — From the Twin Cities to Alberta and Alaska, just follow US-52 all the way to Canada (unless you want to bypass Jamestown, ND). It's a single route number the whole way, using the shortest route. Decommissioning US-52 or changing part of its number would break that continuity.
US 52 in ND can be an extension of US 10 then. There's the numbering continuity for the Twin Cities-Alberta route. But like with almost every other decommissioning idea in this thread, it's most likely not going to happen in reality, and that this thread is really a fictional thread.
But if a state route instead of an US route on a long distance corridor is an issue, going to point out that NE 2/IA 2 between I-80 and I-29 is part of the fastest route between the Bay Area, SLC, Portland and cities on the I-64 and I-70 corridors in the Midwest like St. Louis, Louisville, Columbus.
Quote from: SkyPesos on January 29, 2021, 01:36:20 PM
US 52 in ND can be an extension of US 10 then. There's the numbering continuity for the Twin Cities-Alberta route.
How? US-10 all the way would then be neither the shortest nor the fastest route.
Quote from: kphoger on January 29, 2021, 01:46:06 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on January 29, 2021, 01:36:20 PM
US 52 in ND can be an extension of US 10 then. There's the numbering continuity for the Twin Cities-Alberta route.
How? US-10 all the way would then be neither the shortest nor the fastest route.
Paired with I-94 east of Fargo. I'm not sure if Minnesota even signs the US 52 concurrency with I-94, but I'm going with a no from a few searches in GSV.
Quote from: SkyPesos on January 29, 2021, 01:48:57 PM
Quote from: kphoger on January 29, 2021, 01:46:06 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on January 29, 2021, 01:36:20 PM
US 52 in ND can be an extension of US 10 then. There's the numbering continuity for the Twin Cities-Alberta route.
How? US-10 all the way would then be neither the shortest nor the fastest route.
Paired with I-94 east of Fargo. I'm not sure if Minnesota even signs the US 52 concurrency with I-94, but I'm going with a no from a few searches in GSV.
They don't.
Quote from: kenarmy on January 28, 2021, 02:49:40 PM
- I think US 10 should've been rerouted to follow US 12 from Minneapolis to the Billings area when it became extremely redundant, and 12 should've followed 212. But instead of dipping south in Billings like 212, the new 12 would go north and reconnect with its former route and that's where the new 10 would end. Or we could have a wrong-way concurrency and have it go to Billings.
And what about the orphaned section of 10 from Fargo to Minnie? Name it 212. *Drops Mic*
- I know some people think 12 should just be renamed 10 altogether, but this is a solution where it wouldn't have to be decommissioned
Why does everyone want to axe 52? I think this proposal makes more sense ^. 10 is already short so extending it NW on a rural route wouldn't give it much justice. That would make it a mini- 52. But if you're hooked on changing 52, then put it on current 10.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on January 29, 2021, 01:56:23 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on January 29, 2021, 01:48:57 PM
Quote from: kphoger on January 29, 2021, 01:46:06 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on January 29, 2021, 01:36:20 PM
US 52 in ND can be an extension of US 10 then. There's the numbering continuity for the Twin Cities-Alberta route.
How? US-10 all the way would then be neither the shortest nor the fastest route.
Paired with I-94 east of Fargo. I'm not sure if Minnesota even signs the US 52 concurrency with I-94, but I'm going with a no from a few searches in GSV.
They don't.
Well, then, there's a different fix I have in mind...
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 29, 2021, 08:55:26 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 29, 2021, 08:49:25 AM
How is it US-40's fault that an Interstate parallels it? I-70 was built after US-40 as well. US-40 is also a major US highway, US-49 is not.
US 40 didn't do anything wrong, interstates are main corridors now, US highways are kind of redundant now and should be left for major corridors that are not interstates. Doesn't need to be super major, like US 4 can stay, but if it's within 10 miles of an interstate for the whole time, it's just a glorified state highway at that point.
Why are we talking about highways like they would be upset if they were decommissioned? Do people realize they are simply inanimate objects?
I think the answer is simple. If they are worthy of state highway designation, then just keep the US highway designation. (And I think US-40 meets that standard.) Why bother changing the US shield to some state shield and/or changing the number?
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 29, 2021, 04:23:10 PM
I think the answer is simple. If they are worthy of state highway designation, then just keep the US highway designation. (And I think US-40 meets that standard.) Why bother changing the US shield to some state shield and/or changing the number?
Because not every state is Minnesota who thinks it's worth spending tax dollars to do this.
Quote from: froggie on January 29, 2021, 09:07:14 AM
Quote from: 1No US route should be decommissioned just because it parallels an Interstate. It provides a valid alternate route in cases of congestion or road closures, and it's a major route for the cities it serves.
As has been demonstrated in a number of states, such "parallel alternative routes" do not necessarily need to be a U.S. route. Furthermore, those states that retain closely parallel U.S. routes are technically breaking AASHTO policy on U.S. routes (http://sp.route.transportation.org/Documents/HO1_Policy_Establ_Develop_USRN.pdf), where the very first line states:
QuoteThe purpose of the U.S. road numbering and marking system is to facilitate travel on the main interstate lines, over the shortest routes and the best roads.
(emphasis mine)
FWIW, 6 paragraphs down in AASHTO policy on U.S. routes (
bold emphasis added):
Quote from: AASHTO Transportation Policy BookThe routes comprising the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways will be marked with its own distinctive route marker shield and will have a numbering system that is separate and apart from the U.S. numbered system. The Interstate system marking and numbering is not to replace that of the U.S. system but is, in reality, a separate system of a limited mileage of modern expressways to accommodate major streams of traffic between the Nation's major traffic generating areas; and the two numbered systems will complement each other. A large extent of the Interstate system is developed on new location. Those sections where the Interstate system is developed over an existing U.S. numbered route, both the U.S. and the Interstate system shields and route numbers shall be used to mark those sections which are coincident. Otherwise, it is assumed that in the majority of instances the U.S. markers and numbers will remain on the routes as now established or as determined by subsequent Standing Committee on Highways action, as new construction makes available new and better routes.
Long story short, just because an Interstate is constructed near and parallel to an existing US route doesn't automatically warrant said-US route to be rerouted onto said-Interstate. Otherwise, there would be a lot more Interstate/US concurrencies than there currently are.
Based on the above, initial Interstate/US concurrencies occurred where an Interstate was constructed
over an existing US route. Later concurrencies occurred when a US freeway was upgraded and received an Interstate number (examples: I-68 along US 40 & I-99 along US 220).
And if one is going to treat the
AASHTO Transportation Policy Book as gospel, so to speak; then explain the below:
Quote from: AASHTO Transportation Policy BookNo new divided numbered (such as U.S. 96W and U.S. 96E, etc.) shall be adopted. Existing divided U.S. numbers shall be eliminated as rapidly as the State Highway Department and the Standing Committee on Highways can reach agreement with reference thereto.
I don't believe that all existing divided US routes (examples: US 9W in NY, US 31W & US 31E in TN) have been eliminated yet.
Quote from: AASHTO Transportation Policy BookAny toll highway facility may be included in the U.S. Numbered System when it meets all the criteria for inclusion, and when the request for the marking originates with the official authority having jurisdiction over the toll facility and the request is directed to AASHTO and supported by the appropriate Member Department. The word "Toll" shall appear over the official U.S. Route Marker and a toll-free routing between the same termini shall continue to be retained and marked as a part of the U.S. Numbered System.
Such certainly didn't happen when the US 301 tollway in DE to the MD State Line opened 2 years ago. As a matter of fact, the toll road at the State Line completely eliminated the old free US 301 roadway. Note: commercial through-truck traffic are prohibited from using the surrounding 2-lane roads to bypass the mainline US 301 AET gantry.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 29, 2021, 04:23:10 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 29, 2021, 08:55:26 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 29, 2021, 08:49:25 AM
How is it US-40's fault that an Interstate parallels it? I-70 was built after US-40 as well. US-40 is also a major US highway, US-49 is not.
US 40 didn't do anything wrong, interstates are main corridors now, US highways are kind of redundant now and should be left for major corridors that are not interstates. Doesn't need to be super major, like US 4 can stay, but if it's within 10 miles of an interstate for the whole time, it's just a glorified state highway at that point.
Why are we talking about highways like they would be upset if they were decommissioned? Do people realize they are simply inanimate objects?
I think the answer is simple. If they are worthy of state highway designation, then just keep the US highway designation. (And I think US-40 meets that standard.) Why bother changing the US shield to some state shield and/or changing the number?
Exactly that's what I'm trying to say. What point is there to change it to a state route if it's a US highway already? It's a through route that has the same route number along the route so it eases confusion for people that don't use GPS system's. And I'm not acting like the highway would be upset or anything I'm just saying anything to ease confusion is a good thing.
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 29, 2021, 09:09:08 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 29, 2021, 04:23:10 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 29, 2021, 08:55:26 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 29, 2021, 08:49:25 AM
How is it US-40's fault that an Interstate parallels it? I-70 was built after US-40 as well. US-40 is also a major US highway, US-49 is not.
US 40 didn't do anything wrong, interstates are main corridors now, US highways are kind of redundant now and should be left for major corridors that are not interstates. Doesn't need to be super major, like US 4 can stay, but if it's within 10 miles of an interstate for the whole time, it's just a glorified state highway at that point.
Why are we talking about highways like they would be upset if they were decommissioned? Do people realize they are simply inanimate objects?
I think the answer is simple. If they are worthy of state highway designation, then just keep the US highway designation. (And I think US-40 meets that standard.) Why bother changing the US shield to some state shield and/or changing the number?
Exactly that's what I'm trying to say. What point is there to change it to a state route if it's a US highway already? It's a through route that has the same route number along the route so it eases confusion for people that don't use GPS system's. And I'm not acting like the highway would be upset or anything I'm just saying anything to ease confusion is a good thing.
And IMO most drivers don't really know the difference between state and US highways anyway. They are a highway with a number.
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 29, 2021, 09:09:08 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 29, 2021, 04:23:10 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 29, 2021, 08:55:26 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 29, 2021, 08:49:25 AM
How is it US-40's fault that an Interstate parallels it? I-70 was built after US-40 as well. US-40 is also a major US highway, US-49 is not.
US 40 didn't do anything wrong, interstates are main corridors now, US highways are kind of redundant now and should be left for major corridors that are not interstates. Doesn't need to be super major, like US 4 can stay, but if it's within 10 miles of an interstate for the whole time, it's just a glorified state highway at that point.
Why are we talking about highways like they would be upset if they were decommissioned? Do people realize they are simply inanimate objects?
I think the answer is simple. If they are worthy of state highway designation, then just keep the US highway designation. (And I think US-40 meets that standard.) Why bother changing the US shield to some state shield and/or changing the number?
Exactly that's what I'm trying to say. What point is there to change it to a state route if it's a US highway already? It's a through route that has the same route number along the route so it eases confusion for people that don't use GPS system's. And I'm not acting like the highway would be upset or anything I'm just saying anything to ease confusion is a good thing.
But that's the thing, no one is using 40 for long-term travel for nearly all of its route. Literally who is completely following a much slower route when there is a much faster route next to it unless there is an occasional traffic jam or if it's for local use? Having a US route number isn't necessary for that. A state route isn't necessarily needed either. Isn't this why Interstate business routes and reassurance markers in cities are a thing? Like flint said, if US routes serve major corridors that Interstates don't, then that is when you should keep the route. And let's be honest, the average driver doesn't care or even know about a continuous number even if they don't have a gps.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 29, 2021, 09:24:05 PM
And IMO most drivers don't really know the difference between state and US highways anyway. They are a highway with a number.
I wouldn't be surprised if any Ohio drivers don't know the difference between those two with our state highway shield looking very similar to a US highway one from a distance.
Quote from: kenarmy on January 29, 2021, 09:46:23 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 29, 2021, 09:09:08 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 29, 2021, 04:23:10 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 29, 2021, 08:55:26 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 29, 2021, 08:49:25 AM
How is it US-40's fault that an Interstate parallels it? I-70 was built after US-40 as well. US-40 is also a major US highway, US-49 is not.
US 40 didn't do anything wrong, interstates are main corridors now, US highways are kind of redundant now and should be left for major corridors that are not interstates. Doesn't need to be super major, like US 4 can stay, but if it's within 10 miles of an interstate for the whole time, it's just a glorified state highway at that point.
Why are we talking about highways like they would be upset if they were decommissioned? Do people realize they are simply inanimate objects?
I think the answer is simple. If they are worthy of state highway designation, then just keep the US highway designation. (And I think US-40 meets that standard.) Why bother changing the US shield to some state shield and/or changing the number?
Exactly that's what I'm trying to say. What point is there to change it to a state route if it's a US highway already? It's a through route that has the same route number along the route so it eases confusion for people that don't use GPS system's. And I'm not acting like the highway would be upset or anything I'm just saying anything to ease confusion is a good thing.
But that's the thing, no one is using 40 for long-term travel for nearly all of its route. Literally who is completely following a much slower route when there is a much faster route next to it unless there is an occasional traffic jam or if it's for local use? Having a US route number isn't necessary for that. A state route isn't necessarily needed either. Isn't this why Interstate business routes and reassurance markers in cities are a thing? Like flint said, if US routes serve major corridors that Interstates don't, then that is when you should keep the route. And let's be honest, the average driver doesn't care or even know about a continuous number even if they don't have a gps.
Because US routes aren't exclusively for "serving major corridors that Interstates don't." Sure back when they were established nearly 100 years ago, they represented major US corridors, but with the advent of the Interstate and NHS systems, US routes are merely state routes with a common numbering system. That's it.
You are correct that a highway like US-40 in Indiana isn't going to carry a bunch of long-haul traffic, but it is certainly important enough to carry regional traffic and worthy of a state highway designation. I mean, Indiana thinks so. Unless they are turning it over to the counties, why bother with changing the number or changing the signage from a US highway sign to a state one?
That's exactly what my point is. Why change it over to a state highway when it's already a US highway? What's changing the shield going to do? Then as a US highway that highway can connect to other state's and keep the same number and shield. US highways work a lot better than state highways because of that. There aren't a lot of multi state routes and the only one I can think of that would normally be a US highway is 200 across Minnesota, North Dakota, Montana and Idaho.
If I'm on I-70 and I need an alternate route because of an issue on I-70 then you assume there is a US highway running parallel and that being US-40 in this case. Ok you are going to be able to access US-40 from I-70 in multiple locations between Empire, CO and Washington, PA. I like having a US highway as a second choice for travel.
US-25 could have been saved in Ohio and Michigan too. US-25 actually could have went up US-68's routing and been fine.
Quote from: SkyPesos on January 29, 2021, 09:47:22 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 29, 2021, 09:24:05 PM
And IMO most drivers don't really know the difference between state and US highways anyway. They are a highway with a number.
I wouldn't be surprised if any Ohio drivers don't know the difference between those two with our state highway shield looking very similar to a US highway one from a distance.
I've encountered several people in my homestate of NJ that don't know the different between state and county routes, even though the signs look nothing alike.
Quote from: SkyPesos on January 29, 2021, 09:47:22 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 29, 2021, 09:24:05 PM
And IMO most drivers don't really know the difference between state and US highways anyway. They are a highway with a number.
I wouldn't be surprised if any Ohio drivers don't know the difference between those two with our state highway shield looking very similar to a US highway one from a distance.
I'm not in Ohio every day but I can tell the difference between the state highways and US highways. The state highway is simply shaped like the state so that one is rather easy.
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 30, 2021, 08:46:55 AM
That's exactly what my point is. Why change it over to a state highway when it's already a US highway? What's changing the shield going to do? Then as a US highway that highway can connect to other state's and keep the same number and shield. US highways work a lot better than state highways because of that. There aren't a lot of multi state routes and the only one I can think of that would normally be a US highway is 200 across Minnesota, North Dakota, Montana and Idaho.
If I'm on I-70 and I need an alternate route because of an issue on I-70 then you assume there is a US highway running parallel and that being US-40 in this case. Ok you are going to be able to access US-40 from I-70 in multiple locations between Empire, CO and Washington, PA. I like having a US highway as a second choice for travel.
US-25 could have been saved in Ohio and Michigan too. US-25 actually could have went up US-68's routing and been fine.
But thats because you are a road geek, nobody really cares about the number. Let's be honest, an interstate doesn't constantly need an numbered alternate especially in a rural area. That's why a lot of old US 40 west of SLC is undrivable. Now usually if there's an issue on the interstate it's going to be near a somewhat major city, and in that case, 40 is probably not even the fastest alternate. People are trying to get back on the route they were on. And again I never said it had to be changed to a state route. That's just a glorified frontage road. I can name several US routes that serve important functions that interstates cant. Look at the one in my avatar!
My US highway criteria:
Does the road serve some sort of long-distance corridor not served by an interstate?
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 30, 2021, 08:46:55 AM
US-25 could have been saved in Ohio and Michigan too. US-25 actually could have went up US-68's routing and been fine.
I have proposed this idea as well, and the only reason I bring this up is because I want to voice my support for this idea.
My approach to being a contrarian in this thread is to tell people their ideas might get more support or be more popular than they might think :bigass:
Quote from: kenarmy on January 30, 2021, 10:11:04 AM
But thats because you are a road geek, nobody really cares about the number.
If nobody cares about the number, why don't we renumber everything to 74?
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 30, 2021, 02:06:50 PM
Quote from: kenarmy on January 30, 2021, 10:11:04 AM
But thats because you are a road geek, nobody really cares about the number.
If nobody cares about the number, why don't we renumber everything to 74?
74WESENSENEWSESSENCE (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=10974)
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 30, 2021, 02:06:50 PM
Quote from: kenarmy on January 30, 2021, 10:11:04 AM
But thats because you are a road geek, nobody really cares about the number.
If nobody cares about the number, why don't we renumber everything to 74?
Idm that, considering 74 is already one of the most roasted interstates anyways.
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 30, 2021, 02:06:50 PM
Quote from: kenarmy on January 30, 2021, 10:11:04 AM
But thats because you are a road geek, nobody really cares about the number.
If nobody cares about the number, why don't we renumber everything to 74?
I'll give you a great example of why nobody but roadgeeks care about route numbering:
The Atlantic City Expressway.
All people (outside of this community) care about is that it's a highway. There's even a large number of people that, coming up from Delaware, will bypass 295. They'll bypass US 40. They will take the NJ Turnpike (another highway without a visible number) to Exit 3, take 168 to 42, then take the Atlantic City Expressway.
For as much as people say the Expressway should be I-76...and for as much as people say the NJ Turnpike should be given an Interstate number, the overwhelming motoring public sees one thing: They are highways. Give them a number. Hell, give them an out of sequence number. No one cares.
Side note, to add on to the post right above this, there’s probably still a good amount of people that call the US 40 freeway in St. Louis as “US 40”, “Route 40” or “Highway 40”, despite getting designated as I-64 three decades ago. Even heard one of my teachers mistakenly call it I-40 a while ago, showing how prominent the number is. Also the frontage roads are still numbered as “North Outer 40 Rd” and “South Outer 40 Road”.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 30, 2021, 09:21:47 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on January 29, 2021, 09:47:22 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 29, 2021, 09:24:05 PM
And IMO most drivers don't really know the difference between state and US highways anyway. They are a highway with a number.
I wouldn't be surprised if any Ohio drivers don't know the difference between those two with our state highway shield looking very similar to a US highway one from a distance.
I've encountered several people in my homestate of NJ that don't know the different between state and county routes, even though the signs look nothing alike.
This. Most people think in terms of "Route X" rather than how they're categorized. And that's sort of my point- whether Route X is a US route versus a state route or interstate can be fairly complicated and obscure (was an Interstate built directly over the road, or did it need to be built parallel to it? Did the state decommission US routes? Was there a change in jurisdiction over the road? Did the locality want the US route to serve downtown or be a bypass?), and trying to fit any consistent national standards on what US routes should be seems silly.
My unpopular opinion: Some US Routes are dangerous. Example: US 50 in Nevada. An undivided two lane highway with a speed limit of up to 70 miles per hour, faster than all freeways in some states. One accidental bump of the steering wheel or boredom-induced drowsiness (especially on desolate, rural stretches) on your part or oncoming traffic's part, and it's game over for the both of you. A lot of other US routes are similar. I would much better prefer to take a divided, controlled access freeway. Before you call me stupid: Yes I am aware that US 50 is in the middle of nowhere and quite likely the loneliest road in America, many state routes and other routes are also undivided with high speed limits, the US highway system predates the Interstate system, head-on collisions aren't all that common, not all US routes are like this, this isn't a new issue, this country prioritizes speed over safety, and Interstates are much less scenic and historic. Just giving my take as a safety-minded driver. You do you. Besides, it partially explains my username. :biggrin:
Quote from: interstatefan990 on January 31, 2021, 04:42:59 AM
Yes I am aware that US 50 is in the middle of nowhere and quite likely the loneliest road in America
While it's called the Loneliest Highway, US 6 in the same state is lonelier.
My pet peeve is in SC with the way US 15 was handled after the Lake Marion Bridge got shut down. US 301, that is concurrent with US 15 in the area, is fine though. It is signed from I-95 Exit 97 to go north from there to Exit 102 on the north shore.
US 15 is only signed from SC 6 to go north as I believe technically US 15 still goes through Santee and is concurrent briefly with SC 6 to reach I-95 despite signage, or should I say lack of signs north of US 301 and south of SC 6.
Quote from: roadman65 on January 31, 2021, 06:55:33 AM
My pet peeve is in SC with the way US 15 was handled after the Lake Marion Bridge got shut down. US 301, that is concurrent with US 15 in the area, is fine though. It is signed from I-95 Exit 97 to go north from there to Exit 102 on the north shore.
US 15 is only signed from SC 6 to go north as I believe technically US 15 still goes through Santee and is concurrent briefly with SC 6 to reach I-95 despite signage, or should I say lack of signs north of US 301 and south of SC 6.
This is a function of the rebuild of US 301 between US 15 and I-95.
2008 GMSV shows US 15 postings to follow US 301 over to I-95 from both US 15 NB and US 301 NB
https://goo.gl/maps/91tAdc3UDvTAYzjE9
SC has been doing this a lot in this part of the state - postings are disappearing at intersections once any kind of work is done.
There did not ever seem to be any signage on 95 SB saying US 15 left at the US 301 exit, though the consequence is minimal - US 15 is the next exit anyway.
US 15 definitely runs on I-95 and US 301...Orangeburg County maps show the former route below SC 6 as US 15-301 CONN, plus the AASHP database has the transfer from 1987 showing it.
Quote from: 1 on January 31, 2021, 05:46:17 AM
Quote from: interstatefan990 on January 31, 2021, 04:42:59 AM
Yes I am aware that US 50 is in the middle of nowhere and quite likely the loneliest road in America
While it's called the Loneliest Highway, US 6 in the same state is lonelier.
Interesting. How did you come to that conclusion? AADT? Just common knowledge?
Quote from: interstatefan990 on January 31, 2021, 01:09:20 PM
Quote from: 1 on January 31, 2021, 05:46:17 AM
Quote from: interstatefan990 on January 31, 2021, 04:42:59 AM
Yes I am aware that US 50 is in the middle of nowhere and quite likely the loneliest road in America
While it's called the Loneliest Highway, US 6 in the same state is lonelier.
Interesting. How did you come to that conclusion? AADT? Just common knowledge?
Someone else on the forum said it elsewhere, based on AADT.
Quote from: 1 on January 31, 2021, 01:13:33 PM
Quote from: interstatefan990 on January 31, 2021, 01:09:20 PM
Quote from: 1 on January 31, 2021, 05:46:17 AM
Quote from: interstatefan990 on January 31, 2021, 04:42:59 AM
Yes I am aware that US 50 is in the middle of nowhere and quite likely the loneliest road in America
While it's called the Loneliest Highway, US 6 in the same state is lonelier.
Interesting. How did you come to that conclusion? AADT? Just common knowledge?
Someone else on the forum said it elsewhere, based on AADT.
And distances between services. On US 6 you're looking at 160-plus miles of no services between Ely-Tonopah. Even NV 375 is debatably more desolate than the Loneliest (not sure by AADT) of US 50.
Regarding US Routes I believe the lowest AADT is US 191 in Arizona from Alpine to Morenci.
Quote from: interstatefan990 on January 31, 2021, 04:42:59 AM
My unpopular opinion: Some US Routes are dangerous. Example: US 50 in Nevada. An undivided two lane highway with a speed limit of up to 70 miles per hour, faster than all freeways in some states. One accidental bump of the steering wheel or boredom-induced drowsiness (especially on desolate, rural stretches) on your part or oncoming traffic's part, and it's game over for the both of you. A lot of other US routes are similar. I would much better prefer to take a divided, controlled access freeway. Before you call me stupid: Yes I am aware that US 50 is in the middle of nowhere and quite likely the loneliest road in America, many state routes and other routes are also undivided with high speed limits, the US highway system predates the Interstate system, head-on collisions aren't all that common, not all US routes are like this, this isn't a new issue, this country prioritizes speed over safety, and Interstates are much less scenic and historic. Just giving my take as a safety-minded driver. You do you. Besides, it partially explains my username. :biggrin:
That would make all two lane highways in rural areas dangerous.
Quote from: interstatefan990 on January 31, 2021, 04:42:59 AM
My unpopular opinion: Some US Routes are dangerous.
Imagine if fritzowl used that as a reason for his plans...
Quote from: SkyPesos on January 31, 2021, 02:48:58 PM
Quote from: interstatefan990 on January 31, 2021, 04:42:59 AM
My unpopular opinion: Some US Routes are dangerous.
Imagine if fritzowl used that as a reason for his plans...
That's...actually pretty much the reason. It's a long-form revenge tour for a bad experience Fritz had one a two-lane road once.
Split/suffixed routes shouldn't go. Not sure how unpopular that is here but it definitely is with AASHTO.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 31, 2021, 02:44:27 PM
Quote from: interstatefan990 on January 31, 2021, 04:42:59 AM
My unpopular opinion: Some US Routes are dangerous. Example: US 50 in Nevada. An undivided two lane highway with a speed limit of up to 70 miles per hour, faster than all freeways in some states. One accidental bump of the steering wheel or boredom-induced drowsiness (especially on desolate, rural stretches) on your part or oncoming traffic's part, and it's game over for the both of you. A lot of other US routes are similar. I would much better prefer to take a divided, controlled access freeway. Before you call me stupid: Yes I am aware that US 50 is in the middle of nowhere and quite likely the loneliest road in America, many state routes and other routes are also undivided with high speed limits, the US highway system predates the Interstate system, head-on collisions aren't all that common, not all US routes are like this, this isn't a new issue, this country prioritizes speed over safety, and Interstates are much less scenic and historic. Just giving my take as a safety-minded driver. You do you. Besides, it partially explains my username. :biggrin:
That would make all two lane highways in rural areas dangerous.
My point exactly! That's just their nature. :-D Except with the US Route system, many roads are, for the most part, only used by drivers who are
actively choosing to use that route over an alternative. Why not just use I-80? Or, in the case of US 89, why not just connect with I-70 and then use I-15 into Provo? I'm referring to rural areas here, but granted, there are exceptions where US routes are preferable to an Interstate for reasons other than historic significance and scenery. Do any notable mentions come to mind for you?
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on January 31, 2021, 02:44:27 PM
Quote from: interstatefan990 on January 31, 2021, 04:42:59 AM
My unpopular opinion: Some US Routes are dangerous. Example: US 50 in Nevada. An undivided two lane highway with a speed limit of up to 70 miles per hour, faster than all freeways in some states. One accidental bump of the steering wheel or boredom-induced drowsiness (especially on desolate, rural stretches) on your part or oncoming traffic's part, and it's game over for the both of you. A lot of other US routes are similar. I would much better prefer to take a divided, controlled access freeway. Before you call me stupid: Yes I am aware that US 50 is in the middle of nowhere and quite likely the loneliest road in America, many state routes and other routes are also undivided with high speed limits, the US highway system predates the Interstate system, head-on collisions aren't all that common, not all US routes are like this, this isn't a new issue, this country prioritizes speed over safety, and Interstates are much less scenic and historic. Just giving my take as a safety-minded driver. You do you. Besides, it partially explains my username. :biggrin:
That would make all two lane highways in rural areas dangerous.
I've been thinking about it and I would probably nominate El Camino Del Diablo as the most lonely road I've ever been on. The Mojave Road is pretty up there too but that has a larger OHV following.
Regarding US Routes aside from the Coronado Trail of US 191 I can't think of any would truly be in the stratosphere of what is "lonely" but conventional road standards. The Sierra Scenic Byway comes to mind off the top of my head which is fairly conventional but so rarely traveled that you would be on your own if a mechanical failure were to occur. I don't think any part of US 50 in Nevada is even very far removed from easy cell phone coverage, it certainly is well patrolled.
Regardless US 50 in Nevada is quiet but definitely not anything too different from US 95, US 93 and US 6. I would say US 62/180 in Texas is even more desolate.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on January 31, 2021, 03:05:49 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on January 31, 2021, 02:48:58 PM
Quote from: interstatefan990 on January 31, 2021, 04:42:59 AM
My unpopular opinion: Some US Routes are dangerous.
Imagine if fritzowl used that as a reason for his plans...
That's...actually pretty much the reason. It's a long-form revenge tour for a bad experience Fritz had one a two-lane road once.
Not following here. Anyone wanna give me a link that will explain things? LOL
Quote from: interstatefan990 on January 31, 2021, 04:22:24 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on January 31, 2021, 03:05:49 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on January 31, 2021, 02:48:58 PM
Quote from: interstatefan990 on January 31, 2021, 04:42:59 AM
My unpopular opinion: Some US Routes are dangerous.
Imagine if fritzowl used that as a reason for his plans...
That's...actually pretty much the reason. It's a long-form revenge tour for a bad experience Fritz had one a two-lane road once.
Not following here. Anyone wanna give me a link that will explain things? LOL
Quote from: FritzOwl on May 08, 2017, 10:19:26 PM
It is primarily the narrow mountainous two-lane roads that need to be upgraded. On some windy roads, I have nearly been whacked by people in the other direction rounding a curve. Those are the two-lane roads that are the most dangerous and need replacing.
(click quote tag to go to thread)
Basically Fritz hates fun roads because he thinks they are unsafe and wants to turn them into boring Interstates. Where it gets weird is when you realize that Fritz doesn't understand what money is and that he is likely is operating on a different plain of reality than most of us.
So basically whenever someone purposes an outlandish Interstate concept it generally will be categorized as "FritzOwling."
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 31, 2021, 05:22:11 PM
Basically Fritz hates fun roads because he thinks they are unsafe and wants to turn them into boring Interstates. Where it gets weird is when you realize that Fritz doesn't understand what money is and that he is likely is operating on a different plain of reality than most of us.
So basically whenever someone purposes an outlandish Interstate concept it generally will be categorized as "FritzOwling."
Where it gets insanely bad is that Fritz is dead serious about all of this. That's why I attack his stupid plans as much as I do.
Quote from: interstatefan990 on January 31, 2021, 04:22:24 PM
Not following here. Anyone wanna give me a link that will explain things? LOL
Go into the fictional highways section of this forums, then find a thread called "Compilation: FritzOwl in one thread". That should explain most of it.
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 31, 2021, 05:28:05 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 31, 2021, 05:22:11 PM
Basically Fritz hates fun roads because he thinks they are unsafe and wants to turn them into boring Interstates. Where it gets weird is when you realize that Fritz doesn't understand what money is and that he is likely is operating on a different plain of reality than most of us.
So basically whenever someone purposes an outlandish Interstate concept it generally will be categorized as "FritzOwling."
Where it gets insanely bad is that Fritz is dead serious about all of this. That's why I attack his stupid plans as much as I do.
I kind of take a semi-humorous approach to it. The dude is so detached from reality that it's kind of fun to push him towards even weirder concepts or ask for an explanation how something absurd would be built.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 31, 2021, 05:37:28 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 31, 2021, 05:28:05 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 31, 2021, 05:22:11 PM
Basically Fritz hates fun roads because he thinks they are unsafe and wants to turn them into boring Interstates. Where it gets weird is when you realize that Fritz doesn't understand what money is and that he is likely is operating on a different plain of reality than most of us.
So basically whenever someone purposes an outlandish Interstate concept it generally will be categorized as "FritzOwling."
Where it gets insanely bad is that Fritz is dead serious about all of this. That's why I attack his stupid plans as much as I do.
I kind of take a semi-humorous approach to it. The dude is so detached from reality that it's kind of fun to push him towards even weirder concepts or ask for an explanation how something absurd would be built.
I know it. I keep asking him things and he always replies with what his plans are and avoids whatever the question was.
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 31, 2021, 05:39:10 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 31, 2021, 05:37:28 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 31, 2021, 05:28:05 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 31, 2021, 05:22:11 PM
Basically Fritz hates fun roads because he thinks they are unsafe and wants to turn them into boring Interstates. Where it gets weird is when you realize that Fritz doesn't understand what money is and that he is likely is operating on a different plain of reality than most of us.
So basically whenever someone purposes an outlandish Interstate concept it generally will be categorized as "FritzOwling."
Where it gets insanely bad is that Fritz is dead serious about all of this. That's why I attack his stupid plans as much as I do.
I kind of take a semi-humorous approach to it. The dude is so detached from reality that it's kind of fun to push him towards even weirder concepts or ask for an explanation how something absurd would be built.
I know it. I keep asking him things and he always replies with what his plans are and avoids whatever the question was.
But sometimes he'll actually answer you with how he would build something. Those some of the best responses in his thread.
That said, I sure would like a taste of what it feels like that be that level of self assured. It is literally impossible to make a dent in questioning Fritz's logic.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 31, 2021, 05:42:01 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 31, 2021, 05:39:10 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 31, 2021, 05:37:28 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 31, 2021, 05:28:05 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 31, 2021, 05:22:11 PM
Basically Fritz hates fun roads because he thinks they are unsafe and wants to turn them into boring Interstates. Where it gets weird is when you realize that Fritz doesn't understand what money is and that he is likely is operating on a different plain of reality than most of us.
So basically whenever someone purposes an outlandish Interstate concept it generally will be categorized as "FritzOwling."
Where it gets insanely bad is that Fritz is dead serious about all of this. That's why I attack his stupid plans as much as I do.
I kind of take a semi-humorous approach to it. The dude is so detached from reality that it's kind of fun to push him towards even weirder concepts or ask for an explanation how something absurd would be built.
I know it. I keep asking him things and he always replies with what his plans are and avoids whatever the question was.
But sometimes he'll actually answer you with how he would build something. Those some of the best responses in his thread.
That said, I sure would like a taste of what it feels like that be that level of self assured. It is literally impossible to make a dent in questioning Fritz's logic.
The funny thing is that he thinks just drawing lines and putting Interstate highway logos on the map is accomplishing anything. Like no one has been able to get a road to go through the Darien Gap but oh Fritz has one going through there so according to him it can happen LMAO.
^^
I was gonna say I might be guilty of a little fritzowling, but I don't care if the road has a speed limit of 50 MPH or below, or if there is literally anything other than two measly closely-spaced yellow pavement lines separating me and oncoming traffic hurtling towards me. Even a center left turn lane or more spaced-apart center lines and I'm all clear. Also, I'm not advocating for new interstates to be built. I did, however, have a scary experience once with an undivided two-laner, but it's not the entire reason I don't like them.
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 31, 2021, 05:45:47 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 31, 2021, 05:42:01 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 31, 2021, 05:39:10 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 31, 2021, 05:37:28 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 31, 2021, 05:28:05 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 31, 2021, 05:22:11 PM
Basically Fritz hates fun roads because he thinks they are unsafe and wants to turn them into boring Interstates. Where it gets weird is when you realize that Fritz doesn't understand what money is and that he is likely is operating on a different plain of reality than most of us.
So basically whenever someone purposes an outlandish Interstate concept it generally will be categorized as "FritzOwling."
Where it gets insanely bad is that Fritz is dead serious about all of this. That's why I attack his stupid plans as much as I do.
I kind of take a semi-humorous approach to it. The dude is so detached from reality that it's kind of fun to push him towards even weirder concepts or ask for an explanation how something absurd would be built.
I know it. I keep asking him things and he always replies with what his plans are and avoids whatever the question was.
But sometimes he'll actually answer you with how he would build something. Those some of the best responses in his thread.
That said, I sure would like a taste of what it feels like that be that level of self assured. It is literally impossible to make a dent in questioning Fritz's logic.
The funny thing is that he thinks just drawing lines and putting Interstate highway logos on the map is accomplishing anything. Like no one has been able to get a road to go through the Darien Gap but oh Fritz has one going through there so according to him it can happen LMAO.
That's what I mean, the concepts that are normal to the rest of humanity simply don't apply to Fritz. He truly doesn't understand why everyone wouldn't want his vision for the world and probably isn't capable of doing so.
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 31, 2021, 05:45:47 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 31, 2021, 05:42:01 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 31, 2021, 05:39:10 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 31, 2021, 05:37:28 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 31, 2021, 05:28:05 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 31, 2021, 05:22:11 PM
Basically Fritz hates fun roads because he thinks they are unsafe and wants to turn them into boring Interstates. Where it gets weird is when you realize that Fritz doesn't understand what money is and that he is likely is operating on a different plain of reality than most of us.
So basically whenever someone purposes an outlandish Interstate concept it generally will be categorized as "FritzOwling."
Where it gets insanely bad is that Fritz is dead serious about all of this. That's why I attack his stupid plans as much as I do.
I kind of take a semi-humorous approach to it. The dude is so detached from reality that it's kind of fun to push him towards even weirder concepts or ask for an explanation how something absurd would be built.
I know it. I keep asking him things and he always replies with what his plans are and avoids whatever the question was.
But sometimes he'll actually answer you with how he would build something. Those some of the best responses in his thread.
That said, I sure would like a taste of what it feels like that be that level of self assured. It is literally impossible to make a dent in questioning Fritz's logic.
The funny thing is that he thinks just drawing lines and putting Interstate highway logos on the map is accomplishing anything. Like no one has been able to get a road to go through the Darien Gap but oh Fritz has one going through there so according to him it can happen LMAO.
I'm guessing he's an advocate of the Trans-Pacific Highway to make Hawaii accessible from the East Coast mainland? Or, better yet, the Trans-Siberian Highway to connect Alaska and Russia, making London accessible by car? One can dream! :-D
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 31, 2021, 05:28:05 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 31, 2021, 05:22:11 PM
Basically Fritz hates fun roads because he thinks they are unsafe and wants to turn them into boring Interstates. Where it gets weird is when you realize that Fritz doesn't understand what money is and that he is likely is operating on a different plain of reality than most of us.
So basically whenever someone purposes an outlandish Interstate concept it generally will be categorized as "FritzOwling."
Where it gets insanely bad is that Fritz is dead serious about all of this. That's why I attack his stupid plans as much as I do.
He is the only person that takes it seriously. Attacking them doesn't change his mind. I have no idea why you bother.
Quote from: interstatefan990 on January 31, 2021, 05:52:55 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 31, 2021, 05:45:47 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 31, 2021, 05:42:01 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 31, 2021, 05:39:10 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 31, 2021, 05:37:28 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 31, 2021, 05:28:05 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 31, 2021, 05:22:11 PM
Basically Fritz hates fun roads because he thinks they are unsafe and wants to turn them into boring Interstates. Where it gets weird is when you realize that Fritz doesn't understand what money is and that he is likely is operating on a different plain of reality than most of us.
So basically whenever someone purposes an outlandish Interstate concept it generally will be categorized as "FritzOwling."
Where it gets insanely bad is that Fritz is dead serious about all of this. That's why I attack his stupid plans as much as I do.
I kind of take a semi-humorous approach to it. The dude is so detached from reality that it's kind of fun to push him towards even weirder concepts or ask for an explanation how something absurd would be built.
I know it. I keep asking him things and he always replies with what his plans are and avoids whatever the question was.
But sometimes he'll actually answer you with how he would build something. Those some of the best responses in his thread.
That said, I sure would like a taste of what it feels like that be that level of self assured. It is literally impossible to make a dent in questioning Fritz's logic.
The funny thing is that he thinks just drawing lines and putting Interstate highway logos on the map is accomplishing anything. Like no one has been able to get a road to go through the Darien Gap but oh Fritz has one going through there so according to him it can happen LMAO.
I'm guessing he's an advocate of the Trans-Pacific Highway to make Hawaii accessible from the East Coast mainland? Or, better yet, the Trans-Siberian Highway to connect Alaska and Russia, making London accessible by car? One can dream! :-D
Off the top of my head he's only purposed an Interstate over the Bering Strait...and many glaciers. North Korea came into play at one point also.
He didn't bite on the Space Elevator and folding Space Time concepts I was hinting at previously. I don't think he's thought of a reliable source for wide distribution of Spice Melange.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 31, 2021, 05:55:38 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 31, 2021, 05:28:05 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 31, 2021, 05:22:11 PM
Basically Fritz hates fun roads because he thinks they are unsafe and wants to turn them into boring Interstates. Where it gets weird is when you realize that Fritz doesn't understand what money is and that he is likely is operating on a different plain of reality than most of us.
So basically whenever someone purposes an outlandish Interstate concept it generally will be categorized as "FritzOwling."
Where it gets insanely bad is that Fritz is dead serious about all of this. That's why I attack his stupid plans as much as I do.
He is the only person that takes it seriously. Attacking them doesn't change his mind. I have no idea why you bother.
Why I bother? Probably because this is a forum and people comment on forums.
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 31, 2021, 06:24:29 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 31, 2021, 05:55:38 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 31, 2021, 05:28:05 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 31, 2021, 05:22:11 PM
Basically Fritz hates fun roads because he thinks they are unsafe and wants to turn them into boring Interstates. Where it gets weird is when you realize that Fritz doesn't understand what money is and that he is likely is operating on a different plain of reality than most of us.
So basically whenever someone purposes an outlandish Interstate concept it generally will be categorized as "FritzOwling."
Where it gets insanely bad is that Fritz is dead serious about all of this. That's why I attack his stupid plans as much as I do.
He is the only person that takes it seriously. Attacking them doesn't change his mind. I have no idea why you bother.
Why I bother? Probably because this is a forum and people comment on forums.
A lot of the time when the forum is dead or I just need a laugh I look to see what Fritz has been up to.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 31, 2021, 06:36:25 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 31, 2021, 06:24:29 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 31, 2021, 05:55:38 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 31, 2021, 05:28:05 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 31, 2021, 05:22:11 PM
Basically Fritz hates fun roads because he thinks they are unsafe and wants to turn them into boring Interstates. Where it gets weird is when you realize that Fritz doesn't understand what money is and that he is likely is operating on a different plain of reality than most of us.
So basically whenever someone purposes an outlandish Interstate concept it generally will be categorized as "FritzOwling."
Where it gets insanely bad is that Fritz is dead serious about all of this. That's why I attack his stupid plans as much as I do.
He is the only person that takes it seriously. Attacking them doesn't change his mind. I have no idea why you bother.
Why I bother? Probably because this is a forum and people comment on forums.
A lot of the time when the forum is dead or I just need a laugh I look to see what Fritz has been up to.
I'll usually get around to a post of his that I hadn't seen in the morning. I'll see that the thread's been posted in by him and usually can get a laugh from that. I'm basically laughing at him not really attacking him. I swear when I asked him to show me his Detroit maps once he had an Interstate running through the Detroit-Windsor Tunnel and Ambassador Bridge LMAO. Then he's got the Lodge, Davison and Southfield as Interstate's. Something that MDOT wouldn't even think of applying for.
You know how I-375 has been mentioned for removal. Well I'll get him going by saying that I-375 should be removed and I-75 should be re-routed onto I-94 and I-96 and the former I-75 between I-94 and I-96 should be removed too. The Lodge south of Grand Blvd. should be removed and become a surface street.
anyway back to the subject..
- US 19 should go to Sarasota, not 301. That bothers me
- US 278 is very extra.. It's a child route but it just hops around being an indirect 78 for most of its route and it's concurrencies the further west you get are kind of ridiculous.
- US 280 is the only important branch of 80.
- US 36 should go southeast from Uhrichsville, not 250. Why not give 36 a southerly curve?
- US 411 is underrated.
How about the US highways that are basically a bunch of state highways combined? Not just one state highway like taking US-25 and making OH-25 out of it but like say one corridor uses a route and then shifts and does a lot of shifting. A good example of what I'm talking about is like US-52 in a lot of places, I'm not saying delete US-52 but just saying that's kind of what I'm talking about.
Quote from: kenarmy on January 31, 2021, 06:44:01 PM
anyway back to the subject..
- US 36 should go southeast from Uhrichsville, not 250. Why not give 36 a southerly curve?
US 250 goes southeast to Richmond, and US 36 is almost a straight E-W route. Looks weird shifting its alignment into another direction just to have a 2dus replace a 3dus; there will be a couple of shorter routes between two points on that route. This is why I extended US 36 over US 22 instead of US 250 in my fictional ideas, because it's almost a straight shot east from there to NYC
I literally can't sleep at night knowing US 206 is 0.8 miles away from connecting with its parent route.
Quote from: kenarmy on January 31, 2021, 06:56:27 PM
I literally can't sleep at night knowing US 206 is 0.8 miles away from connecting with its parent route.
There's also US 136 terminating 2 miles from US 36. Think it has been proposed before for US 136 to be cosigned on I-465 for it to meet its parent.
And unrelated note, I found this old thread titled "Indirect US Routes (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9540.0)" that you may be interested in looking at.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 31, 2021, 06:03:33 PM
He didn't bite on the Space Elevator and folding Space Time concepts I was hinting at previously. I don't think he's thought of a reliable source for wide distribution of Spice Melange.
Hot tip: Try posting proposals to demolish a freeway or decommission an Interstate in his thread. I did that once and got a reply chock-full of typos, as if the thought of removing an interstate made him so overcome with emotion he couldn't operate the keyboard properly.
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 31, 2021, 06:24:29 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 31, 2021, 05:55:38 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 31, 2021, 05:28:05 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 31, 2021, 05:22:11 PM
Basically Fritz hates fun roads because he thinks they are unsafe and wants to turn them into boring Interstates. Where it gets weird is when you realize that Fritz doesn't understand what money is and that he is likely is operating on a different plain of reality than most of us.
So basically whenever someone purposes an outlandish Interstate concept it generally will be categorized as "FritzOwling."
Where it gets insanely bad is that Fritz is dead serious about all of this. That's why I attack his stupid plans as much as I do.
He is the only person that takes it seriously. Attacking them doesn't change his mind. I have no idea why you bother.
Why I bother? Probably because this is a forum and people comment on forums.
I was specifically talking about why you "attack" his plans. (Your words.) Of course people comment on them. But you seem to think his plans need to ridiculed every time he posts. They don't.
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 31, 2021, 07:28:56 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 31, 2021, 06:03:33 PM
He didn't bite on the Space Elevator and folding Space Time concepts I was hinting at previously. I don't think he's thought of a reliable source for wide distribution of Spice Melange.
Hot tip: Try posting proposals to demolish a freeway or decommission an Interstate in his thread. I did that once and got a reply chock-full of typos, as if the thought of removing an interstate made him so overcome with emotion he couldn't operate the keyboard properly.
Done it. I'll mention removing I-375 in Michigan. I'm going to do it right now to see if I get a reply from him.
In light of recent AASHTO numbering decisions designating certain corridors with numbers in the 400s range, I propose renumbering US 49 to US 437.
In fact, better yet, it should be downgraded to MS/AR 437. :P
Quote from: kenarmy on January 31, 2021, 06:56:27 PM
I literally can't sleep at night knowing US 206 is 0.8 miles away from connecting with its parent route.
Literally? :sleep:
Quote from: US 89 on February 01, 2021, 12:29:43 AM
In light of recent AASHTO numbering decisions designating certain corridors with numbers in the 400s range, I propose renumbering US 49 to US 437.
In fact, better yet, it should be downgraded to MS/AR 437. :P
49 is the most important of the 40's! 40 and 41 are irrelevant to their interstates. 42 who? No one is using 43 honestly. 44 and 46 are branches of 6. 45 is a wanna-be 51. 48 is a wanna-be important corridor. US 49 has never been truncated, US 89 can only wish :pan: But maybe I should respond in a different way before yall think im crazy..
US 43 is an important regional corridor in Middle Tennessee. It is four landed through the majority of the state. It links the Nashville, TN to Florence, AL corridor.
Quote from: kenarmy on February 01, 2021, 12:49:35 AM
Quote from: US 89 on February 01, 2021, 12:29:43 AM
In light of recent AASHTO numbering decisions designating certain corridors with numbers in the 400s range, I propose renumbering US 49 to US 437.
In fact, better yet, it should be downgraded to MS/AR 437. :P
49 is the most important of the 40's! 40 and 41 are irrelevant to their interstates. 42 who? No one is using 43 honestly. 44 and 46 are branches of 6. 45 is a wanna-be 51. 48 is a wanna-be important corridor. US 49 has never been truncated, US 89 can only wish :pan: But maybe I should respond in a different way before yall think im crazy..
49 seems like a out of the way backroad for I-55 north of Jackson to me. From Jackson to Gulfport, yes it is an important corridor that I think the state wanted to upgrade into I-61 or I-63 a while ago. US 49 could be worth truncation imo if the state decides to slap some interstate shields onto the Jackson-Gulfport section.
45 is mostly expressway in MS and TN. Also try saying US 41 is irrelevant to everyone living in western Indiana and the Chicago metro area.
Quote from: SkyPesos on February 01, 2021, 07:36:44 AM
Quote from: kenarmy on February 01, 2021, 12:49:35 AM
Quote from: US 89 on February 01, 2021, 12:29:43 AM
In light of recent AASHTO numbering decisions designating certain corridors with numbers in the 400s range, I propose renumbering US 49 to US 437.
In fact, better yet, it should be downgraded to MS/AR 437. :P
49 is the most important of the 40's! 40 and 41 are irrelevant to their interstates. 42 who? No one is using 43 honestly. 44 and 46 are branches of 6. 45 is a wanna-be 51. 48 is a wanna-be important corridor. US 49 has never been truncated, US 89 can only wish :pan: But maybe I should respond in a different way before yall think im crazy..
49 seems like a out of the way backroad for I-55 north of Jackson to me. From Jackson to Gulfport, yes it is an important corridor that I think the state wanted to upgrade into I-61 or I-63 a while ago. US 49 could be worth truncation imo if the state decides to slap some interstate shields onto the Jackson-Gulfport section.
45 is mostly expressway in MS and TN. Also try saying US 41 is irrelevant to everyone living in western Indiana and the Chicago metro area.
Knowing MS, this probably will never happen. I think of US 45 as a I-59 and 49 as an I-55. I mean, one is kinda important but the other one is more important. I also love driving on 98, it's an excellent route for traffic going to Mobile or else where into Florida. That is until, you reach Alabama when the road becomes more narrow and when 10 becomes the desired route. I'd say 43 is more important than 45 from its terimuses.
Quote from: kenarmy on February 01, 2021, 09:30:50 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on February 01, 2021, 07:36:44 AM
Quote from: kenarmy on February 01, 2021, 12:49:35 AM
Quote from: US 89 on February 01, 2021, 12:29:43 AM
In light of recent AASHTO numbering decisions designating certain corridors with numbers in the 400s range, I propose renumbering US 49 to US 437.
In fact, better yet, it should be downgraded to MS/AR 437. :P
49 is the most important of the 40's! 40 and 41 are irrelevant to their interstates. 42 who? No one is using 43 honestly. 44 and 46 are branches of 6. 45 is a wanna-be 51. 48 is a wanna-be important corridor. US 49 has never been truncated, US 89 can only wish :pan: But maybe I should respond in a different way before yall think im crazy..
49 seems like a out of the way backroad for I-55 north of Jackson to me. From Jackson to Gulfport, yes it is an important corridor that I think the state wanted to upgrade into I-61 or I-63 a while ago. US 49 could be worth truncation imo if the state decides to slap some interstate shields onto the Jackson-Gulfport section.
45 is mostly expressway in MS and TN. Also try saying US 41 is irrelevant to everyone living in western Indiana and the Chicago metro area.
Knowing MS, this probably will never happen. I think of US 45 as a I-59 and 49 as an I-55. I mean, one is kinda important but the other one is more important. I also love driving on 98, it's an excellent route for traffic going to Mobile or else where into Florida. That is until, you reach Alabama when the road becomes more narrow and when 10 becomes the desired route. I'd say 43 is more important than 45 from its terimuses.
I think of US 11 as I-59, not US 45. I-59 goes NE past Meridian along with US 11, while US 45 goes straight north. One route heads towards Chicago, other route heads towards NYC.
Quote from: SkyPesos on February 01, 2021, 10:23:42 AM
Quote from: kenarmy on February 01, 2021, 09:30:50 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on February 01, 2021, 07:36:44 AM
Quote from: kenarmy on February 01, 2021, 12:49:35 AM
Quote from: US 89 on February 01, 2021, 12:29:43 AM
In light of recent AASHTO numbering decisions designating certain corridors with numbers in the 400s range, I propose renumbering US 49 to US 437.
In fact, better yet, it should be downgraded to MS/AR 437. :P
49 is the most important of the 40's! 40 and 41 are irrelevant to their interstates. 42 who? No one is using 43 honestly. 44 and 46 are branches of 6. 45 is a wanna-be 51. 48 is a wanna-be important corridor. US 49 has never been truncated, US 89 can only wish :pan: But maybe I should respond in a different way before yall think im crazy..
49 seems like a out of the way backroad for I-55 north of Jackson to me. From Jackson to Gulfport, yes it is an important corridor that I think the state wanted to upgrade into I-61 or I-63 a while ago. US 49 could be worth truncation imo if the state decides to slap some interstate shields onto the Jackson-Gulfport section.
45 is mostly expressway in MS and TN. Also try saying US 41 is irrelevant to everyone living in western Indiana and the Chicago metro area.
Knowing MS, this probably will never happen. I think of US 45 as a I-59 and 49 as an I-55. I mean, one is kinda important but the other one is more important. I also love driving on 98, it's an excellent route for traffic going to Mobile or else where into Florida. That is until, you reach Alabama when the road becomes more narrow and when 10 becomes the desired route. I'd say 43 is more important than 45 from its terimuses.
I think of US 11 as I-59, not US 45. I-59 goes NE past Meridian along with US 11, while US 45 goes straight north. One route heads towards Chicago, other route heads towards NYC.
no no no I meant in terms of importance. 11 is now below 45 and probably even 278 now.
Quote from: kenarmy on February 01, 2021, 10:32:29 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on February 01, 2021, 10:23:42 AM
Quote from: kenarmy on February 01, 2021, 09:30:50 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on February 01, 2021, 07:36:44 AM
Quote from: kenarmy on February 01, 2021, 12:49:35 AM
Quote from: US 89 on February 01, 2021, 12:29:43 AM
In light of recent AASHTO numbering decisions designating certain corridors with numbers in the 400s range, I propose renumbering US 49 to US 437.
In fact, better yet, it should be downgraded to MS/AR 437. :P
49 is the most important of the 40's! 40 and 41 are irrelevant to their interstates. 42 who? No one is using 43 honestly. 44 and 46 are branches of 6. 45 is a wanna-be 51. 48 is a wanna-be important corridor. US 49 has never been truncated, US 89 can only wish :pan: But maybe I should respond in a different way before yall think im crazy..
49 seems like a out of the way backroad for I-55 north of Jackson to me. From Jackson to Gulfport, yes it is an important corridor that I think the state wanted to upgrade into I-61 or I-63 a while ago. US 49 could be worth truncation imo if the state decides to slap some interstate shields onto the Jackson-Gulfport section.
45 is mostly expressway in MS and TN. Also try saying US 41 is irrelevant to everyone living in western Indiana and the Chicago metro area.
Knowing MS, this probably will never happen. I think of US 45 as a I-59 and 49 as an I-55. I mean, one is kinda important but the other one is more important. I also love driving on 98, it's an excellent route for traffic going to Mobile or else where into Florida. That is until, you reach Alabama when the road becomes more narrow and when 10 becomes the desired route. I'd say 43 is more important than 45 from its terimuses.
I think of US 11 as I-59, not US 45. I-59 goes NE past Meridian along with US 11, while US 45 goes straight north. One route heads towards Chicago, other route heads towards NYC.
no no no I meant in terms of importance. 11 is now below 45 and probably even 278 now.
At this point US 191 is more important than US 11, and 191 ain't all that important.
Quote from: kenarmy on February 01, 2021, 12:49:35 AMNo one is using 43 honestly.
I know a number of folks in western Alabama who would disagree with this.
Quote45 is a wanna-be 51.
45 has more independent utility than 51, since much of 51 (including everything south of Memphis) has been overshadowed by Interstates.
QuoteUS 49 has never been truncated
True, but 49 is only really important on a regional/national sense south of Jackson. It's as much of a "wanna-be" corridor north of Jackson as what you claim 45 to be.
Ok well, US 98 is the important route in the 90's!
90- overshadowed by 10, only independent in that parts where it goes through nowhere in La and Tx
91- LOL
92- *yawn* I-4 ended this
93- the only really important part of the route is getting replaced by 11, ends in a nowhere and is way more indirect of 95
95- its long branch route overshadows it. I guess its somewhat important the further south you go but whatever
96- what a joke
97- irrelevant, 99 and 101 are more remembered
99- i hated to see it go.
98 serves Hattiesburg, Memphis and Jackson traffic going to Florida (via 49), Mobile, Pensacola, the EMERALD COAST, Destin, Panama city, Lakeland, Palm beach, and the largest freshwater lake in the state.. WITHOUT A PARALLELING INTERSTATE for the most part.. do i need to continue?
US-90 needs to be replaced by an Interstate between Van Horn and San Antonio. It's needed because Fritzowl said so.
Quote from: interstatefan990 on January 31, 2021, 04:18:54 PM
Except with the US Route system, many roads are, for the most part, only used by drivers who are actively choosing to use that route over an alternative.
what
You honestly think that most people on a highway are doing so specifically to avoid a better route?
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 01, 2021, 02:38:12 PM
US-90 needs to be replaced by an Interstate between Van Horn and San Antonio. It's needed because Fritzowl said so.
Just imagine if Fritzowl was the USDOT secretary... :popcorn:
Quote from: kenarmy on February 01, 2021, 02:36:36 PM
Ok well, US 98 is the important route in the 90's!
95- its long branch route overshadows it. I guess its somewhat important the further south you go but whatever
98 serves Hattiesburg, Memphis and Jackson traffic going to Florida (via 49), Mobile, Pensacola, the EMERALD COAST, Destin, Panama city, Lakeland, Palm beach, and the largest freshwater lake in the state.. WITHOUT A PARALLELING INTERSTATE for the most part.. do i need to continue?
US 95 is a border-to-border route that provides the only connection between Nevada's only two metropolitan areas...and is now federally designated as the I-11 corridor. It is also undeniably Idaho's most important north-south highway as it is the only road connecting northern Idaho to the rest of the state. I should also note that except for what's supposed to become I-11, none of it parallels an interstate.
Not sure how that beats 98, which is largely an alternative route to I-10 that goes along the coast instead of inland. Even the part across the Florida panhandle is more or less a free alternate to Florida's Turnpike ... and even then, there are other free cross-panhandle roads like US 192 and US 441. There's no real alternate to a lot of 95.
Quote from: US 89 on February 01, 2021, 03:52:22 PM
Quote from: kenarmy on February 01, 2021, 02:36:36 PM
Ok well, US 98 is the important route in the 90's!
95- its long branch route overshadows it. I guess its somewhat important the further south you go but whatever
98 serves Hattiesburg, Memphis and Jackson traffic going to Florida (via 49), Mobile, Pensacola, the EMERALD COAST, Destin, Panama city, Lakeland, Palm beach, and the largest freshwater lake in the state.. WITHOUT A PARALLELING INTERSTATE for the most part.. do i need to continue?
US 95 is a border-to-border route that provides the only connection between Nevada's only two metropolitan areas...and is now federally designated as the I-11 corridor. It is also undeniably Idaho's most important north-south highway as it is the only road connecting northern Idaho to the rest of the state. I should also note that except for what's supposed to become I-11, none of it parallels an interstate.
Not sure how that beats 98, which is largely an alternative route to I-10 that goes along the coast instead of inland. Even the part across the Florida panhandle is more or less a free alternate to Florida's Turnpike ... and even then, there are other free cross-panhandle roads like US 192 and US 441. There's no real alternate to a lot of 95.
Exactly 11 will be slowly replacing its function.. 98 is irreplaceable. 10 is the
alternate for 98, there a ton of tourist attractions along 98's coastal route and its important for an evacuation route. clearly a very great drive. Isn't 95 supposed to be very dangerous and boring?
Quote from: kphoger on February 01, 2021, 03:11:44 PM
Quote from: interstatefan990 on January 31, 2021, 04:18:54 PM
Except with the US Route system, many roads are, for the most part, only used by drivers who are actively choosing to use that route over an alternative.
what
You honestly think that most people on a highway are doing so specifically to avoid a better route?
This is about
rural,
desolate US Routes. I'm pretty sure more people that travel on those roads are out-of-state tourists/roadgeeks than those who aren't. Unless you live in a ghost town in the rural west, are you honestly telling me you'd drive on a US route instead of a nearby interstate because it would be the best way to get to your destination?
Quote from: interstatefan990 on February 01, 2021, 04:54:05 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 01, 2021, 03:11:44 PM
Quote from: interstatefan990 on January 31, 2021, 04:18:54 PM
Except with the US Route system, many roads are, for the most part, only used by drivers who are actively choosing to use that route over an alternative.
what
You honestly think that most people on a highway are doing so specifically to avoid a better route?
This is about rural, desolate US Routes. I'm pretty sure more people that travel on those roads are out-of-state tourists/roadgeeks than those who aren't. Unless you live in a ghost town in the rural west, are you honestly telling me you'd drive on a US route instead of a nearby interstate because it would be the best way to get to your destination?
How nearby is the interstate in this hypothetical?
Quote from: interstatefan990 on February 01, 2021, 04:54:05 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 01, 2021, 03:11:44 PM
Quote from: interstatefan990 on January 31, 2021, 04:18:54 PM
Except with the US Route system, many roads are, for the most part, only used by drivers who are actively choosing to use that route over an alternative.
what
You honestly think that most people on a highway are doing so specifically to avoid a better route?
This is about rural, desolate US Routes. I'm pretty sure more people that travel on those roads are out-of-state tourists/roadgeeks than those who aren't. Unless you live in a ghost town in the rural west, are you honestly telling me you'd drive on a US route instead of a nearby interstate because it would be the best way to get to your destination?
So, what specific rural desolate US Routes are you talking about, where tourists outnumber local drivers? and that have nearby parallel Interstates?
As an example... Granted, my usual delivery route in the area didn't extend that far north, so my experience on the highway is somewhat limited, but I can't recall ever having seen a single out-of-state license plate on US-40 immediately west of Effingham, IL (the only stretch I used multiple times for work). Plenty of local traffic, though, plus truckers.
I have serious doubts that US-30 in west-central Nebraska is clogged with tourists and roadgeeks. Take the stretch between Kearney and Lexington, for example: are you telling me that half of the 2751 vehicles during an average day along that stretch are tourists actively choosing to avoid I-80? More than 1300 people a day who just can't get enough Nebraska cornfields? Give me a break.
Quote from: kphoger on February 01, 2021, 05:15:14 PM
Quote from: interstatefan990 on February 01, 2021, 04:54:05 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 01, 2021, 03:11:44 PM
Quote from: interstatefan990 on January 31, 2021, 04:18:54 PM
Except with the US Route system, many roads are, for the most part, only used by drivers who are actively choosing to use that route over an alternative.
what
You honestly think that most people on a highway are doing so specifically to avoid a better route?
This is about rural, desolate US Routes. I'm pretty sure more people that travel on those roads are out-of-state tourists/roadgeeks than those who aren't. Unless you live in a ghost town in the rural west, are you honestly telling me you'd drive on a US route instead of a nearby interstate because it would be the best way to get to your destination?
So, what specific rural desolate US Routes are you talking about, where tourists outnumber local drivers? and that have nearby parallel Interstates?
As an example... Granted, my usual delivery route in the area didn't extend that far north, so my experience on the highway is somewhat limited, but I can't recall ever having seen a single out-of-state license plate on US-40 immediately west of Effingham, IL (the only stretch I used multiple times for work). Plenty of local traffic, though, plus truckers.
I have serious doubts that US-30 in west-central Nebraska is clogged with tourists and roadgeeks. Take the stretch between Kearney and Lexington, for example: are you telling me that half of the 2751 vehicles during an average day along that stretch are tourists actively choosing to avoid I-80? More than 1300 people a day who just can't get enough Nebraska cornfields? Give me a break.
News flash: If the route in question is "immediately west" of a city with a population of almost 13,000, then it's definitely not rural and desolate. And the stretch of US 30 between Kearney and Lexington? Also not rural and desolate, and consider how maybe some traffic wants to avoid transcontinental road trippers/truckers and access the businesses along the route. It's not just "Nebraska cornfields" either. US 30 is a vital part of the famed Lincoln Highway, one of the earliest transcontinental roads in the United States. There's history here.
Perhaps think about I-15, which is at most 16 miles from US 89/US 91 between Downey and Brigham City across the Idaho-Utah state line. Or the US 20/26/95 concurrency (later just 95) between Caldwell and Fruitland near the Idaho-Oregon state line, which never gets farther than about 7 miles from I-84.
Also, don't forget the original road that was in question here, US 50. If you need an idea of what rural and desolate truly looks like, that's a good place to start.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 01, 2021, 05:06:10 PM
How nearby is the interstate in this hypothetical?
See the examples mentioned above.
And you're telling me that most of the traffic on US-50 in Nevada are people "actively choosing to use that route over an alternative"? You don't think it's, say, people driving between Reno and Ely? Or how about people going from Denver to Reno who prefer not to go 42 miles out of their way by going north into Wyoming first? You think that non-tourists and non-roadgeeks all prefer the route that's longer to the one that's shorter?
For destinations farther west in Colorado, the difference is even more apparent, as shown below.
For Reno to Grand Junction:
Using US-50 across Nevada = 750 miles
Using I-80 to Salt Lake City = 799 miles
US-91 near I-15: shortest route from Logan (pop. 50k) to Pocatello, by a difference of 10 miles compared to the Interstate
US-89 near I-15: Salt Lake City and Logan to Jackson (10th largest town in Wyoming) and Yellowstone National Park
US-95 near I-84: Reno to Missoula
Quote from: kphoger on February 01, 2021, 07:02:14 PM
And you're telling me that most of the traffic on US-50 in Nevada are people "actively choosing to use that route over an alternative"? You don't think it's, say, people driving between Reno and Ely? Or how about people going from Denver to Reno who prefer not to go 42 miles out of their way by going north into Wyoming first? You think that non-tourists and non-roadgeeks all prefer the route that's longer to the one that's shorter?
For destinations farther west in Colorado, the difference is even more apparent, as shown below.
For Reno to Grand Junction:
Using US-50 across Nevada = 750 miles
Using I-80 to Salt Lake City = 799 miles
US-91 near I-15: shortest route from Logan (pop. 50k) to Pocatello, by a difference of 10 miles compared to the Interstate
US-89 near I-15: Salt Lake City and Logan to Jackson (10th largest town in Wyoming) and Yellowstone National Park
US-95 near I-84: Reno to Missoula
Not to mention all of the local traffic that uses it daily. Frankly it sounds like the guy has never driven such roads before.
Quote from: kphoger on February 01, 2021, 07:02:14 PM
And you're telling me that most of the traffic on US-50 in Nevada are people "actively choosing to use that route over an alternative"? You don't think it's, say, people driving between Reno and Ely? Or how about people going from Denver to Reno who prefer not to go 42 miles out of their way by going north into Wyoming first? You think that non-tourists and non-roadgeeks all prefer the route that's longer to the one that's shorter?
For destinations farther west in Colorado, the difference is even more apparent, as shown below.
For Reno to Grand Junction:
Using US-50 across Nevada = 750 miles
Using I-80 to Salt Lake City = 799 miles
US-91 near I-15: shortest route from Logan (pop. 50k) to Pocatello, by a difference of 10 miles compared to the Interstate
US-89 near I-15: Salt Lake City and Logan to Jackson (10th largest town in Wyoming) and Yellowstone National Park
US-95 near I-84: Reno to Missoula
You may be correct about the US 50 between Reno and Ely, but how much demand really is there for that route?
And for the others, you also have to factor in speed limits, traffic, intersections, roadway design, and others. It's not just distance. For example, driving from Reno to Grand Junction, Google Maps puts you on I-80 because you'd actually save 12 minutes by taking the interstate, assuming no other disruptions in your trip. And I can guarantee you non-tourists and non-roadgeeks are going to do whatever their GPS tells them, so I-80 is the preferred route for that trip. For Denver to Reno, it's pretty much the same situation. Assuming no other disruptions, you save a grand total of 3 minutes by not taking the interstate into Wyoming, as shown below. It goes back to my original point: are the safety risks of avoiding the interstate really worth it anyways?
(https://i.ibb.co/9b8ZTXw/796-BF4-DB-FEA2-4-D94-AC72-96-AAC5-BDDF03-1-201-a.jpg) (https://i.ibb.co/3pdXvD7/45288-F43-81-E6-4-CCC-889-E-C41-AD8-BFA7-F6-1-201-a.jpg)
I won't include images for the rest, but here is what Google Maps told me:
US 91 Logan to Pocatello: you save 3 minutes by taking the interstate
US 89 SLC to Jackson: you save 4 minutes by taking the interstate
US 89 Logan to Jackson: taking the interstate is 27 min longer
US 95 Reno to Missoula: taking the interstate is 32 minutes longer
These aren't very big time differences, but they also illustrate how the drawbacks of not taking a US route may not be as significant as you think.
I have used US-20 over the Ohio Turnpike and Indiana Toll Road several times. In fact I've used US-30 as well.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 01, 2021, 07:45:19 PM
Not to mention all of the local traffic that uses it daily. Frankly it sounds like the guy has never driven such roads before.
Duh. Do you really think I would fly out all the way from New York, rent a car, and spend several hours driving on rural US Routes that I don't even want to go on, as I've already said in this discussion?
"All of the local traffic". Ha. I've already said to someone here that there are exceptions, local traffic included:
Quote from: interstatefan990 on January 31, 2021, 04:18:54 PM
I'm referring to rural areas here, but granted, there are exceptions where US routes are preferable to an Interstate for reasons other than historic significance and scenery.
You guys should really pay more attention to what I'm saying. :pan:
MS 25 deserves a US route number in MS more than 78, 278, 72, 51, 425 (lol), 11 do I really need to continue? Extend US 641 down TN 128 and that would align perfectly with 25 and boom. Then it could compete with its sibling
- Was minnesota and wyoming 59 supposed to be a US route?
for some reason US 46 is unpopular. it deserves to stay.
Quote from: interstatefan990 on February 01, 2021, 08:11:41 PM
And for the others, you also have to factor in speed limits, traffic, intersections, roadway design, and others. It's not just distance.
No, a roadgeek or traveling enthusiast factors all those things in. The average driver looks at a map and finds the shortest route. Generally, that means drawing a straight line and seeing which highways approximate that line. Open up Google Maps, take a look at Reno and Grand Junction, and the most obvious route between the two is not I-80. The most obvious route is US-50.
At least, that's what people did before sat-nav devices.
Quote from: interstatefan990 on February 01, 2021, 08:11:41 PM
For example, driving from Reno to Grand Junction, Google Maps puts you on I-80 because you'd actually save 12 minutes by taking the interstate, assuming no other disruptions in your trip.
Yes, I know that. But plenty of people want the route that uses the least amount of gas, even if it means a few extra minutes added to the drive. Or they want the route that avoids going through a big city, even if it means a few extra minutes added to the drive.
And as for "assuming no other disruptions", you're a lot more likely to encounter traffic disruptions driving through SLC and Provo than you are driving through Ely and Salina.
Quote from: interstatefan990 on February 01, 2021, 08:11:41 PM
And I can guarantee you non-tourists and non-roadgeeks are going to do whatever their GPS tells them, so I-80 is the preferred route for that trip.
Non-roadgeeks who actually have and use sat-nav to plan their route, perhaps. But anyway, I'm not saying I-80 isn't the route most people would gravitate to. I'm just saying it isn't the only good route between those two points, so plenty of people are going to take the US-50 option.
Quote from: interstatefan990 on February 01, 2021, 08:11:41 PM
For Denver to Reno, it's pretty much the same situation. Assuming no other disruptions, you save a grand total of 3 minutes by not taking the interstate into Wyoming, as shown below. It goes back to my original point: are the safety risks of avoiding the interstate really worth it anyways?
Obviously, it isn't worth the supposed safety risks
to you. But that doesn't somehow mean most people agree with you.
Quote from: interstatefan990 on January 31, 2021, 04:18:54 PM
Except with the US Route system, many roads are, for the most part, only used by drivers who are actively choosing to use that route over an alternative.
Quote from: interstatefan990 on February 01, 2021, 08:28:55 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 01, 2021, 07:45:19 PM
Not to mention all of the local traffic that uses it daily. Frankly it sounds like the guy has never driven such roads before.
Duh. Do you really think I would fly out all the way from New York, rent a car, and spend several hours driving on rural US Routes that I don't even want to go on, as I've already said in this discussion?
If you've never been on such roads before, then why are you claiming to know what sort of traffic is using them? Why are you claiming to understand the reasons they are driving on a particular road?
Honestly, I'm beginning to wonder if you've ever been driving
anywhere outside your own little bubble of a world in New York. It's hard for me to imagine someone having driven to any decent extent on this country's highways and thinking that most people on the road aren't just taking the shortest route from A to B because that's all they really care about.
Quote from: interstatefan990 on February 01, 2021, 08:28:55 PM
"All of the local traffic". Ha. I've already said to someone here that there are exceptions, local traffic included:
Quote from: interstatefan990 on January 31, 2021, 04:18:54 PM
I'm referring to rural areas here, but granted, there are exceptions where US routes are preferable to an Interstate for reasons other than historic significance and scenery.
You guys should really pay more attention to what I'm saying.
No, what we're saying is that those aren't exceptions. They're the norm. We're telling you that most of the traffic using US Routes do so for reasons other than historic significance or scenery. We, who have actually driven these roads for work and/or pleasure, are telling you that your assumptions are inaccurate. The great majority of drivers on all but a few highways are just driving to get somewhere, and they've determined that that particular highway is the best route to get them there.
I can think of very few exceptions to that general rule. For example, US-6 over Loveland Pass in Colorado, as a scenic deviation around the Eisenhower—Johnson tunnels on I-70.
Heck, even when I drove
part of old Route 66 (https://goo.gl/maps/bMesDDJ8pwxkxthM9) in western Oklahoma and eastern Texas in 2019, none of the vehicles I saw were from out of state. (At the restaurant where we stopped for lunch, there was one couple from Quebec who were doing a Route 66 vacation, but that was it. I later passed them on I-40 somewhere west of McLean.) All of the other drivers I saw appeared to be locals.
Regarding Grand Junction-Reno: in this case I would imagine the vast majority of traffic would want to use US 50 specifically because it avoids US 6. US 6 between I-70 and I-15 is fairly well known among locals and regular drivers as a high-traffic, relatively dangerous road that most people would rather not drive on if they can avoid it. Plus I can state from personal experience that Soldier Summit is not fun in the winter.
If your final destination is Salt Lake, 6 generally isn't bad enough to warrant detouring out to Salina to US 89 since that's quite a bit out of the way and will cost you about an hour. But the time difference if you're going to Reno is only five minutes. if you were to randomly survey people in Grand Junction or Salt Lake whether they're okay with losing 5 minutes if they don't have to take 6, I bet you 90% of respondents would say yes.
All 2-lane roads are not equal. Traffic counts on that part of US 6 in Utah are over 10-15 times higher than they are on much of US 50. There's a reason it's called the Loneliest Road.
Quote from: kphoger on February 02, 2021, 10:17:52 AM
At least, that's what people did before sat-nav devices.
Well, it's 2021. We use sat-nav now. The most "obvious" route isn't always the best one to take, and thankfully today we have technology that can find us the best route to take.
Quote from: kphoger on February 02, 2021, 10:17:52 AM
Yes, I know that. But plenty of people want the route that uses the least amount of gas, even if it means a few extra minutes added to the drive. Or they want the route that avoids going through a big city, even if it means a few extra minutes added to the drive.
And as for "assuming no other disruptions", you're a lot more likely to encounter traffic disruptions driving through SLC and Provo than you are driving through Ely and Salina.
Google Maps takes real-time traffic into account. And I can't assume what people want, but you can? How do you know who wants to use the least gas vs who just wants to get there as soon as possible?
Quote from: kphoger on February 02, 2021, 10:17:52 AM
Non-roadgeeks who actually have and use sat-nav to plan their route, perhaps. But anyway, I'm not saying I-80 isn't the route most people would gravitate to. I'm just saying it isn't the only good route between those two points, so plenty of people are going to take the US-50 option.
Wait a minute. Now things have changed? First it's "most people on US routes aren't choosing that route" + "most people would gravitate to I-80" and now it's "plenty of people will take US 50 over I-80"?
Quote from: kphoger on February 02, 2021, 10:17:52 AM
Obviously, it isn't worth the supposed safety risks to you. But that doesn't somehow mean most people agree with you.
That's why this topic is called
unpopular opinions. And this is a forum. People disagree. Perfect example: whatever this is right here.
Quote from: kphoger on February 02, 2021, 10:17:52 AM
If you've never been on such roads before, then why are you claiming to know what sort of traffic is using them? Why are you claiming to understand the reasons they are driving on a particular road?
Honestly, I'm beginning to wonder if you've ever been driving anywhere outside your own little bubble of a world in New York. It's hard for me to imagine someone having driven to any decent extent on this country's highways and thinking that most people on the road aren't just taking the shortest route from A to B because that's all they really care about.
I said "many US routes". That could mean as few as 6 or 7. I never said it was the entire system. As we have seen, most people follow mapping applications, and those mapping applications will put you on interstates and save you time, even with a 50-mile difference over a US Route. I'm not claiming to know what sort of traffic is using them. I simply made a prediction about some of the loneliest highways in this country considering how desolate they are, and some of the roads you mentioned, all based on some known facts and data from Google Maps as well. The truth is, not everyone is as fortunate as you are to have had the time and money to go around exploring all of America's great roads. I have clinched/driven a lot of the roads that are within a
reasonable distance of me, as I'm sure is the case with several on this forum. For those I have not driven, I am exploring them from home until I can drive them, which I am perfectly fine with.
Quote from: kphoger on February 02, 2021, 10:17:52 AM
No, what we're saying is that those aren't exceptions. They're the norm.
Norm, schnorm, exceptions, blah blah blah. When you're referring to rural, barren, and desolate roads, which is what I was originally discussing, the difference is small enough that it basically means the same thing. Also, "we"?
This discussion has become pointless, and frankly, it's getting stupid. It was absolutely wonderful talking to you, but I'm leaving this alone for now. So long!
Quote from: interstatefan990 on February 02, 2021, 11:53:38 AM
Quote from: kphoger on February 02, 2021, 10:17:52 AM
Non-roadgeeks who actually have and use sat-nav to plan their route, perhaps. But anyway, I'm not saying I-80 isn't the route most people would gravitate to. I'm just saying it isn't the only good route between those two points, so plenty of people are going to take the US-50 option.
Wait a minute. Now things have changed? First it's "most people on US routes aren't choosing that route" + "most people would gravitate to I-80" and now it's "plenty of people will take US 50 over I-80"?
Those aren't mutually exclusive. And the reason they aren't is that most people on a particular route aren't long-distance, cross-country travelers. Most
people aren't specifically choosing one route over another. Meanwhile, most but by no means all
long-distance travelers would gravitate toward Interstates.
Quote from: interstatefan990 on February 02, 2021, 11:53:38 AM
That's why this topic is called unpopular opinions. And this is a forum. People disagree. Perfect example: whatever this is right here.
I've got no problem with your opinion that using US routes isn't worth the risks. Have your opinion all you want, and that's perfectly fine. But you also claimed that "with the US Route system, many roads are, for the most part, only used by drivers who are actively choosing to use that route over an alternative". That is what I am disputing. It isn't merely your opinion about something. It's something you're stating as a fact.
Quote from: interstatefan990 on February 02, 2021, 11:53:38 AM
I said "many US routes". That could mean as few as 6 or 7. I never said it was the entire system.
In a system with nearly 200 routes (did I count right?), 6 or 7 is not "many". But that's why I asked you about specific routes.
Quote from: interstatefan990 on February 02, 2021, 11:53:38 AM
I'm not claiming to know what sort of traffic is using them.
Yes you are. You said that many are "only used by drivers who are actively choosing to use that route over an alternative".
Quote from: interstatefan990 on February 02, 2021, 11:53:38 AM
The truth is, not everyone is as fortunate as you are to have had the time and money to go around exploring all of America's great roads. I have clinched/driven a lot of the roads that are within a reasonable distance of me, as I'm sure is the case with several on this forum. For those I have not driven, I am exploring them from home until I can drive them, which I am perfectly fine with.
But those who have not had the good fortune to explore this country's great roads should not purport to say what sort of traffic uses said roads.
I haven't had the good fortune to explore the
autostrade of Italy, which is why I wouldn't claim to know what sort of traffic uses them. I haven't had the good fortune to explore the highways of New York state, which is why I can't claim to know what sort of traffic uses various ones there. But I
have had the good fortune to explore a decent number of "rural, desolate US Routes", which is what you specifically said you were referring to. Heck, I grew up one mile from a rural, desolate US Route: US-36 in Rawlins County, KS, with AADT counts below 1500.
Quote from: interstatefan990 on February 02, 2021, 11:53:38 AM
Quote from: kphoger on February 02, 2021, 10:17:52 AM
No, what we're saying is that those aren't exceptions. They're the norm.
Norm, schnorm, exceptions, blah blah blah. When you're referring to rural, barren, and desolate roads, which is what I was originally discussing, the difference is small enough that it basically means the same thing.
So now your defense is that, for the highways you have in mind, "the norm" and "the exception" mean the same thing? With that mindset, don't be surprised to find an argument to follow.
Hell yes I'll take the US highway every time if it's going to save me like 50 miles but is only like 3-4 minutes longer. I'll make that time up anyway so the saved mileage is going to make it worth it.
It's like the best way to get down to I-69 WB/SB from Saginaw is to take M-13 not I-75. Now I-69 EB/NB it would be take I-75 to I-475. This doesn't involve a US highway but it makes a point that a two lane rural route is sometimes better.
I don't think everyone has to be Roadgeek to have the desire to explore alternate routes and to try and find something better than what the Google Map suggests. I have found times where Google Maps gives it's suggestions then to move the blue lines around a bit and have it calculate that my idea was actually faster then it's idea, or at least in theory. I do believe Google Maps then learns from this and uses it for later (not scary at all, right?). Of course there are people who will drive the same Interstate between two known points infinitum. I also know there are people who are interested in new or alternate routes in particular if they drive between the two points with any regularity. Of course you get two people together who have been between the same two places, and they can show each other their way. Case in point, going to Pittsburgh from Cincinnati I take I-70 to OH 7 to US 22, because it was the way Greyhound went on the all stops bus I rode several times in the 1990's. In reality it is only a matter of minutes difference depending upon what part of the 'burgh you are going to. I showed my friend my way on one trip and he loved it. Of course it is all divided highway but OH 7 is at grade in places.
I am rather surprised by the fear from some commenting here about driving on two lane US and state highways. I didn't have a car until my twenties but had my licenses at 16. I did a lot of driving with my Grandma who lived in rural south central Ohio so I got accustomed to driving hilly two lane state and US routes early. I drive a city bus and have been for almost twenty years so I don't like driving for prolonged distances all on the Interstate. I get off and use a US or state route just to take a break for a while but still be making forward progress. I also still use paper maps, outside of finding specific addresses or specific food places in new cities, so I use the straight line method. Anyways I like, well really love US and state routes! I would guess I am not alone.
Jim
^ I agree with this. Doesn't driving on interstates get exhausting or boring (especially on trips)? Even though an interstate is slightly faster, I prefer using short cuts to get between interstates. For instance, using the natchez trace to go out west instead of going from 55 straight to 20.
^^These are totally valid. I too am accustomed to two lane highways, as you have to use them to get to many places here in New York, even if part of your traveling involves a freeway. My thinking just differs when it comes to picking one route over another when you have multiple options. Personally I usually opt to take an interstate or parkway to avoid the statutory 55 MPH undivided roads that are common here, but I'd gladly take those instead if it simply makes more sense or if I'm looking for something more engaging, which, now that I think about it, happens fairly often.
Seriously though, all this disagreement with what I said about certain US Routes and two laners just proves even further that my opinion truly is unpopular. That's precisely what this thread was asking for. So I don't know about you, but I'm gonna put this one down as a success! :-D
This is my view of Interstate's. Yes they are a faster route but I get bored of the Interstate rather quickly at times. It's a lot more interesting to take an alternate route that wouldn't be as fast but would be a lot more enjoyable. I'm sick of I-75 between Detroit and Saginaw, I know every curve on the highway, I know every overpass and every exit on that stretch of I-75.
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 03, 2021, 06:54:27 AM
This is my view of Interstate's. Yes they are a faster route but I get bored of the Interstate rather quickly at times. It's a lot more interesting to take an alternate route that wouldn't be as fast but would be a lot more enjoyable. I'm sick of I-75 between Detroit and Saginaw, I know every curve on the highway, I know every overpass and every exit on that stretch of I-75.
It is utterly amazing on occasion that the parallel US route to an Interstate can be so much more interesting on stretches of Interstate.
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 03, 2021, 06:54:27 AM
This is my view of Interstate's. Yes they are a faster route but I get bored of the Interstate rather quickly at times. It's a lot more interesting to take an alternate route that wouldn't be as fast but would be a lot more enjoyable. I'm sick of I-75 between Detroit and Saginaw, I know every curve on the highway, I know every overpass and every exit on that stretch of I-75.
Meanwhile I'm here bored with I-71 from Cincy to Columbus. I did I-75/675/70 once, actually didn't take that much longer and it's mostly 6+ lanes the entire way through after upgrades on I-70. I also did US 42 once, there's a small expressway section between OH 73 and Xenia, which is nice.
Sometimes the US highways are better, but worth planning an extra day to use. US 98 over I-10 in Florida is much nicer to drive than the boring I-10 is a prime example.
Then you have shortcuts that are better like from I-287 northbound in NJ to I-80 westbound. If you are in a Central Jersey it's shorter to cut off on US 206 at Bedminster than to ride up to the proper meeting place of the two. However when Chester has its flea market it is the same time between the two as the market stops traffic on US 206 in Chester to allow patrons to get in and out.
Is all a gamble and up to the time of day for some areas of travel.
It really depends on the time I have. I used to take a business trip to Memphis every year from southern Wisconsin.
If I had time, usually in a rush to get down there, I would take I-39 and I-55. But when I had time for a day and a half drive back , I took US-51 and IL-251 back. So much more to see.
Quote from: tq-07fan on February 02, 2021, 11:57:36 PM
I don't think everyone has to be Roadgeek to have the desire to explore alternate routes and to try and find something better than what the Google Map suggests.
I was thinking about this last night.
Besides, though... So what if people
do pick a certain highway because of its historical significance or its scenery or whatever? Does that mean they're somehow wrong, that the route they choose shouldn't be designated as a US Route? Even if a lot of the traffic on US-91 between Logan and Pocatello is avoiding the Interstate route because of roadgeek-y reasons, then that's really no reason to dispute the highway's status as a US Route: people use it to get from place to place, and I don't see how their reasoning really matters all that much.
Quote from: interstatefan990 on February 03, 2021, 01:55:35 AM
Seriously though, all this disagreement with what I said about certain US Routes and two laners just proves even further that my opinion truly is unpopular. That's precisely what this thread was asking for. So I don't know about you, but I'm gonna put this one down as a success! :-D
Well, what the heck? Eight years ago, this would have ended up in a flame war, with profanity and locked threads and purple text. People sure do seem to be getting along better on the forum these days. Thank you for taking our banter in stride.
Quote from: kphoger on February 03, 2021, 12:00:46 PM
Quote from: interstatefan990 on February 03, 2021, 01:55:35 AM
Seriously though, all this disagreement with what I said about certain US Routes and two laners just proves even further that my opinion truly is unpopular. That's precisely what this thread was asking for. So I don't know about you, but I'm gonna put this one down as a success! :-D
Well, what the heck? Eight years ago, this would have ended up in a flame war, with profanity and locked threads and purple text. People sure do seem to be getting along better on the forum these days. Thank you for taking our banter in stride.
No problem! I'd rather go home with my honor intact than be sore about everything.
Okay, here's one better beyond a US Route option, how about a state route option? Going from Dayton, O. to Peoria, Ill. one has Indianapolis in the way to get from I-70 to I-74. So, my favorite route is to go north on I-465, then I-865 to I-65 and head over to I-74 using IN 32.
.
GoogleMaps claims it's the same time as its routing... but it assumes IN 32 is a slowpoke 2 lane. It's usually traffic-free and almost like a Super 2.
.
Another example... heading north on I-75 from Atlanta to Knoxville. It's ten miles shorter to go from Dalton GA to Cleveland TN using Georgia SR 71 and Tennessee SPR 60. And it avoids a lot of Chattanooga nonsense.
.
Of course, the classic US choice is in West Virginia when heading from Charlotte NC to Pittsburgh PA. I-77 to Beckley and then US 19 to I-79. Why go through Charleston? (Plus, the BRIDGE on US 19 is a wonder of the world, right?)
Quote from: sturmde on February 03, 2021, 12:39:14 PM
Okay, here's one better beyond a US Route option, how about a state route option? Going from Dayton, O. to Peoria, Ill. one has Indianapolis in the way to get from I-70 to I-74. So, my favorite route is to go north on I-465, then I-865 to I-65 and head over to I-74 using IN 32.
.
GoogleMaps claims it's the same time as its routing... but it assumes IN 32 is a slowpoke 2 lane. It's usually traffic-free and almost like a Super 2.
.
Another example... heading north on I-75 from Atlanta to Knoxville. It's ten miles shorter to go from Dalton GA to Cleveland TN using Georgia SR 71 and Tennessee SPR 60. And it avoids a lot of Chattanooga nonsense.
.
Of course, the classic US choice is in West Virginia when heading from Charlotte NC to Pittsburgh PA. I-77 to Beckley and then US 19 to I-79. Why go through Charleston? (Plus, the BRIDGE on US 19 is a wonder of the world, right?)
There are a couple of places where an expressway state route is used over a parallel 2 lane US route for long distance travel. IN 63 and OH 32 are the first two examples that came to my mind.
The 'best route' that Google usually suggests for getting to Springfield or Branson from Wichita includes about 30 miles of shoulder-less secondary state routes in Missouri (the lettered ones). And it isn't wrong, either: my usual route is almost exactly the same as the one suggested, although I typically use a shoulder-less primary state route for part of it instead. But, oh my! one can only wonder how many car-towing RV drivers have been unpleasantly surprised to find themselves head-to-head with a local trucker somewhere like here (https://goo.gl/maps/1fKy5nnc1SPeZpki6) or a combine somewhere like here (https://goo.gl/maps/U5b1jpZAZN5GQppo9).
Quote from: kphoger on February 03, 2021, 12:00:46 PM
Well, what the heck? Eight years ago, this would have ended up in a flame war, with profanity and locked threads and purple text. People sure do seem to be getting along better on the forum these days. Thank you for taking our banter in stride.
For me, this forum has been respite during an unusual time that's been lacking in real-world roadgeek experiences, and I imagine that might be the case for others as well.
Quote from: sturmde on February 03, 2021, 12:39:14 PM
Another example... heading north on I-75 from Atlanta to Knoxville. It's ten miles shorter to go from Dalton GA to Cleveland TN using Georgia SR 71 and Tennessee SPR 60. And it avoids a lot of Chattanooga nonsense.
I'm no fan of I-75 in general. Last couple of times I've been in the area, I've used US 411 north from I-75. The only problem with it is that there are a lot of underposted four- and five-lane sections in Tennessee that ought to be 55 (or higher) but are 45 or 35.
And if I'm going to Dayton, I'll cross the river at Maysville and take US 68 north to the Wilmington area and then make my way over to I-75, especially if I'm going to get caught up in rush hour traffic in Cincinnati. I've never understood why northbound traffic stacks up so bad near the Lateral and Paddock.
This isn't a state route, but taking the Natchez Trace from Jackson to Nashville is longer than I-55/I-40 but it has less miles. A nice drive that is shorter in miles and length is taking US 49 and 98 from Jackson to Pensacola instead of I-55/I-10.
-Something really random that I love is when US routes have short concurrencies with interstates (signed of course), and then they leave the interstate on a nice freeway.
Quote from: kenarmy on February 03, 2021, 04:22:39 PM
This isn't a state route, but taking the Natchez Trace from Jackson to Nashville is longer than I-55/I-40 but it has less miles. A nice drive that is shorter in miles and length is taking US 49 and 98 from Jackson to Pensacola instead of I-55/I-10.
-Something really random that I love is when US routes have short concurrencies with interstates (signed of course), and then they leave the interstate on a nice freeway.
I thought US 49 to US 98 is already the default routing from Jackson to Mobile, then I-10 to Pensacola.
- US 90 should follow 90-ALT in Pensacola, its current routing is unnecessary
- 78 should be cut back to Atlanta, not Birmingham.
- 278 should use 49's bridge to cross the MS river (slightly longer, but it wouldn't be completely concurrent with others routes from the two independent points)
- US 63 should completely replace 167
- 641 should be extended into MS , not AL, by replacing MS 25
- 171 is more useless than 371.
- 280 is nearly as important as its parent now
- 311 gets more hate than it deserves
Quote from: kenarmy on February 10, 2021, 09:06:55 AM
:
- 641 should be extended into MS , not AL, by replacing MS 25
:
641 should run down to Florence AL, and then follow AL 157 to meet up with I-65 in Cullman. It then provides a wide west bypass of Nashville. Also, get it north of the Ohio this time into Illinois, and follow IL 1 as far north as the southern suburbs of Chicago.
.
As to your 78 ending in Atlanta.... fine... but just put white-out on all the 2's in the 278 shields west of Atlanta, and promote 278 to 78.
I think that US-25W and US-11E should both become state highways and US-25E and US-11W should retain there route numbers.
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 15, 2021, 07:39:55 PM
I think that US-25W and US-11E should both become state highways and US-25E and US-11W should retain there route numbers.
Well, the 25W elimination was proposed along the way to extend 129 up 25W, and 25E become plain 25... and that was before I-75. Would have worked, too...
.
But now, it's the solution: eliminate 25W altogether, and extend 129 up 11E to end at 321. 25E becomes 25, and 11W becomes 11. Sure, you could have 129 take over 11W, but 11E has long concurrencies with 321, 19W, and 19.
Quote from: sturmde on February 16, 2021, 08:36:13 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 15, 2021, 07:39:55 PM
I think that US-25W and US-11E should both become state highways and US-25E and US-11W should retain there route numbers.
Well, the 25W elimination was proposed along the way to extend 129 up 25W, and 25E become plain 25... and that was before I-75. Would have worked, too...
.
But now, it's the solution: eliminate 25W altogether, and extend 129 up 11E to end at 321. 25E becomes 25, and 11W becomes 11. Sure, you could have 129 take over 11W, but 11E has long concurrencies with 321, 19W, and 19.
I was just on both 25 and 11 in that area three days ago that's why I made a comment on it. I didn't even know which 25 to take so I had to look them up and see where they went. I ended up on 25E due to it being about 30 miles shorter than 25W which is why I think it should just be one route and the other route should be a state highway and so I could stay away from I-75. Furthermore I think 25E is more scenic as well.
A different solution regarding US 11E...
have US 321 replace US 11E to Knoxville
put US 70 onto current US 321 from Lenoir City to Newport
re-extend US 411 to Bluff City
Same thing with US-70. Make US-70N mainline US-70 and make US-70S a state highway. Also US-19E and US-19W same thing 19W should be US-19 and 19E should be state highways. Aren't all these state highways anyway? Like 25W follows TN- 9, 25E follows TN-32.
Except that a "plain" US 70 already exists, so both US 70N and US 70S would be downgraded.
70S between US 41 and US 70 could be an extended US 412...
70N definitely no longer needs to be a US route with I-40 all over it.
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on February 17, 2021, 02:04:52 PM
Except that a "plain" US 70 already exists, so both US 70N and US 70S would be downgraded.
I never even noticed that. Yeah indeed 70N and 70S should both be downgraded to state highways.
Also make US-31W between Nashville and Louisville into just US-31 and make US-31E a state highway. I think these things are needed to ease confusion. The US highway would be placed on the shorter route for all of the highways that I have mentioned.
I suggested this in fictional before, for the US 31 suffixes, here's the two options I have, both involving keeping US 31E as the sole US 31:
- Renumber US 31W as an US 42 extension to Nashville.
or
- Renumber US 31W north of Bowling Green as an US 79 extension, and combine that with US 42 to form a single SW-NE diagonal US route. Downgrade US 31W south of Bowling Green to a state route.
US 33 and US 42 can swap numbers after this if you really want even for E-W and odd for N-S. It'll fit nicely in the grid for both after the swap. For me, I don't care that US 42 is an even number on a N-S corridor.
I don't understand the Alternate routes they have either. Isn't that basically the same thing as having the E,W,N or S next to the number? A lot of these are just glorified state highways anyway and in Tennessee they are an unsigned state highway as well.
For example, I was following US-25E's routing and came into Tennessee, made it to Tazewell and then I lost US-25E's routing somehow and managed to start following TN-33 towards Knoxville. I obviously missed the 25E sign but turned around and backtracked. I found out that the sign was there and I just simply missed it. But it sure seemed like the sign wasn't there. On Google Maps too it's not signed as US-25E just TN-32 and that threw me off.
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 17, 2021, 02:25:32 PM
I don't understand the Alternate routes they have either. Isn't that basically the same thing as having the E,W,N or S next to the number? A lot of these are just glorified state highways anyway and in Tennessee they are an unsigned state highway as well.
For example, I was following US-25E's routing and came into Tennessee, made it to Tazewell and then I lost US-25E's routing somehow and managed to start following TN-33 towards Knoxville. I obviously missed the 25E sign but turned around and backtracked. I found out that the sign was there and I just simply missed it. But it sure seemed like the sign wasn't there. On Google Maps too it's not signed as US-25E just TN-32 and that threw me off.
The A routes are there because AASHO wouldn't let them continue to use E-W-N-S suffixes. Tennessee did change 70S to 70A for a time in the 1930s and begged AASHO to let them change it back. Tennessee flat out ignored AASHOs changing 19E to 19A (which made some commercial maps) and dissolving 11E to TN 34 where US 411 didn't take it over (also made some maps). AASHO finally officially re-recognized 11, 19, 25 and 45's suffixed routes in 1952.
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 17, 2021, 10:33:00 AM
Same thing with US-70. Make US-70N mainline US-70 and make US-70S a state highway. Also US-19E and US-19W same thing 19W should be US-19 and 19E should be state highways. Aren't all these state highways anyway? Like 25W follows TN- 9, 25E follows TN-32.
19E should be 19, and 19W should be a state highway. There's a marked difference in road quality; 19E is a much better road than 19W.
Or keep 19 on I-26 and make both 19E and 19W state routes.
I'd be in favor of turning 25E into 25, and truncating it at I-75 in Corbin, decommissioning both 25W in Tennessee and Kentucky, and 25 between Corbin and the Ohio River.
Quote from: Mapmikey on February 17, 2021, 02:56:18 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 17, 2021, 02:25:32 PM
I don't understand the Alternate routes they have either. Isn't that basically the same thing as having the E,W,N or S next to the number? A lot of these are just glorified state highways anyway and in Tennessee they are an unsigned state highway as well.
For example, I was following US-25E's routing and came into Tennessee, made it to Tazewell and then I lost US-25E's routing somehow and managed to start following TN-33 towards Knoxville. I obviously missed the 25E sign but turned around and backtracked. I found out that the sign was there and I just simply missed it. But it sure seemed like the sign wasn't there. On Google Maps too it's not signed as US-25E just TN-32 and that threw me off.
The A routes are there because AASHO wouldn't let them continue to use E-W-N-S suffixes. Tennessee did change 70S to 70A for a time in the 1930s and begged AASHO to let them change it back. Tennessee flat out ignored AASHOs changing 19E to 19A (which made some commercial maps) and dissolving 11E to TN 34 where US 411 didn't take it over (also made some maps). AASHO finally officially re-recognized 11, 19, 25 and 45's suffixed routes in 1952.
Too bad AASHTO pays 49's split dust and won't update their log to reflect newer alignments.
^ Because, as noted upthread, split US routes are not acceptable per AASHTO's US route policy and they won't approve those alignment changes until MDOT opts to eliminate the split.
Quote from: hbelkins on February 17, 2021, 05:09:26 PM
I'd be in favor of turning 25E into 25, and truncating it at I-75 in Corbin, decommissioning both 25W in Tennessee and Kentucky, and 25 between Corbin and the Ohio River.
I thought this would be a good idea too. But then because all the decommissioned sections would need to be KY highways (in the absence of county roads) why bother? All it does is change the sign.
Quote from: froggie on February 17, 2021, 06:41:09 PM
^ Because, as noted upthread, split US routes are not acceptable per AASHTO's US route policy and they won't approve those alignment changes until MDOT opts to eliminate the split.
Right, but i think its more sticky than the other split routes since they are basically the same length and are equally important
Quote from: GaryV on February 18, 2021, 07:43:12 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on February 17, 2021, 05:09:26 PM
I'd be in favor of turning 25E into 25, and truncating it at I-75 in Corbin, decommissioning both 25W in Tennessee and Kentucky, and 25 between Corbin and the Ohio River.
I thought this would be a good idea too. But then because all the decommissioned sections would need to be KY highways (in the absence of county roads) why bother? All it does is change the sign.
A US highway has a bit more importance than a state highway but all my ideas have the US highway using the shorter route like they should. When you come into a situation like 25E and 25W you'd have to look and see which one is the shorter route because there is no way I'd want to be on the longer route. So you take 25E between Newport, TN and Corbin, KY because it's shorter. 25W becomes useless as a US highway.
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 18, 2021, 11:15:15 AM
A US highway has a bit more importance than a state highway but all my ideas have the US highway using the shorter route like they should. When you come into a situation like 25E and 25W you'd have to look and see which one is the shorter route because there is no way I'd want to be on the longer route. So you take 25E between Newport, TN and Corbin, KY because it's shorter. 25W becomes useless as a US highway.
But if the longer route serves more towns/people/traffic, then it could be argued it's the more important of the two and therefore better deserves the US designation. I don't think shorter—longer should be the only consideration.
Quote from: kphoger on February 18, 2021, 11:21:56 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 18, 2021, 11:15:15 AM
A US highway has a bit more importance than a state highway but all my ideas have the US highway using the shorter route like they should. When you come into a situation like 25E and 25W you'd have to look and see which one is the shorter route because there is no way I'd want to be on the longer route. So you take 25E between Newport, TN and Corbin, KY because it's shorter. 25W becomes useless as a US highway.
But if the longer route serves more towns/people/traffic, then it could be argued it's the more important of the two and therefore better deserves the US designation. I don't think shorter—longer should be the only consideration.
This is one where AASHTO's suggestion makes sense, change the shortest one into an alternate! This reminds me of US 90's routing in Pensacola where 90 does a weird U, but the shorter route is designated 90A.
Quote from: kphoger on February 18, 2021, 11:21:56 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 18, 2021, 11:15:15 AM
A US highway has a bit more importance than a state highway but all my ideas have the US highway using the shorter route like they should. When you come into a situation like 25E and 25W you'd have to look and see which one is the shorter route because there is no way I'd want to be on the longer route. So you take 25E between Newport, TN and Corbin, KY because it's shorter. 25W becomes useless as a US highway.
But if the longer route serves more towns/people/traffic, then it could be argued it's the more important of the two and therefore better deserves the US designation. I don't think shorter—longer should be the only consideration.
When you have a situation like that I would think the older or shorter routing is what they would choose for the mainline US highway. There's only like six highways that have this that I can even think of and US-45's is pretty close to the same length too. US-11,19,25,31,45 and 49 so why not just eliminate them all at this point?
Having made the drive from Houston to New Orleans and my parents' house in Mississippi hundreds of times, iH 10/12/55 all get boring-incredibly boring and tiring. So I've made it a point to change up the route as much as possible. If I'm going to New Orleans first or as the only destination, I'll try to use US 90 for most of the trip, and always from Lafayette to Nola. I love that trip through the swamps on future IH 49. If I'm going to Baton Rouge or Mississippi I have taken 90 from Houston to Lafayette and then 190, I've even gone the back roads– once I took SH 105 to US 69/96/287, then state highway 12 to Louisiana and la 12/190. Lots of different ways.
My potentially unpopular opinion: I love US 90 alternate in Texas.
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 18, 2021, 03:33:07 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 18, 2021, 11:21:56 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 18, 2021, 11:15:15 AM
A US highway has a bit more importance than a state highway but all my ideas have the US highway using the shorter route like they should. When you come into a situation like 25E and 25W you'd have to look and see which one is the shorter route because there is no way I'd want to be on the longer route. So you take 25E between Newport, TN and Corbin, KY because it's shorter. 25W becomes useless as a US highway.
But if the longer route serves more towns/people/traffic, then it could be argued it's the more important of the two and therefore better deserves the US designation. I don't think shorter—longer should be the only consideration.
When you have a situation like that I would think the older or shorter routing is what they would choose for the mainline US highway. There's only like six highways that have this that I can even think of and US-45's is pretty close to the same length too. US-11,19,25,31,45 and 49 so why not just eliminate them all at this point?
Don't forget US 101-ALT around Oceanview, WA. That's a pretty good place for an ALT, though I suppose you could downgrade the mainline to two state highways if you really wanted to.
Quote from: kenarmy on February 18, 2021, 09:55:17 AM
Quote from: froggie on February 17, 2021, 06:41:09 PM
^ Because, as noted upthread, split US routes are not acceptable per AASHTO's US route policy and they won't approve those alignment changes until MDOT opts to eliminate the split.
Right, but i think its more sticky than the other split routes since they are basically the same length and are equally important
Your "equally important" argument loses steam when one considers that MDOT opted to 4-lane one but not the other.
There's no reason why they couldn't make one the "mainline" and the other an Alternative route...there's even precedent for such within the state, given 45/ALT 45 between Brooksville and Shannon.
Quote from: froggie on February 18, 2021, 10:03:56 PM
Quote from: kenarmy on February 18, 2021, 09:55:17 AM
Quote from: froggie on February 17, 2021, 06:41:09 PM
^ Because, as noted upthread, split US routes are not acceptable per AASHTO's US route policy and they won't approve those alignment changes until MDOT opts to eliminate the split.
Right, but i think its more sticky than the other split routes since they are basically the same length and are equally important
Your "equally important" argument loses steam when one considers that MDOT opted to 4-lane one but not the other.
There's no reason why they couldn't make one the "mainline" and the other an Alternative route...there's even precedent for such within the state, given 45/ALT 45 between Brooksville and Shannon.
I didn't say they couldn't, I just said it's
more sticky. True, 49w is fourlaned. But it is only 0.3 miles shorter and 4 minutes shorter on average. Disregarding times, look at the other current split routes (sorry if these are wrong but im sure these are all more than 0.3)
- One of the 11s is 10 miles longer
- One of the 19s is 13 miles longer
- One of the 25's is significantly longer.
- One of the 31s is 11 miles longer
- One of the 45's is 4 miles longer (the other one)
While we're on the topic of suffixed routes, here's one of my unpopular opinions for suffixed interstates: I-70N for Baltimore and I-70S for DC makes sense to me as much as the split I-35s.
Quote from: SkyPesos on February 18, 2021, 10:58:48 PM
While we're on the topic of suffixed routes, here's one of my unpopular opinions for suffixed interstates: I-70N for Baltimore and I-70S for DC makes sense to me as much as the split I-35s.
The difference is that 70 ends in Baltimore. Both 35's are through routed. Where would 70 pick up on the east end?
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 19, 2021, 06:40:56 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on February 18, 2021, 10:58:48 PM
While we're on the topic of suffixed routes, here's one of my unpopular opinions for suffixed interstates: I-70N for Baltimore and I-70S for DC makes sense to me as much as the split I-35s.
The difference is that 70 ends in Baltimore. Both 35's are through routed. Where would 70 pick up on the east end?
It doesn't have to pick up anything at the other end (*cough* the three I-69 branches). Why I think this one makes sense is that like with I-35, there's two large cities in a metro area (well, technically combined statistical area for DC/Baltimore), with one branch to each. And the branches themself are relatively short, unlike the 800 mile I-80N to Portland that used to exist in the system.
Quote from: SkyPesos on February 19, 2021, 07:08:16 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 19, 2021, 06:40:56 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on February 18, 2021, 10:58:48 PM
While we're on the topic of suffixed routes, here's one of my unpopular opinions for suffixed interstates: I-70N for Baltimore and I-70S for DC makes sense to me as much as the split I-35s.
The difference is that 70 ends in Baltimore. Both 35's are through routed. Where would 70 pick up on the east end?
It doesn't have to pick up anything at the other end (*cough* the three I-69 branches). Why I think this one makes sense is that like with I-35, there's two large cities in a metro area (well, technically combined statistical area for DC/Baltimore), with one branch to each. And the branches themself are relatively short, unlike the 800 mile I-80N to Portland that used to exist in the system.
So you are saying that I-270 should be I-70S and the mainline I-70 should be I-70N? Or what route do you have in mind?
The I-69 branches were a bad idea. Just because they exist doesn't mean we should make more of them.
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 19, 2021, 07:37:24 AM
So you are saying that I-270 should be I-70S and the mainline I-70 should be I-70N? Or what route do you have in mind?
Yes, that's what I have in mind, like what it was before the suffixes got removed. Though, in an ideal fictional world for me, I have the I-70 mainline to DC with an extension east. Not going to list the details for that here, it's in my fictional compilation thread.
Quote from: 1 on February 19, 2021, 07:40:42 AM
The I-69 branches were a bad idea. Just because they exist doesn't mean we should make more of them.
The population for the DC and Baltimore metros combined is about the same as the DFW area, and 8x more than Brownsville and McAllen combined. Laredo is like 140 miles away from McAllen, so I'm not even going to count that. There's many more reasons why the I-69 branches are bad that's not related to them not meeting up at both ends, but I think we all know.
Quote from: SkyPesos on February 19, 2021, 07:08:16 AM
It doesn't have to pick up anything at the other end (*cough* the three I-69 branches).
You can't be OK with the I-69 branches. That's, like, a requirement for signing up on the forum, isn't it?
Quote from: SkyPesos on February 19, 2021, 09:14:57 AM
There's many more reasons why the I-69 branches are bad that's not related to them not meeting up at both ends, but I think we all know.
Well, OK, I guess you can stay...
US 87 should continue south through Midland, replacing TX-349 so that both Midland and Odessa have a north-south US route through them. Also TX-349 is way too high and convoluted a number for that route. US87 east of Lamesa, TX can become US86.
Quote from: kphoger on February 19, 2021, 10:31:39 AM
You can't be OK with the I-69 branches. That's, like, a requirement for signing up on the forum, isn't it?
More specifically, if your reason for joining is "I love the I-69 branches", you will not be approved.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on February 19, 2021, 10:33:04 AM
US 87 should continue south through Midland, replacing TX-349 so that both Midland and Odessa have a north-south US route through them. Also TX-349 is way too high and convoluted a number for that route. US87 east of Lamesa, TX can become US86.
I think it would be better if instead US 385 was shifted to 349 from Odessa to its northern terminus. and then over TX 137 to realign with itself. This route is only 1 minute longer than 385's current routing. now you have a route that connects Midland and Odessa.
Quote from: webny99 on February 19, 2021, 10:53:09 AM
Quote from: kphoger on February 19, 2021, 10:31:39 AM
You can't be OK with the I-69 branches. That's, like, a requirement for signing up on the forum, isn't it?
More specifically, if your reason for joining is "I love the I-69 branches", you will not be approved.
Have anyone tried signing up an alt account here and use that reason before?
Quote from: webny99 on February 19, 2021, 10:53:09 AM
Quote from: kphoger on February 19, 2021, 10:31:39 AM
You can't be OK with the I-69 branches. That's, like, a requirement for signing up on the forum, isn't it?
More specifically, if your reason for joining is "I love the I-69 branches", you will not be approved.
*deletes and re-registers to find out the truth of this statement*
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 19, 2021, 06:40:56 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on February 18, 2021, 10:58:48 PM
While we're on the topic of suffixed routes, here's one of my unpopular opinions for suffixed interstates: I-70N for Baltimore and I-70S for DC makes sense to me as much as the split I-35s.
The difference is that 70 ends in Baltimore. Both 35's are through routed. Where would 70 pick up on the east end?
Under this theory they would meet back up in Annapolis...70N uses I-97 and 70S uses I-595
Using the I-69 branches as precedent is a terrible idea, because I-69 is only like that because of quirks in the I-69 law. Non-legislated routes don't have the same reason for splitting that the I-69 branches do.
Quote from: webny99 on February 19, 2021, 10:53:09 AM
Quote from: kphoger on February 19, 2021, 10:31:39 AM
You can't be OK with the I-69 branches. That's, like, a requirement for signing up on the forum, isn't it?
More specifically, if your reason for joining is "I love the I-69 branches", you will not be approved.
No, you'll be approved, but instead of being taken to AARoads, you'll instead be signed up for WWRoads, CCRoads, or EERoads, all of which have completely different users and topics. EERoads has an interesting, long-running thread called Ellenland, about a well-run fictional country where everything is decided by pure logic.
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 19, 2021, 02:59:19 PM
Using the I-69 branches as precedent is a terrible idea, because I-69 is only like that because of quirks in the I-69 law. Non-legislated routes don't have the same reason for splitting that the I-69 branches do.
Quote from: webny99 on February 19, 2021, 10:53:09 AM
Quote from: kphoger on February 19, 2021, 10:31:39 AM
You can't be OK with the I-69 branches. That's, like, a requirement for signing up on the forum, isn't it?
More specifically, if your reason for joining is "I love the I-69 branches", you will not be approved.
No, you'll be approved, but instead of being taken to AARoads, you'll instead be signed up for WWRoads, CCRoads, or EERoads, all of which have completely different users and topics. EERoads has an interesting, long-running thread called Ellenland, about a well-run fictional country where everything is decided by pure logic.
How about FFRoads, with the F for FritzOwl?
DDRoads. DD = Dunkin Donuts, but DDR = Dance Dance Revolution or Deutsche Demokratische Republik (East Germany).
CCR = Creedence Clearwater Revival forum?
I don't understand the existence of Alternate US 41 in Kentucky between Madisonville and Henderson. What is now signed as the alternate was originally US 41 before a new, more direct route was built. No one is going to use the Alternate US 41 route as the primary route between the two towns due to the fact that it's out of the way. (Of course, most through traffic is going to use the former Pennyrile Parkway/current I-69).
Ok but US 6 and US 24 are so similar.. They both have curves near their terminuses, they both replaced some of 40S, they both have only one child route but formerly had another one, they both parallel I-70, they both got truncated from a lengthy overlap with a US route, and if they swapped numbers they would still mostly fit the system. And 24 is a multiple of 6 :-o Coincidence? I think not.
Quote from: kenarmy on February 19, 2021, 09:47:23 PM
Ok but US 6 and US 24 are so similar.. They both have curves near their terminuses, they both replaced some of 40S, they both have only one child route but formerly had another one, they both parallel I-70, they both got truncated from a lengthy overlap with a US route, and if they swapped numbers they would still mostly fit the system. And 24 is a multiple of 6 :-o Coincidence? I think not.
US 6 and 66 are also similar. Both used to go between the LA and Chicago metro areas, and the latter is two sixes :)
Quote from: kphoger on February 19, 2021, 10:31:39 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on February 19, 2021, 07:08:16 AM
It doesn't have to pick up anything at the other end (*cough* the three I-69 branches).
You can't be OK with the I-69 branches. That's, like, a requirement for signing up on the forum, isn't it?
Quote from: SkyPesos on February 19, 2021, 09:14:57 AM
There's many more reasons why the I-69 branches are bad that's not related to them not meeting up at both ends, but I think we all know.
Well, OK, I guess you can stay...
As a Texan, I find the three branches of IH 69 kind of neat in an "only in Texas" kind of way.
I mean. Interstate 69C?
Quote from: achilles765 on February 22, 2021, 10:05:04 AM
Quote from: kphoger on February 19, 2021, 10:31:39 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on February 19, 2021, 07:08:16 AM
It doesn't have to pick up anything at the other end (*cough* the three I-69 branches).
You can't be OK with the I-69 branches. That's, like, a requirement for signing up on the forum, isn't it?
Quote from: SkyPesos on February 19, 2021, 09:14:57 AM
There's many more reasons why the I-69 branches are bad that's not related to them not meeting up at both ends, but I think we all know.
Well, OK, I guess you can stay...
As a Texan, I find the three branches of IH 69 kind of neat in an "only in Texas" kind of way.
I mean. Interstate 69C?
I still don't see why 37 couldn't have been extended down 69E.
Quote from: JKRhodes on January 26, 2021, 02:14:30 PM
Quote from: kenarmy on January 26, 2021, 08:57:08 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 26, 2021, 08:08:50 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on January 25, 2021, 08:22:02 PM
Quote from: kenarmy on January 25, 2021, 08:13:54 PM
- US 70 should go west of globe, not 60.
For me, in addition to that, US 66 west of Springfield should've stayed as US 60, makes more sense as a corridor than the US 60 what we have now, which seems like to take a more convoluted routing between Springfield and LA, because US 66 took the preferred routing. Not sure what the obsession of keeping LA to Chicago on a single number is. Why not route US 30 east of Pittsburgh on the US 22 corridor instead to have Chicago to NYC on a single number, if this is what they're going with?
Why US 70? One could argue it had no business going west of Globe to begin with given it was always multiplexed with another US Route into Los Angeles (mostly US 60). I could see an argument if US 60 moved to; AZ 260, AZ 87, and AZ 202 given that corridor is the arguably the more modern route of travel from Phoenix-Show Low once it gets to the mountains.
But, 70 is supposed to be further south than 60, and it would be right above US 80. Like sky said, 66 was the route being used from Springfield to LA and that made 60 way more indirect. And also, yes, I meant to put 72 and 76 as one route on there.
US 60 can be re-tooled to serve primarily Northern AZ without dipping into Phoenix. It could potentially replace several routes: AZ 260, AZ 169, part of AZ 69, AZ 89, and AZ 71. If slow curve and rough terrain are a consideration, the route would lose Salt River Canyon and gain Yarnell Hill.
US 70 would become the sole route for the corridor between Tempe and Lordsburg.
AZ 77 would become the sole route number (a few short jogs aside) between Tucson and Holbrook.
Yes I think it's a great idea!
Pitch this routing to the CEO of the DOT there and see if you can make it happen.
Quote from: froggie on February 01, 2021, 12:19:55 PM
Quote from: kenarmy on February 01, 2021, 12:49:35 AMNo one is using 43 honestly.
This is heavily used between Columbia, TN and Florence, AL.
I know a number of folks in western Alabama who would disagree with this.
Quote45 is a wanna-be 51.
45 has more independent utility than 51, since much of 51 (including everything south of Memphis) has been overshadowed by Interstates.
QuoteUS 49 has never been truncated
True, but 49 is only really important on a regional/national sense south of Jackson. It's as much of a "wanna-be" corridor north of Jackson as what you claim 45 to be.
Interstate Edition:
- I-29 and I-49 should not be combined. I'm aware that there are other grid breakers, but an I-29 in NOLA and an I-49 in ND both sound weird.
- I-5 is messy and slapping an interstate on 99's corridor won't do justice.
- I-25 > I-15
- I-73 doesn't need to exist
- If you think it does, then "East" 74 shouldn't exist.
- I-42 is a joke.
(HELP, I had no idea there was a seperate I-87 in NC.)
- I-81 should end in Birmingham, I-59 should end in Meridian. (makes more sense than the current setup)
- I-55 would be perfect if it actually went to NOLA and got a new bridge in Memphis.
- US 80 is underrated. I mean it has I-20, I-10, I-8, I-16, I-85 (even more so down the pipeline) following its route for a decent distance. US 66 who?
- I-68 should be I-70.
- I-64 and I-44 shouldn't be combined and idk why people want this.
- Both I-88's are unnecessary.
- I-89 is too.
- I-476/ and the Atlantic City Expy is more deserving of a 2di number than I-99.
- I-49 is just fine terminating at Lafayette.
- Hear me out: I-75 to Chattanooga, all of I-24, then I-57, then I-43 as one continuous route.
- I-69's split routes are cute.
- I-22 ending at I-269 is a crime.
- I-20 should be the one going to CA! I-80 --> I-40 --> I-20.
- I-12 is the best intrastate interstate.
And I'll think of some more later :D
Quote from: kenarmy on March 11, 2021, 02:52:42 PM
- I-69's split routes are cute.
Yeah, I think 'cute' is a decent way to describe it. Kind of like how you might describe a child
before he or she grows up and gets a real job. I-69's split routes were cute on paper, but they're annoying now that they've grown up and gotten real jobs.
Quote from: kenarmy on March 11, 2021, 02:52:42 PM
- I-89 is too.
I-89 is part of the fastest route between Boston and Montreal, and it's one of the routes for E-W travel in upper New England. How is that useless?
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 11, 2021, 03:05:39 PM
Quote from: kenarmy on March 11, 2021, 02:52:42 PM
- I-89 is too.
I-89 is part of the fastest route between Boston and Montreal, and it's one of the routes for E-W travel in upper New England. How is that useless?
But It's only 10 mins shorter than I-91/3 and that Canada route. There's 3dis that do it better.
Quote from: kenarmy on March 11, 2021, 02:52:42 PM
- I-68 should be I-70.
Out of total curiosity, how would you have I-70 jump down to the I-68 corridor on the west end? And would the orphaned Breezewood-Hancock stretch get a 3di number?
Quote from: kenarmy on March 11, 2021, 02:52:42 PM
- I-20 should be the one going to CA! I-80 --> I-40 --> I-20.
I think I posted in another thread a while ago about a fictional idea where I-10 & I-20 overlap from I-20's current terminus to the I-8/I-10 interchange, with I-10 then following I-8's current route to San Diego and I-20 following I-10's current route to Phoenix & LA. Perhaps for no other reason than getting another x0 to the west coast and dethroning I-80/I-90 for longest interstate overlap title :-D
Quote from: kenarmy on March 11, 2021, 04:14:07 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 11, 2021, 03:05:39 PM
Quote from: kenarmy on March 11, 2021, 02:52:42 PM
- I-89 is too.
I-89 is part of the fastest route between Boston and Montreal, and it's one of the routes for E-W travel in upper New England. How is that useless?
But It's only 10 mins shorter than I-91/3 and that Canada route. There's 3dis that do it better.
How about the E-W travel in upper New England part?
Kind of curious, would you call I-71 between Cincinnati and Columbus useless because it's only 20 minutes shorter than I-75/675/70?
Quote from: jmacswimmer on March 11, 2021, 04:23:41 PM
Quote from: kenarmy on March 11, 2021, 02:52:42 PM
- I-68 should be I-70.
Out of total curiosity, how would you have I-70 jump down to the I-68 corridor on the west end? And would the orphaned Breezewood-Hancock stretch get a 3di number?
Quote from: kenarmy on March 11, 2021, 02:52:42 PM
- I-20 should be the one going to CA! I-80 --> I-40 --> I-20.
I think I posted in another thread a while ago about a fictional idea where I-10 & I-20 overlap from I-20's current terminus to the I-8/I-10 interchange, with I-10 then following I-8's current route to San Diego and I-20 following I-10's current route to Phoenix & LA. Perhaps for no other reason than getting another x0 to the west coast and dethroning I-80/I-90 for longest interstate overlap title :-D
I-70 could get to I-68 via PA 43 to Uniontown and US 40 from there to I-68. This is the fastest routing on Google Maps from midwest cities near I-70 like StL, Indy, Cincy and Columbus to DC and Baltimore. Note that US 40 is a 2 lane road. Though this leaves the part of I-68 west of US 40, I-70 between PA 43 and New Stanton and I-70 between Breezewood and I-68 unnumbered.
As for getting more x0 to the west coast without being FritzOwl, I have this on my fictional compilation thread
Interstate - Western Terminus
I-10 - San Diego
I-20 - Los Angeles
I-40 - Bakersfield
I-70 - San Francisco
I-80 - Portland
I-90 - Seattle
Quote from: jmacswimmer on March 11, 2021, 04:23:41 PM
Quote from: kenarmy on March 11, 2021, 02:52:42 PM
- I-68 should be I-70.
Out of total curiosity, how would you have I-70 jump down to the I-68 corridor on the west end? And would the orphaned Breezewood-Hancock stretch get a 3di number?
Y'all are going to hurt me for this one, but I think I-70 should follow I-79. I don't like I-70's march from Hancock to Breezewood and I think it would be better suited as a 3di.
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 11, 2021, 04:28:06 PM
Quote from: kenarmy on March 11, 2021, 04:14:07 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 11, 2021, 03:05:39 PM
Quote from: kenarmy on March 11, 2021, 02:52:42 PM
- I-89 is too.
I-89 is part of the fastest route between Boston and Montreal, and it's one of the routes for E-W travel in upper New England. How is that useless?
But It's only 10 mins shorter than I-91/3 and that Canada route. There's 3dis that do it better.
How about the E-W travel in upper New England part?
Kind of curious, would you call I-71 between Cincinnati and Columbus useless because it's only 20 minutes shorter than I-75/675/70?
I guess you could argue that, but I mean it's not anything that impressive for a 2di anyway. Maybe if it had a bridge over the lake to I-87. If I-71 was only between Cincinnati and Columbus, then yes I would. When I say useless, I say it is an aspect of all the 2dis btw.
Quote from: kenarmy on March 11, 2021, 02:52:42 PM
- I-68 should be I-70.
Quote from: jmacswimmer on March 11, 2021, 04:23:41 PM
<snipped> And would the orphaned Breezewood-Hancock stretch get a 3di number?
How about I-776 still routed through Breezewood? :pan:
Quote from: Dirt Roads on March 11, 2021, 07:34:22 PM
Quote from: kenarmy on March 11, 2021, 02:52:42 PM
- I-68 should be I-70.
Quote from: jmacswimmer on March 11, 2021, 04:23:41 PM
<snipped> And would the orphaned Breezewood-Hancock stretch get a 3di number?
How about I-776 still routed through Breezewood? :pan:
Well maybe the 3di can just end at US 30 instead of swinging around.
Why does US 79 end in Russellville, KY? It looks like it continue on to Indianapolis via KY SR 79 and IN SR 135.
If you're going to argue that 89 is unnecessary, then the same argument can be applied to 59 south of Meridian.
kenarmy is probably not aware that Quebec is working on completing a direct freeway connection between 89 and A-35. He's probably also unaware that 89 is generally better than going through Franconia Notch or over the Sheffield Heights in the winter.
Quote from: kenarmy on March 11, 2021, 04:14:07 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 11, 2021, 03:05:39 PM
Quote from: kenarmy on March 11, 2021, 02:52:42 PM
- I-89 is too.
I-89 is part of the fastest route between Boston and Montreal, and it's one of the routes for E-W travel in upper New England. How is that useless?
But It's only 10 mins shorter than I-91/3 and that Canada route. There's 3dis that do it better.
How is I-89 unnecessary? It serves the two largest metro areas in Vermont.
I-81 can't replace I-59. Then you'd have a ridiculous 40/75/81 triplex. Tennessee isn't North Carolina.
.
You could renumber I-59 north of Birmingham as I-67. Or I-61. Or keep it I-59 and change the southern I-59 to I-61 or I-63. Then it's just I-20 from Meridian to Birmingham.
.
I-42 is hella better than NC proposing I-36. And it'll at least go to an ocean..
.
Just terminate I-70 heading east at I-76. Run I-99 along 76 to Breezewood and then down I-70 and I-270. Let I-68 run east to Baltimore, run around 695 south and take over 97. 99 ends at DC at 495... which at least starts to make one iota of sense.
Quote from: sturmde on March 12, 2021, 06:03:15 PM
Just terminate I-70 heading east at I-76. Run I-99 along 76 to Breezewood and then down I-70 and I-270. Let I-68 run east to Baltimore, run around 695 south and take over 97. 99 ends at DC at 495... which at least starts to make one iota of sense.
If you're going to truncate one route at New Stanton, have it be 76, and 70 can continue on to Philadelphia. The x0 interstate gets priority in situations like this.
Quote from: sturmde on March 12, 2021, 06:03:15 PM
I-81 can't replace I-59. Then you'd have a ridiculous 40/75/81 triplex. Tennessee isn't North Carolina.
.
You could renumber I-59 north of Birmingham as I-67. Or I-61. Or keep it I-59 and change the southern I-59 to I-61 or I-63. Then it's just I-20 from Meridian to Birmingham.
Or if Alabama builds the Meridian-Montgomery freeway, extend I-20 over that and have it replace I-85 west of Atlanta. Then, extend I-22 over the Birmingham-Atlanta freeway. That leaves I-59 by itself. And I-85, well, will still be longer than I-45.
This recent conversation should be moved to fictional.
Quote from: froggie on March 12, 2021, 05:17:12 PM
If you're going to argue that 89 is unnecessary, then the same argument can be applied to 59 south of Meridian.
kenarmy is probably not aware that Quebec is working on completing a direct freeway connection between 89 and A-35. He's probably also unaware that 89 is generally better than going through Franconia Notch or over the Sheffield Heights in the winter.
I actually agree with the thing about 59.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on March 12, 2021, 05:18:55 PM
Quote from: kenarmy on March 11, 2021, 04:14:07 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 11, 2021, 03:05:39 PM
Quote from: kenarmy on March 11, 2021, 02:52:42 PM
- I-89 is too.
I-89 is part of the fastest route between Boston and Montreal, and it's one of the routes for E-W travel in upper New England. How is that useless?
But It's only 10 mins shorter than I-91/3 and that Canada route. There's 3dis that do it better.
How is I-89 unnecessary? It serves the two largest metro areas in Vermont.
Guys I don't mean like 100% useless, I just think compared with the other interstates it's just meh.
US 6, 49, and 98 are just meh compared to all the other US highways out there.
Quote from: US 89 on March 13, 2021, 01:13:27 AM
US 6, 49, and 98 are just meh compared to all the other US highways out there.
US 49 connects a capital with the coast and has a bridge over the MS, US 98 is a verryyyy important (49 is too) evacuation route, and don't get me started on all the major destinations it goes through. I shouldn't even have to explain US 6. What other highways are you talking about? Surely not US 89 :-D. But wait this is unpopular opinions-
Quote from: US 89 on March 13, 2021, 01:13:27 AM
US 6, 49, and 98 are just meh compared to all the other US highways out there.
What do you have against US 6? It literally goes from California to Cape Cod.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on March 13, 2021, 11:50:53 AM
Quote from: US 89 on March 13, 2021, 01:13:27 AM
US 6, 49, and 98 are just meh compared to all the other US highways out there.
What do you have against US 6? It literally goes from California to Cape Cod.
Think it's because 6, 49 and 98 happens to be the 3 US routes in kenarmy's sig. Not sure if he actually hates 6 or not; 6 is a US route I don't see a lot of people dislike, and it goes through Utah too.
Some people hate 6 for being a grid violation and mostly parallel to Interstates.
That brings up something. There was a thread from 2018 on the most roasted 2di (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=22666.0). Would be interesting to see the results of a similar thread for most roasted 2dus.
US 6 is the longest US Route ever but (according to some metrics) not currently.
Which brings another unpopular opinion: US Routes should be defined inside Yellowstone. This would settle the dispute on the current longest US Route in favor of US 20.
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on March 13, 2021, 02:09:47 PM
US 6 is the longest US Route ever but (according to some metrics) not currently.
Which brings another unpopular opinion: US Routes should be defined inside Yellowstone. This would settle the dispute on the current longest US Route in favor of US 20.
US-20 is 167 miles longer than US-6 so I don't think Yellowstone is going to make that mileage up.
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 13, 2021, 06:56:43 PM
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on March 13, 2021, 02:09:47 PM
US 6 is the longest US Route ever but (according to some metrics) not currently.
Which brings another unpopular opinion: US Routes should be defined inside Yellowstone. This would settle the dispute on the current longest US Route in favor of US 20.
US-20 is 167 miles longer than US-6 so I don't think Yellowstone is going to make that mileage up.
Some people count US 20 as two segments because of the Yellowstone gap.
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 13, 2021, 07:00:18 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 13, 2021, 06:56:43 PM
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on March 13, 2021, 02:09:47 PM
US 6 is the longest US Route ever but (according to some metrics) not currently.
Which brings another unpopular opinion: US Routes should be defined inside Yellowstone. This would settle the dispute on the current longest US Route in favor of US 20.
US-20 is 167 miles longer than US-6 so I don't think Yellowstone is going to make that mileage up.
Some people count US 20 as two segments because of the Yellowstone gap.
Which doesn't really make sense because they're clearly meant to be the same road. US 2, not so much.
I must defend the honor of 34. It has several sections of multilane arterial. In Illinois Galesburg area West and outside Sandwich to downtown Chicago. As well as sections in Iowa and Colorado.. It used to end at Michigan Ave. With US 66.
Though I don't like the Nebraska Routings . Also I would like to bring back an Historic 32 so we could complain about an Intrastate historic route. Unless we extend it to Omaha and we can complain about 6 and it's new historic concurrency.
The one I hate the most for being grid violation is US-33. It's totally east of US-31 and runs E-W.
Where exactly does the US-20 gap start and end? I followed US-20 from the end of US-14 and 16 to West Yellowstone and Google Maps acts as if the route doesn't have a gap in it. I followed it along US-191 as well.
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 14, 2021, 05:30:54 AM
Where exactly does the US-20 gap start and end? I followed US-20 from the end of US-14 and 16 to West Yellowstone and Google Maps acts as if the route doesn't have a gap in it. I followed it along US-191 as well.
At the border of the park. I know people have speculated as to the actual routes through the park on here, but I don't know what sources they've used to back them up.
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 13, 2021, 06:56:43 PM
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on March 13, 2021, 02:09:47 PM
US 6 is the longest US Route ever but (according to some metrics) not currently.
Which brings another unpopular opinion: US Routes should be defined inside Yellowstone. This would settle the dispute on the current longest US Route in favor of US 20.
US-20 is 167 miles longer than US-6 so I don't think Yellowstone is going to make that mileage up.
Don't you remember this thread?
US 6 may actually be LONGER than US 20 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=27532.0)
A selection of pertinent posts is shown below.
Quote from: usends on August 24, 2020, 12:19:35 PM
The 3365-mile figure cited on signs at both endpoints of US 20 seems to be significantly overstated. That number was sourced from AASHTO's 1989 route log, which a.) may not have been correct even back then, and b.) US 20 has had several realignments over the past 30+ years, each one of which affects its total mileage. I suspect both factors are in play; at any rate I calculate US 20's cross-country distance to be less than 3300 miles. And then when you subtract implied mileage though Yellowstone (which isn't officially part of US 20), the total distance comes out to be just under US 6's 3205 miles. Full article here (https://www.usends.com/blog/which-highway-is-longer-us-route-6-or-us-route-20)
Quote from: usends on August 25, 2020, 11:23:45 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on August 25, 2020, 10:44:01 AM
US-20 is supposedly 167 miles longer...
"Supposedly" is the whole point of this thread: I am questioning the so-called "official" mileages. My results are right there in the link for anyone to see, to compare to official DOT mileages, and/or to dispute if their own research indicates otherwise.
Quote from: usends on August 25, 2020, 07:44:39 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 25, 2020, 02:19:11 PM
I am suspicious of any methodology that doesn't use official DOT/AASHTO resources. Having dealt with this type of question dozens of times on Wikipedia with state routes, if you start straying from official sources, you risk misidentifying what the "real" route is.
I am suspicious of official DOT/AASHTO resources. I can appreciate your position, but I have seen plenty of examples where the data is either a.) wrong due to human error, b.) wrong because it's outdated, c.) internally inconsistent, or d.) correct but not intended for measuring border-to-border mileage (as you and I have discussed previously (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=26129.msg2466835#msg2466835)). Regardless, if DOT data is accurate, it should be able to stand up to a little fact-checking. And (as I discussed in post #30) 95% of the time my results do match up well with the official DOT figure.
Quote from: Mapmikey on August 26, 2020, 02:39:32 PM
I finally found my 1989 spreadsheet of US routes.
It does not count Yellowstone for US 20 at all (US 89 is also split; oddly, US 441's mileage through GSMNP is included). The east segment is 2500 miles and the west segment is 865 miles for a total of 3365.
However, it counts all the US 20 Bus and US 20 ALT routes in these totals!
Subtracting these out gets an east segment of 2376 miles and a west segment of 861 miles for a total of 3237 miles (in 1989...freewayization in Iowa has likely shortened it a little more)
For US 6: 3249 miles for full list which includes all US 6 ALT, US 6 Bus, US 6 Byp and US 6N.
Subtracting out everything gives 3208 miles. For the curious, it credits Colorado with 474 miles.
The actual difference between US 6 and US 20 on this is close enough that even what I did there won't conclude the question because Iowa may not be the only changes in the last 31 years (and who knows how much of Iowa it has correct as of 1989) for either route. For instance, two Pennsylvania bypasses of US 6 are not yet on there.
Quote from: xonhulu on August 26, 2020, 11:25:19 PM
Oregon chopped about 4 miles off US 20 when the Eddyville bypass opened in 2016. I can't think of any other major changes to 20 out here in recent years.
Quote from: Mapmikey on August 27, 2020, 06:37:56 AM
There is no grand total given and only state totals are shown (plus individual distances to the next US or Interstate route intersected), which do not include the bannered routes. But including the bannered routes is the only way to get to the quoted distance of 3365 miles.
If it counts all of US-20's business routes and all it's Alternate routes than you might have an argument that mainline US-20 isn't as long as mainline US-6. It's a tricky situation but the angle might make 6 longer but like I said in a previous post about 6 months ago 20 has to go around Lake Erie where 6 is already missing the lake due to it's angle plus the north-south section in Wyoming. But I'm not even sure so I'm just discussing at this point.
Quote from: 1 on March 13, 2021, 12:44:29 PM
Some people hate 6 for being a grid violation and mostly parallel to Interstates.
IMO, 6 is quite stupid. At least in the East, it doesn't do anything for long-distance traffic, except on Cape Cod and from Hartford to Providence. In Pennsylvania and Ohio, it's been totally supplanted for long distance traffic by I-90, I-86, and NY-17; it should be a state route in NY from the Thruway to the Palisades Parkway; and then it doesn't really do anything until Hartford. I'm going to maintain my opinion that most US highway designations are very stupid.
Even more:
- I-17 AND I-19 SHOULD NOT BE MERGED. Y'all are quick to roast I-59 for having a long concurrency with 20, but want this so bad..
- 89's truncation was unnecessary. If that's the case 70 should've been cut back to Las Cruces. (I hope US 89 doesn't see this :D)
- US 34 should've been killed during 6's mega extension, not 32 and 38.
- Current US 48> The other ones
- US 82 should still go to Las Cruces. Most of yall hate longer concurrencies but I don't see anything wrong with this.
- OH 3 is top 10 for state routes. I mean it connects the three largest cities in OH and has several US highways and I-71 following its route.
- US 163 should be decommissioned.
- US 50 should've always ended in Sacramento.
- CA was reaching by getting rid of US 60, I can kind of understand the other truncations and decommissioning.
- US 101> your favorite US route
Edit: Yes, even my favorite highway 49 :-D
- Everybody is hating on US 11 for being paralleled for so long, but what about US 5??
- US 65 holds the cake for most embarrassing truncation.
- US 6 and US 50 have the best concurrency. Ever.
- US 641 could easily become transcontinental.
- US 78> 74, 72, 76
- US 30 deserves more hate.
Quote from: kenarmy on March 23, 2021, 01:17:45 PM
- US 101> your favorite US route
So even above US 49 for you? :-D
Though I saw that you added US 50 into your sig. Good job, it's actually my favorite US route. One of three to pass through the nation's capital, and the only one of that three that isn't closely parallel with an interstate for the majority of its route. And my hometown bias for US 50, with it passing through 2/3 of the US cities I've lived in.
Quote from: kenarmy on March 23, 2021, 01:17:45 PM
- I-17 AND I-19 SHOULD NOT BE MERGED.
- OH 3 is top 10 for state routes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Numbered_Highway_System
Quote from: kphoger on March 23, 2021, 02:38:32 PM
Quote from: kenarmy on March 23, 2021, 01:17:45 PM
- I-17 AND I-19 SHOULD NOT BE MERGED.
- OH 3 is top 10 for state routes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Numbered_Highway_System
I made it clear that I was including interstates and state highways but thanks for letting us know : )
Quote from: kenarmy on March 23, 2021, 02:45:01 PM
Quote from: kphoger on March 23, 2021, 02:38:32 PM
Quote from: kenarmy on March 23, 2021, 01:17:45 PM
- I-17 AND I-19 SHOULD NOT BE MERGED.
- OH 3 is top 10 for state routes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Numbered_Highway_System
I made it clear that I was including interstates and state highways but thanks for letting us know : )
You can change title of the thread to something more general like "Unpopular route number opinions"
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 23, 2021, 02:46:35 PM
Quote from: kenarmy on March 23, 2021, 02:45:01 PM
Quote from: kphoger on March 23, 2021, 02:38:32 PM
Quote from: kenarmy on March 23, 2021, 01:17:45 PM
- I-17 AND I-19 SHOULD NOT BE MERGED.
- OH 3 is top 10 for state routes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Numbered_Highway_System
I made it clear that I was including interstates and state highways but thanks for letting us know : )
You can change title of the thread to something more general like "Unpopular route number opinions"
Oh well, y'all know what I mean. Well
most of y'all. While I'm here: I think "City routes" should've never been replaced by "Business"
Thought I would start this thread since a lot of people seem to be posting non-US route unpopular opinions in the Unpopular US Route Opinions thread.
Post your unpopular opinions about any route, whether it has to do with concurrencies, extensions, design, rerouting, renumbering, signage, or anything else.
The OP had zero Interstate or State routes.
:hmmm:
CA 1 north of the Golden Gate Bridge is just as scenic if not more so than the segment in Big Sur.
I-97 is fine as-is
US 61 didn't need to remain parallel to I-35 in MN. Those roads serve local traffic and should be managed at the county level. But that said, they shouldn't have decommissioned it along the I-35 concurrency.
Why are people so against US highways? Philosophically, I'm not much of a southerner, but the southern states do respect their US highways. I don't understand the purpose of decommissioning US routes to state routes, when the state still has to maintain the route, but then has spend money on resigning it as a state route? There are those of us who see value in US Routes as we prefer traversing the back routes across state lines.
Quote from: midwesternroadguy on March 23, 2021, 09:13:50 PM
Why are people so against US highways? Philosophically, I'm not much of a southerner, but the southern states do respect their US highways.
They do? Then why do several southern states dual-sign their US highways with state routes? Georgia comes to mind immediately.
QuoteI don't understand the purpose of decommissioning US routes to state routes, when the state still has to maintain the route, but then has spend money on resigning it as a state route? There are those of us who see value in US Routes as we prefer traversing the back routes across state lines.
All US routes are state-maintained routes. With the completion of the original Interstate highway system in the '70s, there has been little reason to keep the US highway system. California got rid of most of theirs 57 years ago. There is no reason to maintain US highway markings anymore, other than for nostalgia purposes. Canada does quite well without such a system, with the exception of the handful of Trans-Canada Highways they still sign.
This is not 1927, or even 1967. Most people are smart enough to be able to get where they want to go without US highways. Most trans-continental traffic is via Interstates, anyway.
I-99 is OK as a route number designation, and should be extended up I-390.
US 31 between Indy and South Bend does not need to be a full freeway.
Repeating one- or two-digit numbers within the same system in different geographies is dumb, and the shorter and/or less useful of the two should be a three-digit route number instead. Example: I-76 in Colorado and Nebraska should be: take your pick of an available I-x70 or an I-x80.
Quote from: stridentweasel on March 24, 2021, 04:29:26 PM
Repeating one- or two-digit numbers within the same system in different geographies is dumb, and the shorter and/or less useful of the two should be a three-digit route number instead. Example: I-76 in Colorado and Nebraska should be: take your pick of an available I-x70 or an I-x80.
Personally, I don't think there should ever be two routes with the same number in the same system that don't connect. This means that, if a segment in the middle is "implied" or removed, then one of the ends should be renumbered at that time.
US-2 ?
Long gaps in US routes make a lot more sense than extremely long concurrencies.
California is an isolated case. As a "corner state", the only US route that entered the state that didn't terminate there was, and still is, US 95. if the US route numbers were superfluous, I'm OK with the state removing them from their original termination back to a place where they were relevant.
While it is true that most cross-country travel is on interstates, some is not, and there is a benefit to having a second system of highways whose route numbers do not change when you cross a state line.
If a US route is paralleled by an Interstate route from a certain junction to the point where it ultimately terminates, I'm OK with truncating the US route.
Quote from: midwesternroadguy on March 23, 2021, 09:13:50 PM
Why are people so against US highways? Philosophically, I'm not much of a southerner, but the southern states do respect their US highways. I don't understand the purpose of decommissioning US routes to state routes, when the state still has to maintain the route, but then has spend money on resigning it as a state route? There are those of us who see value in US Routes as we prefer traversing the back routes across state lines.
I'm not against all US highways, only ones that have been turned into long interstate business routes.
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on March 23, 2021, 11:38:16 PM
Quote from: midwesternroadguy on March 23, 2021, 09:13:50 PM
Why are people so against US highways? Philosophically, I'm not much of a southerner, but the southern states do respect their US highways.
They do? Then why do several southern states dual-sign their US highways with state routes? Georgia comes to mind immediately.
QuoteI don't understand the purpose of decommissioning US routes to state routes, when the state still has to maintain the route, but then has spend money on resigning it as a state route? There are those of us who see value in US Routes as we prefer traversing the back routes across state lines.
All US routes are state-maintained routes. With the completion of the original Interstate highway system in the '70s, there has been little reason to keep the US highway system. California got rid of most of theirs 57 years ago. There is no reason to maintain US highway markings anymore, other than for nostalgia purposes. Canada does quite well without such a system, with the exception of the handful of Trans-Canada Highways they still sign.
This is not 1927, or even 1967. Most people are smart enough to be able to get where they want to go without US highways. Most trans-continental traffic is via Interstates, anyway.
Only Georgia. The rest use silent concurrencies.
Freeways should always become interstates if they meet standards and make sense as an I-route.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on March 24, 2021, 06:17:32 PM
Freeways should always become interstates if they meet standards and make sense as an I-route.
How is that an unpopular opinion? It seems like a lot of posters on this forum would probably agree.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 24, 2021, 06:29:18 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on March 24, 2021, 06:17:32 PM
Freeways should always become interstates if they meet standards and make sense as an I-route.
How is that an unpopular opinion? It seems like a lot of posters on this forum would probably agree.
I have seen too many people want to turn CA 99 back to US 99 instead of I-7 or I-9.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on March 24, 2021, 06:30:44 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 24, 2021, 06:29:18 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on March 24, 2021, 06:17:32 PM
Freeways should always become interstates if they meet standards and make sense as an I-route.
How is that an unpopular opinion? It seems like a lot of posters on this forum would probably agree.
I have seen too many people want to turn CA 99 back to US 99 instead of I-7 or I-9.
That's probably mostly just me. The only reason I say it because I like to get the Interstate-everything crowd spun up.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 24, 2021, 06:29:18 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on March 24, 2021, 06:17:32 PM
Freeways should always become interstates if they meet standards and make sense as an I-route.
How is that an unpopular opinion? It seems like a lot of posters on this forum would probably agree.
Probably because most posters look just at the first part (meet standards) and ignore the second part (make sense).
Quote from: froggie on March 24, 2021, 06:43:14 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 24, 2021, 06:29:18 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on March 24, 2021, 06:17:32 PM
Freeways should always become interstates if they meet standards and make sense as an I-route.
How is that an unpopular opinion? It seems like a lot of posters on this forum would probably agree.
Probably because most posters look just at the first part (meet standards) and ignore the second part (make sense).
There certainly are a lot of grid perfectionists and FritzOwl types out there that are into things like Interstate-everything. The lack of common sense in a lot of the road hobby is one of the aspects about it I find most annoying.
Quote from: kenarmy on March 23, 2021, 01:17:45 PM
- US 65 holds the cake for most embarrassing truncation.
US 113 says hold his cake
Mileage-based exit numbering is grossly overrated.
- The Redwood Highway was a more impressive engineering feat of the California First State Highway Bond Act era than the Old Ridge Route.
- US 80 is a way more historically significant route in Arizona than US 66.
- FL 4A did more to develop what would become the modern Overseas Highway than the Labor Day Hurricane of 1935.
- Postmiles still are useful and provide more information to the trained eye than Mile Markers.
- Reflective paint signs and button-copy get unfairly ripped on in a modern sense, they certainly were built far longer than reflective vinyl.
- US 191 over the Coronado Trail, US 550 over Red Mountain Pass and US 212 over the Beartooth Highway make US 129/The Dragon look tame.
- The Hoover Dam is just as much of a historic corridor for US 466 as US 93.
Quote from: roadman65 on March 24, 2021, 06:09:55 PM
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on March 23, 2021, 11:38:16 PM
Quote from: midwesternroadguy on March 23, 2021, 09:13:50 PM
Why are people so against US highways? Philosophically, I'm not much of a southerner, but the southern states do respect their US highways.
They do? Then why do several southern states dual-sign their US highways with state routes? Georgia comes to mind immediately.
QuoteI don't understand the purpose of decommissioning US routes to state routes, when the state still has to maintain the route, but then has spend money on resigning it as a state route? There are those of us who see value in US Routes as we prefer traversing the back routes across state lines.
All US routes are state-maintained routes. With the completion of the original Interstate highway system in the '70s, there has been little reason to keep the US highway system. California got rid of most of theirs 57 years ago. There is no reason to maintain US highway markings anymore, other than for nostalgia purposes. Canada does quite well without such a system, with the exception of the handful of Trans-Canada Highways they still sign.
This is not 1927, or even 1967. Most people are smart enough to be able to get where they want to go without US highways. Most trans-continental traffic is via Interstates, anyway.
Only Georgia. The rest use silent concurrencies.
You're right. My bad. I was specifically thinking about Alabama. On Google Maps, they show both a US and state highway (for example, US 80 and AL 8), but checking with Streetview shows that the state highway is not signed in the field.
Number of concurrent routes on a particular stretch should be limited to 2 maximum.
On a few occasions, the state route is cosigned in Alabama, but for the most part they're not.
HOWEVER, on the subject of Alabama, it should be noted that the milemarkers along Alabama's US routes correspond to the underlying state route, not to the US route itself.
Quote from: froggie on March 24, 2021, 08:35:49 PM
On a few occasions, the state route is cosigned in Alabama, but for the most part they're not.
HOWEVER, on the subject of Alabama, it should be noted that the milemarkers along Alabama's US routes correspond to the underlying state route, not to the US route itself.
This is also true of mile markers in Tennessee which also rarely posts the state route with the accompanying US route.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 24, 2021, 06:37:42 PM
I like to get the Interstate-everything crowd spun up.
You've awoken FritzOwl...
Quote from: SeriesE on March 24, 2021, 08:17:40 PM
Number of concurrent routes on a particular stretch should be limited to 2 maximum.
Guess we'll truncate I-64 back to its former East St Louis terminus then
No freeway should lack a numeral designation. Yes, I'm looking at you, Central Scranton Expressway.
In other news, 222 should probably be downgraded to a state route.
Quote from: Hwy 61 Revisited on March 24, 2021, 11:03:21 PM
No freeway should lack a numeral designation. Yes, I'm looking at you, Central Scranton Expressway.
So would FL 91 for Florida's Turnpike count even though it's unsigned?
Interstate 5 should serve San Francisco, not just 80 and a bunch of 3-dis
Most states have way too many numbered highways, especially east of the Rockies.
Quote from: interstatefan990 on March 23, 2021, 03:19:59 PM
Thought I would start this thread since a lot of people seem to be posting non-US route unpopular opinions in the Unpopular US Route Opinions thread.
Post your unpopular opinions about any route, whether it has to do with concurrencies, extensions, design, rerouting, renumbering, signage, or anything else.
I updated my OP to say interstates are included yesterday :-/. And I can't change the title now but oh well.
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 24, 2021, 11:22:58 PM
Quote from: Hwy 61 Revisited on March 24, 2021, 11:03:21 PM
No freeway should lack a numeral designation. Yes, I'm looking at you, Central Scranton Expressway.
So would FL 91 for Florida's Turnpike count even though it's unsigned?
It's certainly unsigned, but most people will call it the Turnpike Anyway. Doesn't mean it shouldn't have a signed route designation!
Garden State Parkway counts too. And somehow the Morgantown Expressway Spur absolutely lacks any semblance of a number!
Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 24, 2021, 11:33:48 PM
Interstate 5 should serve San Francisco, not just 80 and a bunch of 3-dis
The DOH kind of tried that with I-5W which basically was replaced by I-580 from Tracy-Oakland. It was kind of nonsensical to have a split I-5 which killed it off relatively quick. I-5W was definitely field signed on the MacArthur Freeway.
Quote from: interstatefan990 on March 24, 2021, 10:52:05 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 24, 2021, 06:37:42 PM
I like to get the Interstate-everything crowd spun up.
You've awoken FritzOwl...
Fritz is forever trapped in a mad purgatory that probably wasn't formulated by a sane mind.
*Sigh*
Sorry for being so unclear, this thread can be about any route in the US.
But while im here:
- US 550 is 50's best child route.
- US 82 doesn't get enough credit
- I-22 shouldn't get extended into Memphis. (it probably will never but still)
- US 85> US 81, 83, 87, 89
- US 30's decommissioned branch routes> the current ones.
- All US 66 recommissioning pushings should go down the drain.
- US 80 was low-key better than US 66, but y'all aren't ready for that convo.
- US 98 is an interesting route and it's slept on.
- US 129 is unnecessary for most of its length.
- I-85 shouldn't be extended along US 80, neither should the pipeline I-14.
- I-59/I-20 is a good concurrency and it shouldn't be slandered as much as it is.
- A US route should still be in Prescott. . .
- I-16> I-42, I-87 or whatever else NC is proposing.
- US 72 + 74 = US 64S
Quote from: Mapmikey on March 24, 2021, 07:29:02 PM
Quote from: kenarmy on March 23, 2021, 01:17:45 PM
- US 65 holds the cake for most embarrassing truncation.
US 113 says hold his cake
Oh yeah that's definitely up there..
Quote from: kenarmy on March 25, 2021, 12:13:54 AM
Quote from: interstatefan990 on March 23, 2021, 03:19:59 PM
Thought I would start this thread since a lot of people seem to be posting non-US route unpopular opinions in the Unpopular US Route Opinions thread.
Post your unpopular opinions about any route, whether it has to do with concurrencies, extensions, design, rerouting, renumbering, signage, or anything else.
I updated my OP to say interstates are included yesterday :-/. And I can't change the title now but oh well.
Sorry! I (inadvertently) beat you to it. But I don't think the title "US Route opinions" really evokes thought of any
route in the US anyways, but rather the specific United States Numbered Highway system. My hope is that this thread and its title will make things clearer. And if anyone has unpopular opinions about foreign routes as well, I guess this would also provide a place for that. :thumbsup:
A Houston to Austin interstate makes more sense than I-69 in Texas.
I personally don't mind concurrencies, and I even like it when they're signed.
I hate it when a US highway gets truncated/decommissioned, even the ones that have been replaced by interstates.
Quote from: Some one on March 25, 2021, 01:01:49 AM
A Houston to Austin interstate makes more sense than I-69 in Texas.
That doesn't really seem like an unpopular opinion here, especially when looking at the disgusting I-69 suffixed spurs. Though I would say that the section of I-69 and I-369 between Houston and Texarkana is useful for travel from Houston to the Midwest and Northeast.
My thoughts:
- Houston, DFW, San Antonio, and Austin don't need any of their freeway state and US routes turned into interstates (except Houston-Austin corridor).
- The freeways in the RGV not connecting to the rest of the Interstate system is totally fine by me.
- The Grand Parkway's future routing through Alvin is actually logical (now west of it, not so much).
- Interstate 49's southern terminus should be Lafayette.
- I'm okay with suffixed routes (E/W/C etc.)
- We don't need more 2di interstates, we need more 3di interstates.
- I think 4di interstates should exist.
Quote from: CoreySamson on March 25, 2021, 01:10:40 AM
- I think 4di interstates should exist.
That's one of my unpopular opinions as well. I-1090 for the I-90 loop through Albany!
Most of CA 1 in Southern California should be decommissioned and relinquished and the section from Malibu to Oxnard should be given a different route number.
US 395 should be renumbered as US 97. US 97 should be renumbered as US 99.
US routes are in general given a bad name (but I imagine that that's a pretty commonly held belief on this board).
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on March 25, 2021, 02:31:02 AM
US 395 should be renumbered as US 97. US 97 should be renumbered as US 99.
I would renumber US 97 as US 420 because it's southern terminus is at Weed, CA :D. Also, it meets US 20, so numbering makes sense that way.
Here's one of mine: It's unnecessary to differentiate between odd and even first digit 3di because the guidelines are so vague that every DOT and forum user here have their own interpretation of what fits under each type.
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 25, 2021, 01:07:17 AM
Quote from: Some one on March 25, 2021, 01:01:49 AM
A Houston to Austin interstate makes more sense than I-69 in Texas.
That doesn't really seem like an unpopular opinion here, especially when looking at the disgusting I-69 suffixed spurs. Though I would say that the section of I-69 and I-369 between Houston and Texarkana is useful for travel from Houston to the Midwest and Northeast.
Major freight corridors heading down US-77 (Future I-69E) and US-281 (Future I-69C). There is merit for either route to be interstate highways.
In my opinion though, I-69W is not necessary, I-69C / US-281 corridor should not be apart of the I-69 system - rather a corridor stemming off I-37 - designated as an southern I-39 or I-4x (cannot fit grid), and I-69E should be the only I-69 route with no suffix (hey, that officially incorrect "I-69" without the "E" signage being posted on the newly completed upgrades south or Robstown would reflect this!)
Perhaps Laredo to Corpus Christi (uses part of the proposed I-69W then SH-44) could also be another corridor - currently now another I-69 leg, though likely to be called something else like I-2 was - one that should at least be widened to 4 lane divided highway with town bypasses. If built to full interstate standards, I-4 (west)? I-6?
Fully agree that either US-290 or SH-71 should be upgraded to interstate standards and designated as an interstate highway between Houston and Austin. I would personally prefer the US-290 corridor, though can fully understand the reasoning for SH-71, less distance, closer to expressway standards, easier to upgrade, etc. That approach into Austin needs to be fixed though.
I-540 is an adequate and well established number for the Raleigh beltway. It does not need to be renumbered to I-640 as many roadgeeks have proposed should happen.
I-87 between Raleigh and Norfolk should be built, or at minimum some 70 mph interstate-grade route between the two metros and I-95.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 25, 2021, 03:33:02 AM
[...]
I-87 between Raleigh and Norfolk should be built, or at minimum some interstate-grade route between the two metros and I-95.
I don't disagree, but it certainly doesn't merit the number.
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 25, 2021, 02:35:34 AM
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on March 25, 2021, 02:31:02 AM
US 395 should be renumbered as US 97. US 97 should be renumbered as US 99.
I would renumber US 97 as US 420 because it's southern terminus is at Weed, CA :D. Also, it meets US 20, so numbering makes sense that way.
LOL I like that thought. Would that be US-20's fourth spur route though?
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on March 25, 2021, 02:34:09 AM
US routes are in general given a bad name (but I imagine that that's a pretty commonly held belief on this board).
I'm not giving them a "bad name." I just don't think they are anything more than state routes with a common numbering scheme. So for instance, if we turned them all into state routes but kept the numbering in place, I don't think most people would know much difference. And even if they did, it wouldn't harm navigation in a substantial way.
I mean, I think they're cool. But I also realize that's just roadgeek sentimentality. I've told this story before, but I once worked with someone who grew up on a ranch off of US-12 in Montana. Our workplace was located on US-12 in Wisconsin. She had no idea it was the same highway, and even when I pointed it out, didn't really care. I'm pretty sure she is way more representative of the public at large than we care to admit.
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 25, 2021, 01:07:17 AM
Quote from: Some one on March 25, 2021, 01:01:49 AM
A Houston to Austin interstate makes more sense than I-69 in Texas.
That doesn't really seem like an unpopular opinion here, especially when looking at the disgusting I-69 suffixed spurs. Though I would say that the section of I-69 and I-369 between Houston and Texarkana is useful for travel from Houston to the Midwest and Northeast.
Actually I don't think it is. I haven't been to Houston in 7 years and the last time I went there US-59 was still the route to take between Texarkana and Houston and you could drive 75 mph on US-59 so making it into an Interstate isn't getting you to Houston any quicker really.
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 25, 2021, 07:45:51 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 25, 2021, 02:35:34 AM
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on March 25, 2021, 02:31:02 AM
US 395 should be renumbered as US 97. US 97 should be renumbered as US 99.
I would renumber US 97 as US 420 because it’s southern terminus is at Weed, CA :D. Also, it meets US 20, so numbering makes sense that way.
LOL I like that thought. Would that be US-20's fourth spur route though?
Let's see...
120 - Former route is now PA 120
220 - Exists
320 - Former, now part of US 26 in WY
420 - Former, now part of US 14 in WY
520 and above - Never existed
So it seems like 320 doesn't exist today either. Though if you're going to have 420 on US 97, I think you can find a spot between Pennsylvania and Oregon for a 320.
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 25, 2021, 08:03:14 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 25, 2021, 07:45:51 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 25, 2021, 02:35:34 AM
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on March 25, 2021, 02:31:02 AM
US 395 should be renumbered as US 97. US 97 should be renumbered as US 99.
I would renumber US 97 as US 420 because it's southern terminus is at Weed, CA :D. Also, it meets US 20, so numbering makes sense that way.
LOL I like that thought. Would that be US-20's fourth spur route though?
Let's see...
120 - Former route is now PA 120
220 - Exists
320 - Former, now part of US 26 in WY
420 - Former, now part of US 14 in WY
520 and above - Never existed
So it seems like 320 doesn't exist today either. Though if you're going to have 420 on US 97, I think you can find a spot between Pennsylvania and Oregon for a 320.
US 120: IN 2/IN 120/M-120*/OH 120/OH 2/PA 5/NY 5/NY 2/MA 2
I think it's ridiculous that Michigan decommissioned their segment of M-120, since it leaves a gap in the 3-state route, and there aren't even any turns along the Michigan segment of the road.
This could be 320 except that some of the route is already numbered 120.
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 24, 2021, 10:56:55 PM
Quote from: SeriesE on March 24, 2021, 08:17:40 PM
Number of concurrent routes on a particular stretch should be limited to 2 maximum.
Guess we'll truncate I-64 back to its former East St Louis terminus then
Since the new I-70 bridge removed I-70 from the concurrency I-64 would be fine as is.
Quote from: I-55 on March 25, 2021, 08:40:00 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 24, 2021, 10:56:55 PM
Quote from: SeriesE on March 24, 2021, 08:17:40 PM
Number of concurrent routes on a particular stretch should be limited to 2 maximum.
Guess we'll truncate I-64 back to its former East St Louis terminus then
Since the new I-70 bridge removed I-70 from the concurrency I-64 would be fine as is.
How about it's part with US 40/61 in MO?
Also, PSB is 3 routes too, with I-55/64/US 40.
Quote from: I-55 on March 25, 2021, 08:40:00 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 24, 2021, 10:56:55 PM
Quote from: SeriesE on March 24, 2021, 08:17:40 PM
Number of concurrent routes on a particular stretch should be limited to 2 maximum.
Guess we'll truncate I-64 back to its former East St Louis terminus then
Since the new I-70 bridge removed I-70 from the concurrency I-64 would be fine as is.
Let's say, perhaps, no more than 2 of a kind per concurrency?
Quote from: Hwy 61 Revisited on March 24, 2021, 11:03:21 PM
No freeway should lack a numeral designation. Yes, I'm looking at you, Central Scranton Expressway.
SR 3022
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 25, 2021, 02:35:34 AM
I would renumber US 97 as US 420 because it's southern terminus is at Weed, CA :D. Also, it meets US 20, so numbering makes sense that way.
It also passes through Grass Valley OR :sombrero:
I-82 and even I-4 I think would make more sense as north-south routes.
Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 25, 2021, 08:59:27 AM
I-82 and even I-4 I think would make more sense as north-south routes.
In the case of I-4, what number would you give it, or would you still sign it as I-4?
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on March 25, 2021, 02:29:36 AM
Most of CA 1 in Southern California should be decommissioned and relinquished and the section from Malibu to Oxnard should be given a different route number.
I don't think that is an unpopular opinion in the road community. Most people in the know in the California road circles I've noticed tended to be of the opinion that should have reverted to CA 3.
Quote from: Flint1979 on March 25, 2021, 07:50:27 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 25, 2021, 01:07:17 AM
Quote from: Some one on March 25, 2021, 01:01:49 AM
A Houston to Austin interstate makes more sense than I-69 in Texas.
That doesn't really seem like an unpopular opinion here, especially when looking at the disgusting I-69 suffixed spurs. Though I would say that the section of I-69 and I-369 between Houston and Texarkana is useful for travel from Houston to the Midwest and Northeast.
Actually I don't think it is. I haven't been to Houston in 7 years and the last time I went there US-59 was still the route to take between Texarkana and Houston and you could drive 75 mph on US-59 so making it into an Interstate isn't getting you to Houston any quicker really.
While many of the rural segments of US-59 are 75 mph, it's no perfect corridor. The route passes through a number of towns, has various speed zones below 70 mph, etc. At minimum the route needs to be upgraded to a free-flowing 75 mph uniform corridor in many areas. As serving the primary link between the Houston metro area and I-20 / 30, there's also definitely merit to have a fully controlled access route to the northeast.
Quote from: 1 on March 25, 2021, 09:00:55 AM
Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 25, 2021, 08:59:27 AM
I-82 and even I-4 I think would make more sense as north-south routes.
In the case of I-4, what number would you give it, or would you still sign it as I-4?
It's not that long. Could be an X75 or X95
Quote from: kenarmy on March 25, 2021, 12:53:08 AM
- US 550 is 50's best child route.
An awesome parent had an awesome child! :thumbsup:
Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 25, 2021, 10:07:36 AM
Quote from: 1 on March 25, 2021, 09:00:55 AM
Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 25, 2021, 08:59:27 AM
I-82 and even I-4 I think would make more sense as north-south routes.
In the case of I-4, what number would you give it, or would you still sign it as I-4?
It's not that long. Could be an X75 or X95
Thing is that I-4 was a direct replacement for an east/west US 92. I always assumed that was taken into consideration as to why it was an east/west Interstate. However, in what world does I-4 need to be another three digit Interstate? I-4 is one of the most consistently busy Interstates out there.
But I guess that would be an unpopular opinion... Conversely the popular road community opinion on I-17 and I-19 is; they should be one route or three digit Interstates. Both in my opinion are fine.
Quote from: empirestate on March 24, 2021, 07:49:05 PM
Mileage-based exit numbering is grossly overrated.
I agree that it's overrated, but I don't think it's
grossly overrated. Slightly, yes.
Quote from: empirestate on March 25, 2021, 01:57:53 AM
Quote from: CoreySamson on March 25, 2021, 01:10:40 AM
- I think 4di interstates should exist.
That's one of my unpopular opinions as well. I-1090 for the I-90 loop through Albany!
I think the system should be open to 4di (and 4dus) numbers–but only if all other numbers below 1000 have already been used up. Yes, this means numbers will break the grid and parent-child relationships will be disrupted. I don't care. I think those rules are dumb anyway.
Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 25, 2021, 08:59:27 AM
I-82 and even I-4 I think would make more sense as north-south routes.
I've gone back & forth on I-82, but to play devil's advocate here: Because it serves traffic that on a larger scale is mostly heading east-west (coming up from I-84 to I-90 to then reach Seattle, and vice versa), the east-west numbering makes sense even if I-82 itself is more north-south.
Quote from: kphoger on March 25, 2021, 10:46:13 AM
Quote from: empirestate on March 24, 2021, 07:49:05 PM
Mileage-based exit numbering is grossly overrated.
I agree that it's overrated, but I don't think it's grossly overrated. Slightly, yes.
Quote from: empirestate on March 25, 2021, 01:57:53 AM
Quote from: CoreySamson on March 25, 2021, 01:10:40 AM
- I think 4di interstates should exist.
That's one of my unpopular opinions as well. I-1090 for the I-90 loop through Albany!
I think the system should be open to 4di (and 4dus) numbers–but only if all other numbers below 1000 have already been used up. Yes, this means numbers will break the grid and parent-child relationships will be disrupted. I don't care. I think those rules are dumb anyway.
In my fictional country I allow 4di to be used in multiple circumstances, relevant to this discussion is when either the first digit odd or first digit even routes have all been used up to allow auxiliary routes to continue to follow standard numbering conventions. (My states are big enough to warrant needing more than 4 of each type in a state).
One could also argue that 4di could be used for routes that don't connect to their parent or act as spurs of a 3di (ex. I-795 MD, I-380 CA)
I see no reason why we shouldn't use 4di or 4dus (though the latter will likely never be needed/desired). They wouldn't be overwhelmingly confusing and could be put to a variety of uses.
(This would be a great fictional thread, I'm guessing there already is one)
Quote from: I-55 on March 25, 2021, 11:03:57 AM
In my fictional country I allow 4di to be used in multiple circumstances, relevant to this discussion is when either the first digit odd or first digit even routes have all been used up to allow auxiliary routes to continue to follow standard numbering conventions. (My states are big enough to warrant needing more than 4 of each type in a state).
One could also argue that 4di could be used for routes that don't connect to their parent or act as spurs of a 3di (ex. I-795 MD, I-380 CA)
I see no reason why we shouldn't use 4di or 4dus (though the latter will likely never be needed/desired). They wouldn't be overwhelmingly confusing and could be put to a variety of uses.
(This would be a great fictional thread, I'm guessing there already is one)
Don't let Fritzowl see this :-D
Quote from: kphoger on March 25, 2021, 10:46:13 AM
Quote from: empirestate on March 24, 2021, 07:49:05 PM
Mileage-based exit numbering is grossly overrated.
I agree that it's overrated, but I don't think it's grossly overrated. Slightly, yes.
Well, that's the idea–if everyone agreed with my opinion, it wouldn't be unpopular!
Quote
I think the system should be open to 4di (and 4dus) numbers–but only if all other numbers below 1000 have already been used up.
That's the case with I-1090. All other I-x90s in New York have been assigned–and it even fits the nice west-to-east geographic progression, broken only by I-990.
Quote from: I-55 on March 25, 2021, 11:03:57 AM
I see no reason why we shouldn't use 4di or 4dus (though the latter will likely never be needed/desired). They wouldn't be overwhelmingly confusing and could be put to a variety of uses.
(This would be a great fictional thread, I'm guessing there already is one)
I think there is. This is far from my first time suggesting it over the years, even to the point of a dedicated topic on the idea.
Quote from: jmacswimmer on March 25, 2021, 10:55:05 AM
Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 25, 2021, 08:59:27 AM
I-82 and even I-4 I think would make more sense as north-south routes.
I've gone back & forth on I-82, but to play devil's advocate here: Because it serves traffic that on a larger scale is mostly heading east-west (coming up from I-84 to I-90 to then reach Seattle, and vice versa), the east-west numbering makes sense even if I-82 itself is more north-south.
Maybe it'd be better as a long x90?
How about this one?
Any 2-dis < 100 miles should be a 3-di?
Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 25, 2021, 12:29:54 PM
How about this one?
Any 2-dis < 100 miles should be a 3-di?
So with that...
I-99 (98 mi): May be extended later on, but I-170 if not
I-12 (85 mi): I-410
I-83 (85 mi): Combine with I-97 via concurrency with I-695 western loop
I-66 (76 mi): I-181
I-19 (63 mi): I-110 or combine with I-17
I-86 W (62 mi): I-284 or I-415
I-2 (46.8 mi): Shouldn't exist in the first place
I-14 (25 mi): I-135
I-11 (22 mi): Will get extended later on, but I-515 is a good number for the time being
I-97 (17 mi): Combine with I-83 via concurrency with I-695 western loop
I-87 S (13 mi): Will get extended later on
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 25, 2021, 12:44:08 PM
Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 25, 2021, 12:29:54 PM
How about this one?
Any 2-dis < 100 miles should be a 3-di?
So with that...
I-99 (98 mi): Will be extended later on, but I-170
I-12 (85 mi): I-410
I-83 (85 mi): Combine with I-97 via concurrency with I-695 western loop
I-66 (76 mi): I-181
I-19 (63 mi): I-110 or combine with I-17
I-86 W (62 mi): I-284 or I-415
I-2 (46.8 mi): Shouldn't exist in the first place
I-14 (25 mi): I-135
I-11 (22 mi): Will get extended later on, but I-515 is a good number for the time being
I-97 (17 mi): Combine with I-83 via concurrency with I-695 western loop
I-87 S (13 mi): I-495
What to do with I-2...short of leaving it US 83??
I-169E? 😬
Quote from: empirestate on March 25, 2021, 12:20:43 PM
Quote from: kphoger on March 25, 2021, 10:46:13 AM
I think the system should be open to 4di (and 4dus) numbers–but only if all other numbers below 1000 have already been used up.
That's the case with I-1090. All other I-x90s in New York have been assigned–and it even fits the nice west-to-east geographic progression, broken only by I-990.
(fixed quote attribution)
You're missing my point. 1090 shouldn't be used on any Interstate anywhere, because I-13, I-131, I-346, and I-719 remain unused.
And that's because (the part you snipped)...
Quote from: kphoger on March 25, 2021, 10:46:13 AM
Yes, this means numbers will break the grid and parent-child relationships will be disrupted. I don't care. I think those rules are dumb anyway.
Which is to say, my unpopular opinion is that
the whole concept of I-x90 should be jettisoned.
Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 25, 2021, 12:29:54 PM
How about this one?
Any 2-dis < 100 miles should be a 3-di?
I bet plenty of people here would get behind you on that.
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 25, 2021, 12:44:08 PM
I-87 S (13 mi): I-495
The route will be 180 miles long when completed between I-40 and the Virginia state line. Assuming it is extended into Virginia to connect to I-64, it will be 197 miles long.
With that distance and traversing 2 states, it seems reasonable as a two-digit. I-495 would not work due to I-495 in Northern Virginia.
Also for NY's x90s, if they really need another 3di, they could first remove current I-790, which is pretty much a ramp that is concurrent with other routes, and reuse that number somewhere else.
Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 25, 2021, 12:45:48 PM
What to do with I-2...short of leaving it US 83??
I-169E? 😬
I was thinking of leaving it US 83. Considering Houston-Austin doesn't have an interstate number, US 83 doesn't need an interstate number either
But if you insist, I-269 could work, as it keeps the 2 from I-2 in the first digit.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 25, 2021, 12:50:52 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 25, 2021, 12:44:08 PM
I-87 S (13 mi): I-495
The route will be 180 miles long when completed between I-40 and the Virginia state line. Assuming it is extended into Virginia to connect to I-64, it will be 197 miles long.
With that distance and traversing 2 states, it seems reasonable as a two-digit. I-495 would not work due to I-495 in Northern Virginia.
Forgot to mention 'will get extended' for I-87 southern, like what I did for I-11.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 25, 2021, 12:50:52 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 25, 2021, 12:44:08 PM
I-87 S (13 mi): I-495
The route will be 180 miles long when completed between I-40 and the Virginia state line. Assuming it is extended into Virginia to connect to I-64, it will be 197 miles long.
With that distance and traversing 2 states, it seems reasonable as a two-digit. I-495 would not work due to I-495 in Northern Virginia.
Would I-73 even exist afterwards?
Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 25, 2021, 01:00:02 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 25, 2021, 12:50:52 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 25, 2021, 12:44:08 PM
I-87 S (13 mi): I-495
The route will be 180 miles long when completed between I-40 and the Virginia state line. Assuming it is extended into Virginia to connect to I-64, it will be 197 miles long.
With that distance and traversing 2 states, it seems reasonable as a two-digit. I-495 would not work due to I-495 in Northern Virginia.
Would I-73 even exist afterwards?
I-73 is 101 mi, so it makes the cut. Also, there's the planned extension to Roanoke.
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 25, 2021, 12:53:28 PM
Also for NY's x90s, if they really need another 3di, they could first remove current I-790, which is pretty much a ramp that is concurrent with other routes, and reuse that number somewhere else.
You could also free up I-390 if it ever gets subsumed into I-99 (or I-83)
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 25, 2021, 12:44:08 PM
I-99 (98 mi): May be extended later on, but I-170 if not
Even if/when I-99 is fully built, here's my (fictional) scheme:
-I-170 between I-70/I-76 & I-80
-Renumber I-180 to I-280 and extend along US 220 back to I-80
-Move I-180 to between now-I-280 & I-86
The other idea I've seen several times is running I-83 up to Rochester (the biggest obstacle to this, once the CSVT is finished, would be the stretch of US 11/15 between US 22/322 & Selinsgrove that is expressway-grade but not freeway).
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 25, 2021, 12:44:08 PM
I-97 (17 mi): Combine with I-83 via concurrency with I-695 western loop
Overly-complicated fictional scheme here (although having I-83 along I-695 would give I-70 a "proper" ending at another 2di):
-Move I-195 over to I-97 (in line with posts I've seen recently about 3di's with lower leading digits being more important/longer)
-Turn current I-195 near BWI into I-995 (if for no reason than bringing my avatar to life :clap:)
To quote a certain fictional poster: "I think this is needed" :awesomeface:
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 25, 2021, 12:44:08 PM
Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 25, 2021, 12:29:54 PM
How about this one?
Any 2-dis < 100 miles should be a 3-di?
So with that...
I-99 (98 mi): May be extended later on, but I-170 if not
I-12 (85 mi): I-410
I-83 (85 mi): Combine with I-97 via concurrency with I-695 western loop
I-66 (76 mi): I-181
I-19 (63 mi): I-110 or combine with I-17
I-86 W (62 mi): I-284 or I-415
I-2 (46.8 mi): Shouldn't exist in the first place
I-14 (25 mi): I-135
I-11 (22 mi): Will get extended later on, but I-515 is a good number for the time being
I-97 (17 mi): Combine with I-83 via concurrency with I-695 western loop
I-87 S (13 mi): Will get extended later on
I think if you have a specific construction plan for a route that will be over 100 miles, that should exempt those above (ie-I-11, and I-99..perhaps even I-2 if they are going to solidify the Laredo plan) I-97 creation was just plain silly, and I-12 fits the definition of why you have an even 3d.
Unpopular - I know all about that!
*** contradictions may apply ***
Scenic two lane roads with lots of curves are why I'm interested in this hobby. Interstates are great for making up time, but they're usually dull (and I don't really find the discussion about them all that interesting, either).
I don't really care about fantasy improvements nor wish to comment on them. The idea that Senator Goofball and Representative Busybody and the Lollypop Guild had a hand in stopping the completion of the Overbite Expressway and championed an exit to their mistress' hometowns rarely interests me.
I-99 isn't perfect, but any other lower "logical" odd number would have been too far away in the other direction.
I-238 makes more logical sense for people who have to drive on it frequently and they probably don't care.
On that note, I'd prefer that unused 3dis get deployed rather than the several I-110s or 220s (et al) already in use. I rather like that they have an "identity" to a city or region, similar to a local area code.
Renumbering is usually not a great idea, unless they're in very close proximity. Transportation agencies have computers now, and many people have them in their pockets.
This silly hobby still releases dopamine, but usually only when driving. I'm not interested in long-distance Street View trips. I actually get lost sometimes, and if I'm not pressed for time, it actually makes it a bit of an adventure. Not always knowing where you're going an headed, and not knowing what you'll encounter is part of the thrill.
I like maps when I'm at home, but GPS in the field (that is, if and when I need it).
Sorry, I'm not a big fan of road videos - if it's longer than 5 minutes, I'm bored.
Quote from: Hwy 61 Revisited on March 24, 2021, 11:03:21 PM
No freeway should lack a numeral designation. Yes, I'm looking at you, Central Scranton Expressway.
Look I like my numbers as much as anyone here, but it's less than a mile, has no exits, and the area (nor state) isn't lacking for numbered routes. It could literally be "To I-81" or "to US 11" and I'd be good. If they gave it "PA 911" tomorrow, or "I-981", I wouldn't mind, either.
Sure, the Miami Downtown Connector gets an SR number than nobody refers to, but most glorified ramps do not.
Quote from: formulanone on March 25, 2021, 01:36:26 PM
Quote from: Hwy 61 Revisited on March 24, 2021, 11:03:21 PM
No freeway should lack a numeral designation. Yes, I'm looking at you, Central Scranton Expressway.
Look I like my numbers as much as anyone here, but it's less than a mile, has no exits, and the area (nor state) isn't lacking for numbered routes. It could literally be "To I-81" or "to US 11" and I'd be good. If they gave it "PA 911" tomorrow, or "I-981", I wouldn't mind, either.
Sure, the Miami Downtown Connector gets an SR number than nobody refers to, but most glorified ramps do not.
Yeah, I agree, it is kinda strange. The Morgantown Expressway Spur is still even worse, being absolutely numberless.
I have already laid out plans for a Central/North Scranton Expressway connection, but I won't get into them here.
Quote from: Hwy 61 Revisited on March 25, 2021, 01:43:02 PM
Quote from: formulanone on March 25, 2021, 01:36:26 PM
Quote from: Hwy 61 Revisited on March 24, 2021, 11:03:21 PM
No freeway should lack a numeral designation. Yes, I'm looking at you, Central Scranton Expressway.
Look I like my numbers as much as anyone here, but it's less than a mile, has no exits, and the area (nor state) isn't lacking for numbered routes. It could literally be "To I-81" or "to US 11" and I'd be good. If they gave it "PA 911" tomorrow, or "I-981", I wouldn't mind, either.
Sure, the Miami Downtown Connector gets an SR number than nobody refers to, but most glorified ramps do not.
Yeah, I agree, it is kinda strange. The Morgantown Expressway Spur is still even worse, being absolutely numberless. I have already laid out plans for a Central/North Scranton Expressway connection, but I won't get into them here.
How long did it take Wisconsin to brand the Mitchell Intl freeway as WI-119?
Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 25, 2021, 01:45:46 PM
Quote from: Hwy 61 Revisited on March 25, 2021, 01:43:02 PM
Quote from: formulanone on March 25, 2021, 01:36:26 PM
Quote from: Hwy 61 Revisited on March 24, 2021, 11:03:21 PM
No freeway should lack a numeral designation. Yes, I'm looking at you, Central Scranton Expressway.
Look I like my numbers as much as anyone here, but it's less than a mile, has no exits, and the area (nor state) isn't lacking for numbered routes. It could literally be "To I-81" or "to US 11" and I'd be good. If they gave it "PA 911" tomorrow, or "I-981", I wouldn't mind, either.
Sure, the Miami Downtown Connector gets an SR number than nobody refers to, but most glorified ramps do not.
Yeah, I agree, it is kinda strange. The Morgantown Expressway Spur is still even worse, being absolutely numberless. I have already laid out plans for a Central/North Scranton Expressway connection, but I won't get into them here.
How long did it take Wisconsin to brand the Mitchell Intl freeway as WI-119?
*
I-395 from Baltimore enters the chat*
Quote from: formulanone on March 25, 2021, 01:36:26 PM
I don't really care about fantasy improvements nor wish to comment on them.
:clap:
Quote from: formulanone on March 25, 2021, 01:36:26 PM
On that note, I'd prefer that unused 3dis get deployed rather than the several I-110s or 220s (et al) already in use. I rather like that they have an "identity" to a city or region, similar to a local area code.
Who here
wouldn't rather there be an I-835 than two I-235s?
Quote from: formulanone on March 25, 2021, 01:36:26 PM
Renumbering is usually not a great idea, unless they're in very close proximity. Transportation agencies have computers now, and many people have them in their pockets.
Agreed. If it ain't
really and actually broke, don't fix it.
Theoretically broke is not a good reason.
Quote from: kphoger on March 25, 2021, 12:46:30 PM
Quote from: empirestate on March 25, 2021, 12:20:43 PM
Quote from: kphoger on March 25, 2021, 10:46:13 AM
I think the system should be open to 4di (and 4dus) numbers–but only if all other numbers below 1000 have already been used up.
That's the case with I-1090. All other I-x90s in New York have been assigned–and it even fits the nice west-to-east geographic progression, broken only by I-990.
(fixed quote attribution)
You're missing my point. 1090 shouldn't be used on any Interstate anywhere, because I-13, I-131, I-346, and I-719 remain unused.
And that's because (the part you snipped)...
Quote from: kphoger on March 25, 2021, 10:46:13 AM
Yes, this means numbers will break the grid and parent-child relationships will be disrupted. I don't care. I think those rules are dumb anyway.
Which is to say, my unpopular opinion is that the whole concept of I-x90 should be jettisoned.
I did three things wrong. Does that make me right? :-D
You're thinking of three lefts.
All highways should be rerouted to use freeway bypasses rather than run through cities, if available. E.g., every highway through my original hometown of Green Bay should be transferred to the de facto beltline of I-41, I-43, and WI 172. WI 29 and WI 32 would use I-41 and WI 172. WI 57 would use WI 172 and I-43. WI 54 would use I-41 and I-43. (US 141 should just be truncated at Abrams, but that's a different argument.)
They could also be routed onto freeways going through a city, like US 40 should be routed onto I-70 through Columbus, OH.
Obviously, I don't really care about concurrencies as long as they're signed.
Quote from: skluth on March 25, 2021, 04:56:55 PM
All highways should be rerouted to use freeway bypasses rather than run through cities, if available. E.g., every highway through my original hometown of Green Bay should be transferred to the de facto beltline of I-41, I-43, and WI 172. WI 29 and WI 32 would use I-41 and WI 172. WI 57 would use WI 172 and I-43. WI 54 would use I-41 and I-43. (US 141 should just be truncated at Abrams, but that's a different argument.)
MnDOT has been very proactive about eliminating urban surface mileage. Ideally, the only surface mileage in the metro that will remain in the future will be Snelling Avenue (which the state constitution doesn't allow them to get rid of) and Hiawatha Avenue. The vast majority of Duluth's surface mileage was axed in the 90s, and US 63 was taken off Broadway in Rochester in the last 10 years.
Quote from: skluth on March 25, 2021, 04:56:55 PM
They could also be routed onto freeways going through a city, like US 40 should be routed onto I-70 through Columbus, OH.
So like moving US 67 in the St Louis area from Lindbergh onto I-270 and MO 367? Or onto I-255/IL 255 as the eastern routing option?
Or for Cincinnati, rerouting US 22/42 onto I-71, or US 127 onto I-75/OH 129?
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 25, 2021, 05:33:17 PM
Quote from: skluth on March 25, 2021, 04:56:55 PM
They could also be routed onto freeways going through a city, like US 40 should be routed onto I-70 through Columbus, OH.
So like moving US 67 in the St Louis area from Lindbergh onto I-270 and MO 367? Or onto I-255/IL 255 as the eastern routing option?
Or for Cincinnati, rerouting US 22/42 onto I-71, or US 127 onto I-75/OH 129?
US-22 and US-25 would probably just get truncated to I-275
My (maybe) unpopular opinion: we can decomission all business interstates. In the age of cell phones, I think we can do a quick Google search if we need something other than a gas station that we can see from the highway. kphoger might not be pleased with this, however. :cool:
Chris
Quote from: jayhawkco on March 25, 2021, 05:52:20 PM
My (maybe) unpopular opinion: we can decomission all business interstates. In the age of cell phones, I think we can do a quick Google search if we need something other than a gas station that we can see from the highway. kphoger might not be pleased with this, however. :cool:
Chris
I'm indifferent to this as if this happened I likely wouldn't notice. I think the nearest business interstate shield to me is in Napoleon, OH, and that's just a signage error for business US-6 (I do think we should keep BUS/BYP/ALT US routes).
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 25, 2021, 07:48:15 AM
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on March 25, 2021, 02:34:09 AM
US routes are in general given a bad name (but I imagine that that's a pretty commonly held belief on this board).
I'm not giving them a "bad name." I just don't think they are anything more than state routes with a common numbering scheme. So for instance, if we turned them all into state routes but kept the numbering in place, I don't think most people would know much difference. And even if they did, it wouldn't harm navigation in a substantial way.
I mean, I think they're cool. But I also realize that's just roadgeek sentimentality. I've told this story before, but I once worked with someone who grew up on a ranch off of US-12 in Montana. Our workplace was located on US-12 in Wisconsin. She had no idea it was the same highway, and even when I pointed it out, didn't really care. I'm pretty sure she is way more representative of the public at large than we care to admit.
I think some of that has to do with people calling US routes "highways" . In most places number duplication isn't an issue so anything with a number is lumped under the same roof, even interstates sometimes.
Business Interstates would still be used for bypassed tires, like I-81 in Syracuse.
US 180 should be broken up into state routes.
Since the title of the unpopular US routes opinions thread got changed to just routes in general, if a mod sees this, mind merging this thread with the other one?
CA 58 is perfectly adequate from Bakersfield east to Barstow. All the extra crap needed to make it I-40 isn't necessary.
Quote from: jayhawkco on March 25, 2021, 05:52:20 PM
My (maybe) unpopular opinion: we can decomission all business interstates. In the age of cell phones, I think we can do a quick Google search if we need something other than a gas station that we can see from the highway. kphoger might not be pleased with this, however. :cool:
Chris
Preach it!
Quote from: Hwy 61 Revisited on March 25, 2021, 06:19:59 PM
Business Interstates would still be used for bypassed tires, like I-81 in Syracuse.
Honestly, I'd rather not. IMO it should be a 3di (aka a REAL interstate) with a state route extension, not a business interstate.
(personal opinion)
Quote from: kenarmy on March 25, 2021, 06:03:42 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on March 25, 2021, 07:48:15 AM
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on March 25, 2021, 02:34:09 AM
US routes are in general given a bad name (but I imagine that that's a pretty commonly held belief on this board).
I'm not giving them a "bad name." I just don't think they are anything more than state routes with a common numbering scheme. So for instance, if we turned them all into state routes but kept the numbering in place, I don't think most people would know much difference. And even if they did, it wouldn't harm navigation in a substantial way.
I mean, I think they're cool. But I also realize that's just roadgeek sentimentality. I've told this story before, but I once worked with someone who grew up on a ranch off of US-12 in Montana. Our workplace was located on US-12 in Wisconsin. She had no idea it was the same highway, and even when I pointed it out, didn't really care. I'm pretty sure she is way more representative of the public at large than we care to admit.
I think some of that has to do with people calling US routes “highways”. In most places number duplication isn’t an issue so anything with a number is lumped under the same roof, even interstates sometimes.
Where I am, most people leave off the prefix for the route numbers and just call the number. I don't mind that, as Ohio doesn't duplicate route numbers anyways. So you have '75' for I-75, '50' for US 50 and '4' for OH 4.
Quote from: jayhawkco on March 25, 2021, 05:52:20 PM
My (maybe) unpopular opinion: we can decomission all business interstates. In the age of cell phones, I think we can do a quick Google search if we need something other than a gas station that we can see from the highway. kphoger might not be pleased with this, however. :cool:
Chris
Smartphones are rubbish, and I'd rather not become computer-dependent.
Not Chris
Quote from: stridentweasel on March 25, 2021, 09:26:22 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on March 25, 2021, 05:52:20 PM
My (maybe) unpopular opinion: we can decomission all business interstates. In the age of cell phones, I think we can do a quick Google search if we need something other than a gas station that we can see from the highway. kphoger might not be pleased with this, however. :cool:
Chris
Smartphones are rubbish, and I'd rather not become computer-dependent.
Logo signs also help guide travelers to local businesses.
Besides, business Interstate (or other route) signage can be spotty. Especially in states like California where most business routes are locally-maintained, and the locality often loses interest in maintaining the signage.
I agree that business routes are a dying concept, and no new ones should be added. Existing ones can stay until their signage fades away.
Quote from: oscar on March 25, 2021, 09:34:24 PM
Quote from: stridentweasel on March 25, 2021, 09:26:22 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on March 25, 2021, 05:52:20 PM
My (maybe) unpopular opinion: we can decomission all business interstates. In the age of cell phones, I think we can do a quick Google search if we need something other than a gas station that we can see from the highway. kphoger might not be pleased with this, however. :cool:
Chris
Smartphones are rubbish, and I'd rather not become computer-dependent.
Logo signs also help guide travelers to local businesses.
Besides, business Interstate (or other route) signage can be spotty. Especially in states like California where most business routes are locally-maintained, and the locality often loses interest in maintaining the signage.
I agree that business routes are a dying concept, and no new ones should be added. Existing ones can stay until their signage fades away.
They're especially a dying concept when all the business wants to locate near the interstate itself.
Every Interstate in Michigan has a same number state highway somewhere in the state. The closest is M-75 and I-75. M-69 and M-94 are in the U.P. several hundred miles from I-69 and I-94. M-96 gets kind of close to I-96 (about 40 miles apart). M-75 ends at US-131 on both ends too being basically a spur route to Boyne City.
My own very unpopular opinions:
Any route that splits ends at that point and another route of the same number starts when both rejoin. Thus I consider three separate I-35s to exist.
In addition, any branch route that only touches one such split route but not the other or the "plain" route should carry the directional suffix as well. Thus, I-635 should be I-635E, I-169 in Brownsville should be I-169E, the cancelled I-335 should have been I-335W, and US 530 should have been US 130S (as distinct to US 130, and despite being quite far from it) or US 530S.
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on March 26, 2021, 09:34:41 AM
My own very unpopular opinions:
Any route that splits ends at that point and another route of the same number starts when both rejoin. Thus I consider three separate I-35s to exist.
In addition, any branch route that only touches one such split route but not the other or the "plain" route should carry the directional suffix as well. Thus, I-635 should be I-635E, I-169 in Brownsville should be I-169E, the cancelled I-335 should have been I-335W, and US 530 should have been US 130S (as distinct to US 130, and despite being quite far from it) or US 530S.
So in MD, I-170, I-270 (current I-270 spur) and I-370 should've been I-170N, I-270S and I-370S during the I-70N to Baltimore and I-70S to DC days?
That may truly be an unpopular opinion here. You might as well have 4dis if you're going to do that.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on March 25, 2021, 05:20:37 PM
MnDOT has been very proactive about eliminating urban surface mileage. Ideally, the only surface mileage in the metro that will remain in the future will be Snelling Avenue (which the state constitution doesn't allow them to get rid of) and Hiawatha Avenue.
Actually, they could drop Snelling if they'd like and came to agreement with the local jurisdictions. None of Snelling is a Constitutional Route.
WI-24 should be decommissioned.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 25, 2021, 08:41:44 PM
CA 58 is perfectly adequate from Bakersfield east to Barstow. All the extra crap needed to make it I-40 isn't necessary.
I think there should be an interchange at CA 223. There may be an argument for one at California City Blvd. But I agree there is no economic argument for upgrading the entire stretch to interstate.
Quote from: skluth on March 26, 2021, 01:16:59 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 25, 2021, 08:41:44 PM
CA 58 is perfectly adequate from Bakersfield east to Barstow. All the extra crap needed to make it I-40 isn't necessary.
I think there should be an interchange at CA 223. There may be an argument for one at California City Blvd. But I agree there is no economic argument for upgrading the entire stretch to interstate.
I'll give you CA 223. Trying to turn west from CA 223 is almost impossible. Bealeville Road has a surprisingly large amount of traffic joining 58 also.
But yes, the entire stretch doesn't need to be Interstate standards. The soft interior shoulders on much of 58 alone would cost a fortune to upgrade.
Quote from: kenarmy on March 25, 2021, 06:03:42 PM
I think some of that has to do with people calling US routes "highways" .
They are.
Quote from: kphoger on March 26, 2021, 02:26:58 PM
Quote from: kenarmy on March 25, 2021, 06:03:42 PM
I think some of that has to do with people calling US routes "highways" .
They are.
i know that.. that's why it's easy to mix them up with state routes or interstates.
Quote from: jayhawkco on March 25, 2021, 05:52:20 PM
My (maybe) unpopular opinion: we can decomission all business interstates. In the age of cell phones, I think we can do a quick Google search if we need something other than a gas station that we can see from the highway. kphoger might not be pleased with this, however. :cool:
Fine with me. I plan my stops ahead of time.
Ah. Gotcha.
Of course, as soon as people figure out the difference between route shields, they'll think there's only one I-88...
Quote from: thspfc on March 26, 2021, 12:49:02 PM
WI-24 should be decommissioned.
Didn't they? I thought it became a county trunk highway, or is that only once it crosses into Waukesha Co?
Oregon needs to give up on their state numbered highways when it comes to mile posts.
Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 26, 2021, 09:41:59 PM
Quote from: thspfc on March 26, 2021, 12:49:02 PM
WI-24 should be decommissioned.
Didn't they? I thought it became a county trunk highway, or is that only once it crosses into Waukesha Co?
When it crosses the Waukesha County line.
Since the threads got merged i'll combine some of mine here:
- US 19 should go to Sarasota, not 301. That bothers me
- 89's truncation was unnecessary. If that's the case 70 should've been cut back to Las Cruces. (I hope US 89 doesn't see this :D)
- US 34 should've been killed during 6's mega extension, not 32 and 38.
- Current US 48> The other ones
- US 82 should still go to Las Cruces. Most of yall hate longer concurrencies but I don't see anything wrong with this.
- OH 3 is top 10 for state routes. I mean it connects the three largest cities in OH and has several US highways following its route.
- US 163 should be decommissioned.
- US 50 should've always ended in Sacramento.
- CA was reaching by getting rid of US 60, I can kind of understand the other truncations and decommissioning.
- US 101> your favorite US route
Yes, even my favorite highway 49 :-D
- Everybody is hating on US 11 for being paralleled for so long, but what about US 5??
- US 65 holds the cake for most embarrassing truncation.
- US 6 and US 50 have the best concurrency. Ever.
- US 78> 74, 72, 76
- US 30 deserves more hate.
- US 278 is very extra.. It's a child route but it just hops around being an indirect 78 for most of its route and it's concurrencies the further west you get are kind of ridiculous.
- US 280 is the most important branch of 80 and is underrated.
- US 36 should go southeast from Uhrichsville, not 250. Why not give 36 a southerly curve?
- US 411 is underrated
- US 90 should follow 90-ALT in Pensacola, its current routing is unnecessary
- 78 should be cut back to Atlanta, not Birmingham.
- 278 should use 49's bridge to cross the MS river (slightly longer, but it wouldn't be completely concurrent with others routes from the two independent points)
- US 63 should completely replace 167
- US 641 should be extended into MS , not AL, by replacing MS 25
- US 171 is more useless than 371.
- US 311 gets more hate than it deserves
- "City Routes" should still be a thing (mainly for interstates)
- US 87 does not need to be a 2di on either ends and it's million mile concurrency with US 85 and I-25 is embarrassing.
- US 340 shouldn't be a thing. wtf is it connecting, and why does it need to be connected?
- US 8 should be given the axe.
Interstate Edition:
- I-17 AND I-19 SHOULD NOT BE MERGED. Y'all are quick to roast I-59 for having a long concurrency with 20, but want this so bad..
- I-29 and I-49 should not be combined. I'm aware that there are other grid breakers, but an I-29 in NOLA and an I-49 in ND both sound weird.
- I-5 is messy and slapping an interstate on 99's corridor won't do justice.
- I-25 > I-15
- I-73 doesn't need to exist
- If you think it does, then "East" 74 shouldn't exist.
- I-42 is a joke.
(HELP, I had no idea there was a seperate I-87 in NC.)
- I-81 should end in Birmingham, I-59 should end in Meridian. (makes more sense than the current setup)
- I-55 would be perfect if it actually went to NOLA and got a new bridge in Memphis.
- US 80 is underrated. I mean it has I-20, I-10, I-8, I-16, I-85 (even more so down the pipeline) following its route for a decent distance. US 66 who?
- I-68 should be I-70.
- I-64 and I-44 shouldn't be combined and idk why people want this.
- Both I-88's are unnecessary.
- I-89 is too. ( I got a lot of hate for this one)
- I-476/ and the Atlantic City Expy is more deserving of a 2di number than I-99.
- I-49 is just fine terminating at Lafayette.
- I-69's split routes are cute.
- I-22 ending at I-269 is a crime.
- I-20 should be the one going to CA! I-80 --> I-40 --> I-20.
- I-12 is the best intrastate interstate.
Quote from: kenarmy on March 28, 2021, 12:23:19 AM
- US 19 should go to Sarasota, not 301. That bothers me
The fact that US 301 ends at a state route named 1 is honestly
hilarious!
Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 26, 2021, 09:46:24 PM
Oregon needs to give up on their state numbered highways when it comes to mile posts.
Or at least streamline them as much as possible when Highways swap away from their Routes; already happens in a few cases (ORH 53 using 26's mileage; ODOT wanting to unify OR 140's ORHs into one mileage set).
West Bengal's state highway system is efficient in covering the amount of mileage for the number of routes it has...
https://travelmapping.net/hb/index.php?u=bickendan&units=miles&sys=indwb
- I've been thinking about this one.. but US 82 and US 84> US 80 currently.
- I-55 has the most disappointing branch routes of the X5's. Yes I know I-45 is a thing.
- I'm sorry, but I don't like beltways having the same number.
- There should be a mileage limit for concurrencies of any type.
- US 87< the former US 385. The world would be so much better if this arrangement was kept in place.
- US 12 shouldn't have swapped routes with 112. So what that it was redundant to I-94?
- US 10, US 16, US 91, US 340, US 211, and the 66 children should be given the axe.
- I-83< whatever number it was before.
- Both US 441 and US 192 do not need to go south of Kissimmee. Preferably, not 441.
- US 1 is overrated north of the Florida keys.
- MS 465 should be apart of the great river road, so what that it floods a little now and then... its a river road.
- US 90 should've never been extended along TX 54.
- Although it still technically does, US 98 should end in Natchez. What's wrong with a concurrency to another major route?
- US 34 should be US 38. US 138 gets to meet its parent, and it fits the grid flawlessly. win win.
Quote from: kenarmy on April 18, 2021, 01:06:16 AM
- US 10 should be given the axe.
Nah, it's a major, major route in MN, even in a hypothetical where you get rid of it in WI and cut it back to where it meets I-35W or I-694.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on April 18, 2021, 02:16:49 AM
Quote from: kenarmy on April 18, 2021, 01:06:16 AM
- US 10 should be given the axe.
Nah, it's a major, major route in MN, even in a hypothetical where you get rid of it in WI and cut it back to where it meets I-35W or I-694.
Heck it's even a major route in Michigan. It's a freeway for it's eastern most 60 miles so I'm pretty sure it's a major route.
Quote from: kenarmy on April 18, 2021, 01:06:16 AM
- I'm sorry, but I don't like beltways having the same number.
How many beltways even have the same number? I can only think of 270 (St Louis/Columbus) and 495 (DC/Boston) being used twice for beltways.
I think some beltways are intentionally numbered not with the lowest 3di to avoid duplication. 485 in Charlotte could've been numbered as 285 if they didn't care that it's close to Atlanta's 285 and just wants to use the lowest (even) first digit available within the state.
Quote from: SkyPesos on April 18, 2021, 09:47:24 AM
Quote from: kenarmy on April 18, 2021, 01:06:16 AM
- I'm sorry, but I don't like beltways having the same number.
How many beltways even have the same number? I can only think of 270 (St Louis/Columbus) and 495 (DC/Boston) being used twice for beltways.
I-215 is used for beltways in Las Vegas and Salt Lake City.
I-240 was originally going to be a beltway in both Memphis and OKC, before subsequent changes in both cities (cancellation of I-40 through Overton Park and extension of I-44 to Wichita Falls).
I-295 Jacksonville
I-295 Fayetteville
I-295 Richmond-Petersburg
I-495 Washington D.C
I-495 Boston
I-840 Greensboro
I-840 Nashville
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on April 18, 2021, 02:16:49 AM
Quote from: kenarmy on April 18, 2021, 01:06:16 AM
- US 10 should be given the axe.
Nah, it's a major, major route in MN, even in a hypothetical where you get rid of it in WI and cut it back to where it meets I-35W or I-694.
It could take over US 52 in North Dakota to be more prominent
Quote from: texaskdog on April 18, 2021, 02:44:41 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on April 18, 2021, 02:16:49 AM
Quote from: kenarmy on April 18, 2021, 01:06:16 AM
- US 10 should be given the axe.
Nah, it's a major, major route in MN, even in a hypothetical where you get rid of it in WI and cut it back to where it meets I-35W or I-694.
It could take over US 52 in North Dakota to be more prominent
That would be interesting. Saskatchewan could play along, and replace SK 39 with a new SK 10. Just extend SK 46 eastward over current SK 10, in conjunction with running Manitoba subbing unused MB 46 over MB 5 to Roblin. (Then MB 5 can connect to SK 5 like it should!!)
I-49, I-55, and I-59 could all end at each other in New Orleans if I-10 were realigned onto I-12. Change my mind.
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 25, 2021, 01:08:32 PM
Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 25, 2021, 01:00:02 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 25, 2021, 12:50:52 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 25, 2021, 12:44:08 PM
I-87 S (13 mi): I-495
The route will be 180 miles long when completed between I-40 and the Virginia state line. Assuming it is extended into Virginia to connect to I-64, it will be 197 miles long.
With that distance and traversing 2 states, it seems reasonable as a two-digit. I-495 would not work due to I-495 in Northern Virginia.
Would I-73 even exist afterwards?
I-73 is 101 mi, so it makes the cut. Also, there's the planned extension to Roanoke.
I think it's very popular to say that, because 73 is by far the least bad of the numbers Congress has assigned (besides 14), and because it's concurrent with US-220 in sections, that 73 should take over 99.
NC 28 is the more fun road around Deals Gap over US 129.
Quote from: kphoger on March 25, 2021, 01:59:45 PM
Quote from: formulanone on March 25, 2021, 01:36:26 PM
I don't really care about fantasy improvements nor wish to comment on them.
:clap:
Quote from: formulanone on March 25, 2021, 01:36:26 PM
On that note, I'd prefer that unused 3dis get deployed rather than the several I-110s or 220s (et al) already in use. I rather like that they have an "identity" to a city or region, similar to a local area code.
Who here wouldn't rather there be an I-835 than two I-235s?
Quote from: formulanone on March 25, 2021, 01:36:26 PM
Renumbering is usually not a great idea, unless they're in very close proximity. Transportation agencies have computers now, and many people have them in their pockets.
Agreed. If it ain't really and actually broke, don't fix it. Theoretically broke is not a good reason.
So we'll have 580 Eastern starting at the Nevada state line and going NNW, got it
Quote from: skluth on March 26, 2021, 01:16:59 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 25, 2021, 08:41:44 PM
CA 58 is perfectly adequate from Bakersfield east to Barstow. All the extra crap needed to make it I-40 isn't necessary.
I think there should be an interchange at CA 223. There may be an argument for one at California City Blvd. But I agree there is no economic argument for upgrading the entire stretch to interstate.
Not to mention the 58 shield follows a complicated route in Bakersfield.
Quote from: bootmii on December 06, 2022, 06:21:27 PM
Quote from: skluth on March 26, 2021, 01:16:59 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 25, 2021, 08:41:44 PM
CA 58 is perfectly adequate from Bakersfield east to Barstow. All the extra crap needed to make it I-40 isn't necessary.
I think there should be an interchange at CA 223. There may be an argument for one at California City Blvd. But I agree there is no economic argument for upgrading the entire stretch to interstate.
Not to mention the 58 shield follows a complicated route in Bakersfield.
Once the Centennial Corridor opens the multiplex on CA 99 will be gone. CA 58 west of Bakersfield should have remained IMO CA 178 during the 1964 Renumbering. 24th and Rosedale Highway serve as a continuous road. I guess it worked out considering CA 178 west of CA 204 has been relinquished in the intervening years.
I-35W should be the "main" route through Dallas—Fort Worth–not I-35E.
I really don't think US 221 is needed south of its junction with US 1. Or 441 if i was being lenient.
-I think it's weird that I-49 exists to avoid grid violation and yet I-69 and I-73/74 get to violate the grid.
-Speaking of weird, I also think it's weird that US 61 got truncated north of Minneapolis and yet one state over you have US 81, which for the most part is concurrent with I-29. And I get it, different states have different priorities/criteria, but still.
-US 75 in Texas shouldn't have been truncated to Dallas. At the very least it could've ended at I-45 in Hunstville.
-I-69W is (mostly) useless and US 59 south (west?) of Victoria or Freer could suffice as a super-2 highway with bypasses. It's telling when compared to its other sibling routes, it's less than 2 miles long, with there currently being no plan to extend it past Laredo.
-US 59 could/should be US 73 and the current US 73 should be US 373 or something.
-I don't really mind concurrencies, and I prefer it when states actually sign/acknowledge concurrencies, especially when it's a Interstate/US and/or State highway concurrency.
US51 in Wisconsin in Illinois should be the one overlaid with an Interstate having the same number. Not US41.
Quote from: Some one on December 07, 2022, 03:26:17 AM
I-49 exists to avoid grid violation
Explain. What else was it going to be?
Quote from: kphoger on December 07, 2022, 12:14:58 PM
Quote from: Some one on December 07, 2022, 03:26:17 AM
I-49 exists to avoid grid violation
Explain. What else was it going to be?
Missouri, Arkansas and Louisiana wanted it to be a continuation of I-29 but was given the I-49 designation because it is east of I-35
Quote from: paulthemapguy on December 07, 2022, 10:28:09 AM
US51 in Wisconsin in Illinois should be the one overlaid with an Interstate having the same number. Not US41.
Too much US-51 needing to be relocated for that.
Really, I-39 in Illinois should have just been an extension of I-43, but that wasn't possible at the time. Then the current I-39 in Wisconsin could have been either I-39 or a long 3di
Quote from: I-55 on March 25, 2021, 06:01:29 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on March 25, 2021, 05:52:20 PM
My (maybe) unpopular opinion: we can decomission all business interstates. In the age of cell phones, I think we can do a quick Google search if we need something other than a gas station that we can see from the highway. kphoger might not be pleased with this, however. :cool:
Chris
<snip> I'm indifferent to this as if this happened I likely wouldn't notice. I think the nearest business interstate shield to me is in Napoleon, OH, and that's just a signage error for business US-6 <snip>...
Not anymore; it's been fixed. I found that out when I drove out there last month specifically to get a photo of it.
Quote from: Some one on December 07, 2022, 03:26:17 AM
-I-69W is (mostly) useless and US 59 south (west?) of Victoria or Freer could suffice as a super-2 highway with bypasses. It's telling when compared to its other sibling routes, it's less than 2 miles long, with there currently being no plan to extend it past Laredo.
This one I agree with... I've traveled this route before, it is more than adequate as a two-lane 75 mph highway. Passing lanes or at most 4 lane divided highway along with town bypasses if you want to go all out, but there is zero need for full control of access the entire length.
I-69E and I-69C are far more important routes. There is more warrant to upgrade SH-44 out to Freer to full control of access than US-59 north/east of Freer to Victoria.
I-85 should've followed US 29 from Greensboro NC, and met up with I-95 somewhere just south of DC in the original interstate plan.
- US 66 is overrated.
- The boulevard segment of A-20 isn't that bad, it's just substandard.
Quote from: LilianaUwU on December 07, 2022, 06:25:04 PM
- US 66 is overrated.
.
I feel like this is actually the community consensus nowadays.
US Routes should not have stop signs.
I-99/87 across the Delmarva is bad.
I-97 is a good interstate.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 07, 2022, 06:28:56 PM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on December 07, 2022, 06:25:04 PM
- US 66 is overrated.
.
I feel like this is actually the community consensus nowadays.
My feelings on US 66 are complicated. It is a unique thing in that so many of the old businesses and roadside attractions from the pre-Interstate era are seen as worthy of preservation due to their association with US 66. That means you can see a lot of things along US 66 that you can't see anywhere else, and it does have a special "step-back-in-time" feel that you can't get with any other road.
That being said, for people who are into highway history, US 66 kind of occupies the same niche that pandas do in wildlife conservation–because US 66 is the most well-known lost highway, it kind of sucks up all of the oxygen in the room and causes arguably just-as-worthy routes like US 99 and US 91 to fall by the wayside.
I would say that one should travel on old US 66 for an extended stretch before they decide whether it's overrated or not. OKC-Tulsa is probably the best "starter stretch" because it is still state maintained (so you don't have to engage in alignment-hunting and can just follow standard route signage) but chock-full of old US 66 kitsch.
Quote from: Hunty2022 on December 07, 2022, 07:15:24 PM
US Routes should not have stop signs.
US/US junctions should just allow you to plow into cars on the cross road.
Quote from: fillup420 on December 07, 2022, 05:59:04 PM
I-85 should've followed US 29 from Greensboro NC, and met up with I-95 somewhere just south of DC in the original interstate plan.
Perhaps, although you would be eliminating the interstate highway connection to Raleigh, Durham, Petersburg, and Richmond.
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 07, 2022, 07:53:14 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 07, 2022, 06:28:56 PM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on December 07, 2022, 06:25:04 PM
- US 66 is overrated.
.
I feel like this is actually the community consensus nowadays.
My feelings on US 66 are complicated. It is a unique thing in that so many of the old businesses and roadside attractions from the pre-Interstate era are seen as worthy of preservation due to their association with US 66. That means you can see a lot of things along US 66 that you can't see anywhere else, and it does have a special "step-back-in-time" feel that you can't get with any other road.
That being said, for people who are into highway history, US 66 kind of occupies the same niche that pandas do in wildlife conservation–because US 66 is the most well-known lost highway, it kind of sucks up all of the oxygen in the room and causes arguably just-as-worthy routes like US 99 and US 91 to fall by the wayside.
I would say that one should travel on old US 66 for an extended stretch before they decide whether it's overrated or not. OKC-Tulsa is probably the best "starter stretch" because it is still state maintained (so you don't have to engage in alignment-hunting and can just follow standard route signage) but chock-full of old US 66 kitsch.
Quote from: Hunty2022 on December 07, 2022, 07:15:24 PM
US Routes should not have stop signs.
US/US junctions should just allow you to plow into cars on the cross road.
The normal people crowd for quite awhile has dampened my enthusiasm for US 66. As of late my interest has been rekindled largely due to the glut of information pertaining to the western terminus found in the AASHTO database. Despite almost the entire narrative regarding the shifts of US 66 around Los Angeles being solved I've found that there is a lot of old hat 66 history people who have been resistant to their narrative being changed. I guess in a way it's good because we get feature some totally unique information on Gribblenation and steal away some of the 66 history fandom. All the same, the resistance to new information by some in the history side of the community with US 66 really was a disappointment to me. But hey, I guess some people aren't there don't like change and don't want to stay relevant.
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 07, 2022, 07:53:14 PM
Quote from: Hunty2022 on December 07, 2022, 07:15:24 PM
US Routes should not have stop signs.
US/US junctions should just allow you to plow into cars on the cross road.
Hey, Hunty said "no stop signs", not "no traffic collisions".
Quote from: LilianaUwU on December 07, 2022, 08:24:41 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 07, 2022, 07:53:14 PM
Quote from: Hunty2022 on December 07, 2022, 07:15:24 PM
US Routes should not have stop signs.
US/US junctions should just allow you to plow into cars on the cross road.
Hey, Hunty said "no stop signs", not "no traffic collisions".
No, no, no, you have it all wrong. There simply will not be any junctions between US Routes. Problem Solved!
Quote from: kirbykart on December 07, 2022, 08:28:28 PM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on December 07, 2022, 08:24:41 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 07, 2022, 07:53:14 PM
Quote from: Hunty2022 on December 07, 2022, 07:15:24 PM
US Routes should not have stop signs.
US/US junctions should just allow you to plow into cars on the cross road.
Hey, Hunty said "no stop signs", not "no traffic collisions".
No, no, no, you have it all wrong. There simply will not be any junctions between US Routes. Problem Solved!
How about just remove all US Routes? Most of them got replaced by interstates anyway!
Quote from: Hunty2022 on December 07, 2022, 08:58:17 PM
Quote from: kirbykart on December 07, 2022, 08:28:28 PM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on December 07, 2022, 08:24:41 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 07, 2022, 07:53:14 PM
Quote from: Hunty2022 on December 07, 2022, 07:15:24 PM
US Routes should not have stop signs.
US/US junctions should just allow you to plow into cars on the cross road.
Hey, Hunty said "no stop signs", not "no traffic collisions".
No, no, no, you have it all wrong. There simply will not be any junctions between US Routes. Problem Solved!
How about just remove all US Routes? Most of them got replaced by interstates anyway!
FritzOwl, is that you?
Quote from: Hunty2022 on December 07, 2022, 08:58:17 PM
Quote from: kirbykart on December 07, 2022, 08:28:28 PM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on December 07, 2022, 08:24:41 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 07, 2022, 07:53:14 PM
Quote from: Hunty2022 on December 07, 2022, 07:15:24 PM
US Routes should not have stop signs.
US/US junctions should just allow you to plow into cars on the cross road.
Hey, Hunty said "no stop signs", not "no traffic collisions".
No, no, no, you have it all wrong. There simply will not be any junctions between US Routes. Problem Solved!
How about just remove all US Routes? Most of them got replaced by interstates anyway!
What about the ones that didn't get replaced by interstates?
Quote from: Some one on December 07, 2022, 09:04:40 PM
Quote from: Hunty2022 on December 07, 2022, 08:58:17 PM
Quote from: kirbykart on December 07, 2022, 08:28:28 PM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on December 07, 2022, 08:24:41 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 07, 2022, 07:53:14 PM
Quote from: Hunty2022 on December 07, 2022, 07:15:24 PM
US Routes should not have stop signs.
US/US junctions should just allow you to plow into cars on the cross road.
Hey, Hunty said "no stop signs", not "no traffic collisions".
No, no, no, you have it all wrong. There simply will not be any junctions between US Routes. Problem Solved!
How about just remove all US Routes? Most of them got replaced by interstates anyway!
What about the ones that didn't get replaced by interstates?
Those are acceptable here, as long as they have no stop signs.
Quote from: Flint1979 on February 03, 2021, 06:54:27 AM
This is my view of Interstate's. Yes they are a faster route but I get bored of the Interstate rather quickly at times. It's a lot more interesting to take an alternate route that wouldn't be as fast but would be a lot more enjoyable. I'm sick of I-75 between Detroit and Saginaw, I know every curve on the highway, I know every overpass and every exit on that stretch of I-75.
This is exactly how I feel about about I-10 from Houston to New Orleans
Quote from: Hunty2022 on December 07, 2022, 09:05:55 PM
Quote from: Some one on December 07, 2022, 09:04:40 PM
Quote from: Hunty2022 on December 07, 2022, 08:58:17 PM
Quote from: kirbykart on December 07, 2022, 08:28:28 PM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on December 07, 2022, 08:24:41 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 07, 2022, 07:53:14 PM
Quote from: Hunty2022 on December 07, 2022, 07:15:24 PM
US Routes should not have stop signs.
US/US junctions should just allow you to plow into cars on the cross road.
Hey, Hunty said "no stop signs", not "no traffic collisions".
No, no, no, you have it all wrong. There simply will not be any junctions between US Routes. Problem Solved!
How about just remove all US Routes? Most of them got replaced by interstates anyway!
What about the ones that didn't get replaced by interstates?
Those are acceptable here, as long as they have no stop signs.
Problem solved. (https://goo.gl/maps/b2tSDwQjwVNa6gs1A)