I am a big supporter of US Highways. I don't like the fact that some states have decommissioned a US Highway just because an interstate took over its route. I think in some circumstances, it is appropriate to shorten or decommission a US highway. I'd like to see some existing routes extended and some new routes added to the system.
My question is which states are the most disrespectful to US Routes and which states are the most respectful?
Clearly, I think California has the worst record. Michigan and Texas are also pretty bad. Many of the states in the Southeast have a good record.
California is the most disrepectful for sure, but at least now they're putting up historical US highway markers for it. Then of course CA does have the best US highway as a freeway for nearly it's entire length, US 101, and there's an especially beautiful bridge along it that I was at earlier today!
Oklahoma has kept the mostly useless US-266 around. Also, when I-35 was being built, Governor Bellmon (geez, he was Governor a lot) had a law done up to protect US-77 and the towns along it, saying that I-35 had to be within 1 mile of US-77. When US-66 was decommissioned, about half of it became the present-day SH-66. And they're spending a lot of money in Norman to realign US-77 to get it out of downtown and onto a route more suitable for thru traffic that for whatever reason doesn't want to take I-35. US-64 and US-75 are signed along the IDL in Tulsa, and the Interstate route (I-444) isn't signed at all! And whenever there's a concurrency, chances are the US route will be fully signed.
But then again ODOT totally went against the US route numbering system with US 377. See, US 377 ends at Madill. Officially, anyway. ODOT wanted a US route to pass through Ada and up to Stroud, so they submitted a US-377 extension, and got shut down by AASHTO. Tried again with US-177, got rejected. They even tried bringing US-169 down from the south, and of course guess what happened? Finally the ODOT people got tired of dealing with AASHTO and printed up a bunch of US-377 shields and stuck them up without any approval from AASHTO. Not really respectful of the numbering system, I guess. And so now US-377 ends at SH-66 in Stroud. Or maybe I-44. Or something.
California gets some points for posting cutout shields still!
Florida has been pretty decent as far as its US highways go. There have only been a few notable decommissions (namely US 94 and US 541 and probably ALT 129) and very few truncations (US 41 in Miami comes to mind). The one decommission that nearly happened was US 92. There were plans to decommission the route entirely because it only stretched across the state and was less than 150 miles in length. It was decided, however, that retiring the number would have caused major disruption for businesses and residences along the route, so US 92 remains intact.
With the exception of the former US 16, I think Wisconsin has done a pretty good job. I wouldn't be surprised if I-41 ever came to be, that they'd sign an I-41/US-41 multiplex.
California definitely is up there, as is Washington with its deep sixing of U.S. 410, U.S. 830, U.S. 295. Throw in Pennsylvania for the removal of a slew of U.S. highways for good measure.
Of course, some remember almost ten years ago when Michigan decided to remove U.S. 27 in favor of an extended U.S. 127, which merits them mentioning in this thread.
I really miss when U.S 61 went all the way up to the Canadian border, they replaced it with Minnesota State Route 61. :banghead:
How about this - Minnesota and Colorado may not have decommisssioned US Routes that run along the same route as Interstates- but they certainly don't sign them.
I don't like the practice of realigning U.S. highways onto Interstates as multiplexes, which is done by many states. Even worse is when a U.S. highway is realigned from a local route to a freeway, then the freeway becomes an Interstate, since the U.S. highway generally does not go back to the original alignment.
To boot, a number of these multiplexes are not signed well.
Thanks for the great opinions on this topic. I definitely think that US 61 should be extended back to the Canadian border. I also don't like when US Highways are moved onto interstates as multiplexes. Kudos to North Carolina for moving US 117 back to its original alignment after getting approval for I-795
Maryland has a mixed record in this regard. They sign the US-50 freeway as US-50 without signing I-595 at all, but at the same time, they multiplex US-40 with I-68 and I-70 instead of letting it follow its original alignment (which is signed as US-40 ALT, US-40 Scenic, or MD-144 depending on the location.)
Quote from: geoking111 on February 08, 2009, 12:14:12 PM
Thanks for the great opinions on this topic. I definitely think that US 61 should be extended back to the Canadian border. I also don't like when US Highways are moved onto interstates as multiplexes. Kudos to North Carolina for moving US 117 back to its original alignment after getting approval for I-795
There are exceptions
I-39 in Wisconsin was laid upon US 51, which was expanded for the most part at it's original alignment. Exceptions to the latter are around Stevens Point, Mosinee, Wausau, and Merrill (which became either Business 51 or a County Trunk Highway)
I-39 in Illinois, on the other hand, follows exactly what you explained. I-39 was built, and US 51 was redirected along that route. (partially because of the staged signing of the Interstate). The old US route is now signed as route 251.
There is talk of making Old US-27 in Michigan a historical highway as the likes of historical US-66.
Quote from: geoking111 on February 08, 2009, 12:14:12 PM
Thanks for the great opinions on this topic. I definitely think that US 61 should be extended back to the Canadian border. I also don't like when US Highways are moved onto interstates as multiplexes. Kudos to North Carolina for moving US 117 back to its original alignment after getting approval for I-795
One of the problems that lead to these "useless" multiplexes (when a U.S. highway almost silently merges onto a freeway), is the whole state mileage limitation. I'm by no means an expert on what states have the limits and how they are set up, but this is why Indianapolis and Fort Wayne have all the numbered routes syphoned onto a freeway, and the mileage-swap of Alabama 112 and 181 probably is related to a similar rule for Alabama, which led to all of the U.S. highways in Montgomery shifting to the congested-plagued East and South Boulevards. Additionally a point should be made to point out the ludicracy that is the Interstate 40/BL I-85, U.S. 29, U.S. 70, U.S. 220 (http://www.southeastroads.com/north_carolina040/i-040_eb_exit_221a_01.jpg) mess in Greensboro (which included U.S. 421 until the recent relocation of that route onto Painter Boulevard).
Good topic btw.
Quote from: froggie on February 08, 2009, 08:15:47 AM
The problem, as I see it, is that the Interstates essentially duplicate the original function/purpose of the US highway routes: that of long-distance/inter-regional travel. With the completion of the Interstate system, this has basically left the U.S. routes "without a cause". Some states decommissioned their US routes as a result. Some didn't.
Well not all decommissioned routes were replaced by freeways. In my home state of Pennsylvania, you have both.
US 111 was replaced by I-83.
A small stretch of US 122 became I-176, but most of it was replaced by PA 61 from Sunbury to Reading and PA 10 from Morgantown south.
US 611's north end was replaced by I-81E (now I-380), I-80 and PA 33. From Easton south, it is about 10-15 miles east of the PA Turnpike northeast extension. (a.k.a. I-476) Most of this highway, except the upper end near Scranton is now PA 611.
US 309 was essentially replaced by the PA Turnpike northeast extension (a.k.a. I-476) between Allentown and Philadelphia but the old US 309 is now PA 309. Between Allentown and Hazleton, 309 goes between the I-476 and I-81 corridors. It then follows and briefly duplexes I-81 to Wilkes-Barre (as PA 309). It then departs from the I-81 corridor for its final miles to its current PA 309 terminus in Tunkhannock, PA. I'm looking at an old 1950 Rand McNally atlas and that shows US 309 duplexing with PA 6 from Tunkhannock to Towanda and US 220 from Towanda to Waverly, NY. This duplexing was probably dropped when 309 was downgraded from a US route to a PA route as it seems to have been superfluous.
The short US 106 which went from US 6 at Wyalusing to US 11 at New Milford is now PA 706. This route is not an interstate corridor.
The old US 140 ran from Baltimore, MD to Gettysburg, PA and is now MD 97 and PA 97 though the I-795 freeway outside the NW section of the Baltimore beltway parallels this old route.
Now, while PA had quite a few decommissioned US routes, all of the ones I mentioned happened before I started following highways in the early 70s.
An interesting question on this topic would be: "Are any new US highways being built, or in the planning phase?"
Quote from: mightyace on February 08, 2009, 11:38:16 PM
I'm looking at an old 1950 Rand McNally atlas and that shows US 309 duplexing with PA 6 from Tunkhannock to Towanda and US 220 from Towanda to Waverly, NY. This duplexing was probably dropped when 309 was downgraded from a US route to a PA route as it seems to have been superfluous.
The short US 106 which went from US 6 at Wyalusing to US 11 at New Milford is now PA 706. This route is not an interstate corridor.
New York should get a mentioning in this thread, because U.S. 106, 220, and 309 never went anywhere in the state because of some kind of disagreement between government officials there and those who laid out the system. I believe that U.S. 309 may have gone somewhere independent of U.S. 220, and U.S. 220 would have met its parent. Also look at U.S. 104, it never came anywhere close to U.S. 4.
For Pennsylvania, Jeff Kitsko has them all covered here (http://www.pahighways.com/us/decommissioned/).
I think they should reactivate US-16 along I-96 as an emergeny and/or alt route.
Quote from: DrZoidberg on February 09, 2009, 10:20:38 AM
An interesting question on this topic would be: "Are any new US highways being built, or in the planning phase?"
I think they stopped signing them as soon as Interstates were up
Illinois is definitely bad at respecting US Highways. US 54 and US 460 were wiped out or cut back for no good reason. US 460 was somewhat parallel to I-64, but at least in Illinois it strays a bit from I-64. US 54 does not have a parallel interstate for its length as IL 54 now. I think there were also enough unique (non outer road) sections of US 66 left that it could have stayed. US 51 could easily replace IL 251, and in the southern half of the state it was needlessly shifted onto I-57 - though it's old route had narrow lanes. US 36 could be shifted back off I-72. Around the St. Louis area, US 50 was shifted onto I-64 (with part later being shifted again onto I-255), even though parts of the old route are stilled signed just as Route 50 on the traffic lights in O' Fallon. I'm not sure I have much of a problem with it being put on a freeway through East St. Louis though.
Missouri seems to be a mixed case. There are a lot of cases where the interstates were built by upgrading an existing four lane divided US route, as is the case with I-70 and I-44, and will be the case with I-64 in St. Charles County, I-49, and maybe I-72, I-66, and whatever number the US 67 corridor south of Festus gets. US 50, US 61, and US 67 could be shifted onto I-270, but this hasn't happened yet.
Iowa definitely doesn't respect US Highways. US 6 has had several sections rerouted onto I-80, US 275 has been needlessly shifted onto I-29 between US 34 and IA 92, and US 218 was shifted onto I-380 between Coralville and Cedar Rapids (but that's probably due to US 218 having a non-interstate freeway section south of I-80).
Nebraska seems to respect US Highways, which is surprising since it has a mileage cap. The only ones I can think of that have been shifted onto interstates are US 6 for the Missouri River crossing with I-480, US 77 around Lincoln (partly due to US 77 being shifted onto the West Bypass for Lincoln), and I think there's a section of US 30 in the far western half of the state that's been shifted onto I-80. I think I-180 was built over existing US 34. However, if the East Lincoln Beltway is a state project, I would expect to see US 6 shifted onto I-80 between Exit 409 and exit on the west side of Lincoln.
Quote from: aaroads on February 09, 2009, 10:49:32 AM
New York should get a mentioning in this thread, because U.S. 106, 220, and 309 never went anywhere in the state because of some kind of disagreement between government officials there and those who laid out the system. I believe that U.S. 309 may have gone somewhere independent of U.S. 220, and U.S. 220 would have met its parent. Also look at U.S. 104, it never came anywhere close to U.S. 4.
For Pennsylvania, Jeff Kitsko has them all covered here (http://www.pahighways.com/us/decommissioned/).
Thanks for the info on New York. I've always wondered why US 220 ends in the middle of nowhere. At least that terminus will someday be I-86.
I'm guessing that US 220 and US 309 would have connected with their respective parents in New York if that disagreement hadn't happened.
Arkansas is somewhat disrespectful in that the highway department doesn't co-sign the US Routes along the Interstates.
Quote from: DrZoidberg on February 09, 2009, 10:20:38 AM
An interesting question on this topic would be: "Are any new US highways being built, or in the planning phase?"
Well recently added the US 400 and US 412 combo which in my opinion is one of the dumbest ideas of the whole highway numbering system. I mean how did they come up with numbers so disconnected from the rest. I think this is way worse than I 99.
Louisiana historically has seemed to respect its US routes (or "Federal" routes, if you go by what a certain West Coast "highway librarian" says) :-P. There have been no major US highway removals except to eliminate concurrencies of varying lengths for US 11, 51, and 65 that brought those routes into New Orleans, as well as truncating US 71 to remove it from the Baton Rouge vicinity. Also there have been removals onto more efficient alignments such as with US 90 in south La. Those were certainly reasonable, IMO.
With the recent US 425 extension and the truncation of US 65 in favor of that imposter, I might have to revise my opinion. But in all fairness, LaDOTD was probably just thinking about keeping the number of route designations as low as possible. I would guess the route planners there probably don't have a deeper understanding of the US route numbering system such as we do. I don't disagree with the US 425 extension in principle, but really this should be the US 65 mainline; current US 65 could be relegated to US 265 or something similar.
One idea I have kicked around in my head would be to extend US 65 south along LA 15 and then LA 1, LA 20, and finally LA 24 to terminate at either US 90 or LA 182 (old US 90) in Houma; or otherwise truncate and reroute US 61 similarly since Airline Highway has functionally been replaced by I-10 as a intercity through route for the most part. But frankly, by no stretch of the imagination could LA 1 between Donaldsonville and Thibodaux ever be considered for "US" status. The road follows the banks of Bayou Lafourche and while the pavement width is adequate, the road is too winding and indirect to be a good through route of this sort. A multilane bypass of this stretch would change my opinion, though. :)
Quote from: Master son on February 08, 2009, 09:13:46 AM
How about this - Minnesota and Colorado may not have decommisssioned US Routes that run along the same route as Interstates- but they certainly don't sign them.
In Colorado's case, "officially", the parts of US Highways that run concurrent with Interstates
do not exist. That means that while you'd assume some sort of concurrency for, say, US 6 along I-70... not in the eyes of the state. Instead, US 6 and others are segmented, and US 87 doesn't even exist!
Quote from: Darkangel on February 12, 2009, 06:28:51 AM
In Colorado's case, "officially", the parts of US Highways that run concurrent with Interstates do not exist. That means that while you'd assume some sort of concurrency for, say, US 6 along I-70... not in the eyes of the state. Instead, US 6 and others are segmented, and US 87 doesn't even exist!
Did Colorado do the logical thing and not sign the concurrent (duplexed) sections or do they sign these
non-existent highways?
I seem to remember exactly one set of signs on I-70 with US 6, 87 (and 287?) in Denver but that was back in 2004.
I'll just point you here, it's where I found out about this: http://www.geocities.com/mapguygk07/Misc/US87inCO/index.htm (http://www.geocities.com/mapguygk07/Misc/US87inCO/index.htm)
I think Utah also does that with their Interstate/U.S. overlaps. I was in Salt Lake City recently for design issues on Legacy Parkway and noticed one piece of U.S. 89 at M.P. 333 just before joining I-15, then upon exiting I-15 (6 miles or so later), seeing M.P. 334. No overlap signing on the I-15 mainline (until I put some in at the north end of the overlap).
Quote from: Darkangel on February 12, 2009, 06:28:51 AM
In Colorado's case, "officially", the parts of US Highways that run concurrent with Interstates do not exist. That means that while you'd assume some sort of concurrency for, say, US 6 along I-70... not in the eyes of the state. Instead, US 6 and others are segmented, and US 87 doesn't even exist!
I was in Wyoming for a week in 2007 and I remember seeing no signs for US 87 along I-25 until I crossed into Wyoming. Then, it sort of "magically" appeared.
That's not totally unlike Arkansas, except our highways still exist, but just aren't posted. AHTD explained that once and their answer was "we only sign the main route". :rolleyes:
Washington does respect its U.S. routes...we still have an infamous US 99 sign in Downtown Seattle :biggrin:
The quote aspect keeps not working, oops on the "edit by aaroads"
Anyway:
Washington does respect its U.S. routes...we still have an infamous US 99 sign in Downtown Seattle
No they don't, they got rid of U.S. 830, U.S. 410, U.S. 295. I can understand the demise of U.S. 10 and U.S. 99, but those others existed without a parallel freeway (and I don't count I-84 in Oregon for U.S. 830).
Reasons:
AASTO says no more in-state U.S. Routes (bye bye US 830, US 295)
No need for US 410, replaced by US 12
Its still disrespecting U.S. highways. That AASHTO rule is a disrespect to U.S. highways IMHO. There are still merits for U.S. highways, even if they are less than 300 miles or intrastate.
I concur, AARoads. And it seems the rules for decommissioning U.S. highways less than 300 miles applies to some states but not others. Take for instance U.S. 192 in Florida. It stretches less than a 100 miles from U.S. 27 east to Florida A1A in Melbourne. If this U.S. highway still exists, then why not others?
So, CG, the rule you stated about AASHTO saying no more in-state routes has no merit.
Oh...well WSDOT believed in it long before I was born..I couldn't of stopped it...oh well, at least they still exist as state routes.
Well no one of us could have stopped it, the point of the thread is our opinions on what state disrespected its US highways. For that, I think that Washington disrespected theirs because of US 410, US 830, and US 295's decommissioning. That's just my personal preference :biggrin:
If I could, I'd bring back them all and extend them like this:
US 410: Tacoma to Lewiston, ID to Boise
US 830: Raymond to Kelso to Vancouver to Plymouth to Pasco to Walla Walla to Pendleton
US 295: Dayton to Colfax to Pullman to Boise
Well Manitoba certainly doesn't disrespect them that much (Yes, Manitoba). You know why Highway 75 is called that, because it runs from where US 75 terminated at one time to Winnipeg, US 75 doesn't even end there anymore but Manitoba didn't change it yet.
On a lighter note:
BC numbered their system to match WA's (e.g. US 99 in WA, BC-99 in BC) but WA changed in '64 and they haven't changed. Here's the U.S. and state route comparisons between WA, ID and BC.
WA-BC
I-5 (former US 99) - BC-99
US 97 - BC-97
US 395 - BC-395
ID-BC
SH-1 - BC-23
US 95 - BC-95
I agree that it is to a point. U.S. 630 in Oregon (http://www.geocities.com/usend3039/End630/end630.htm) had little merit for instance.
I have just about no choice but to respect U.S Highways because thats all that San Angelo, Tx has. And i like U.S Highways better than Interstates
QuoteFlorida has been pretty decent as far as its US highways go. There have only been a few notable decommissions (namely US 94 and US 541 and probably ALT 129) and very few truncations (US 41 in Miami comes to mind). The one decommission that nearly happened was US 92. There were plans to decommission the route entirely because it only stretched across the state and was less than 150 miles in length. It was decided, however, that retiring the number would have caused major disruption for businesses and residences along the route, so US 92 remains intact.
Can you imagine a BL I-4? Yuck. I'm glad Florida respects its US routes and doesn't turn them into full-on freeways/expressways or build Interstates over them (except for the Sunshine Skyway). It's all about preserving the history.
And I am glad that Florida does try to preserve its history (but I really wish they would have fought and kept the colored shields!!)
That would depend on where the BL Interstate 4 would be...
Luckily with us being mostly on a peninsula we really don't have to worry about any new interstates that would overtake any U.S. routes, except for a possible U.S. 27 conversion through the south-central part of the state, but that will never happen. It could use some expressway bypasses of such places as Sebring, Lake Wales and Haines City though.
The Sunshine Skyway doesn't bother me as carrying an interstate designation as they do respect the fact that U.S. 19 still exists along the bridge as well.
The only item I wish they could do is extend U.S. 92 west to end at U.S. 19 in St. Petersburg. It has always bothered me that the route ends just north of downtown. I am not a real fan of dangling highways unless there is no other option (i.e. U.S. 1 in Key West).
Referring to the extensions of US highways, I believe that US 211 should be put on a NW bypass of Warrenton and the current US 17 portion of the Warrenton Bypass to US 15/US 29. US 211 in Warrenton obiously would become US 211 Business. I forgot that there was already a Warrenton US 211 Business so the only change would be extending US 211 Business to the current US 15/US 29/US 17 interchange(with US 211 added here of course). US 211 would then be extended onto US 29 from Warrenton to US 50 and VA 236 in Fairfax(with US 29/US 211 multiplexing with I-66 from Exits 43-52 to bypass Manassas National Battlefield). US 211 would then follow VA 236 to US 1 in Alexandria and multiplex with US 1 south to I-95/I-495. US 211 would cross the Woodrow Wilson Bridge along with I-95/I-495 into Maryland and stay on the Capital Beltway until MD 5 and replace MD 5 from I-95/I-495 to at least US 301 or even as far as MD 5's eastern terminus(also replacing MD 235 instead of MD 5 between the Helen area and Ridge).
QuoteFirst off, good luck getting VDOT to build a northwest Warrenton bypass, when they can't even build long-proposed bypasses of Tappahannock (US 17) or Crewe (US 460)...
Second, what travelshed are you trying to serve with this US 211 extension?
First, I had never even heard of official proposals for the US 460 bypass of Crewe or the US 17 Tappahannock Bypass :-/. I found the US 17 Bypass proposal here at http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/fredricksburg.pdf (http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/fredricksburg.pdf), but the US 460 bypass was nowhere to be seen in the 2025 state highway plan(or realistically 2045 or later). Basically, the US 211 extension would serve SE Maryland with a second US Route connecting US 301 to DC(the only one currently being US 50) and since MD 235/MD 5 is at least 4 lanes north of Lexington Park it might as well be upgraded. Also the VA 236 routing would give an east-west US Route connection between Fairfax and Alexandria as there are no east-west US Routes in Alexandria and the only one period is US 1.
As far as states I'm highly familiar with
Wyoming- uh...I don't think any state could possibly respect US highways more
Idaho- Does a pretty darn good job taking care of US highways. US-95 is still the only paved road connecting Northern and Southern Idaho, US-20/26/93 all are very important through routes, and besides US-10 every single mile of original US Highway is still in the system, although the numbering may have changed. US-630 became 95 Spur, US 10 Alt and Northern US-195 became US-2, US-191 was rerouted out of the state but still exists as US-20, US-91 is even still an important route. US Routes running along interstates are still very well signed (except on overhead signs)
Washington- I would argue Washington is a unique situation. Washington has always been one of the least US Highway dependent states in the country, and I'd argue that with the exception of maybe California they still are. They've sort of disrespected, but US 10 and 99 couldn't still exist as US Routes in the state, US 410 really was legitamitely replaced by US 12 and there'd be no point in running a useless concurrency all the way across the state, and US 295 really shouldn't have ever existed. In my mind the only things they've done is ditch US-195 north of Spokane (which was redundant), and US 830, which I think should still exist. As far as signage, US-12 is fairly well signed along I-5, 97 is well signed along I-90, and 12/97/395 is well signed along I-82. 2/395 is not signed at hardly at all along their concurrencies with I-90, which is unfortunate. Washington isn't a blatant disrespector like some states, but it's not at the top of the list. With the exception of 830 and occasional concurrency signage, their moves have been in line with that should be expected within the US highway system. Unfortunately, US Highways just aren't very important in Washington, nor have they ever been.
I think it "disrespects" US highways when states leave them on substandard ROWs within eyeshot of an interstate or other improved freeway. US-signed routes shouldn't be treated as an obsolete highway network that was replaced by the interstate system.
If I was dictator of AASTO, I would eliminate all US routes that are not primary intercity highways. Highway users should know that when they get on a US route, it's the highest and best road between destinations.
Also the intrastate rule is really dumb. California 99 is the perfect example of something that should have been a US route.
^I certainly agree, corco...too bad SR 20 couldn't of been the westernmost section of US 0. :-D
QuoteI think it "disrespects" US highways when states leave them on substandard ROWs within eyeshot of an interstate or other improved freeway. US-signed routes shouldn't be treated as an obsolete highway network that was replaced by the interstate system.
If I was dictator of AASTO, I would eliminate all US routes that are not primary intercity highways. Highway users should know that when they get on a US route, it's the highest and best road between destinations.
Also the intrastate rule is really dumb. California 99 is the perfect example of something that should have been a US route.
It was US 99 before I-5 came through. :nod:
QuoteI think it "disrespects" US highways when states leave them on substandard ROWs within eyeshot of an interstate or other improved freeway. US-signed routes shouldn't be treated as an obsolete highway network that was replaced by the interstate system.
If I was dictator of AASTO, I would eliminate all US routes that are not primary intercity highways. Highway users should know that when they get on a US route, it's the highest and best road between destinations.
I disagree. I think when a US route parallels an interstate or other freeway the minimum speed limit on that interstate or freeway should be higher, so slower traffic is encouraged to take the US route. Ideally, the minimum speed limit on the interstate or freeway would be equal to the maximum speed limit on the rural sections of the parallel US route.
Unless someone has a better idea for some sort of local/feeder type designation to replace the US route with . . .
^^ Except the US routes that parallel interstates usually putz through little towns or down narrow city streets. No through traffic is going to use them as an alternative route, unless they are sight-seeing (or roadgeeking :biggrin:).
AASTO needs to drop the idea that US routes need to be "continuous", because more and more states are even bothering to sign the multiplexes.
Yes, AASHTO definitely needs to get rid of the continuous US highway idea. There is no doubt in my mind that Wyoming would not have US87 if it didn't need to have it (Colorado already only signs US87 in one place).
We could start a quick topic on which highways would be "non-continuous" if AASHTO were to make such a decision. I'll start with US14: No way MnDOT would sign US14 with anything other than a MN highway shield if US14 already meets I-90 in at least 3 places, and MnDOT would've gotten SDDOT to agree.
Another one would be US6.
QuoteArkansas is somewhat disrespectful in that the highway department doesn't co-sign the US Routes along the Interstates.
Arkansas used to, many years ago. Growing up, I can vividly remember seeing signs for US 67 and US 70 posted along I-30 from Exit 111 (US 70 West) and Exit 114 (US 67 South) to Exit 132 (University Ave). On the BGS for University, it read "US 67, Bus. Loop 30, US 70 - Business Route".
Further along I-30, I remember signage for US 65 and 167 through downtown.
I wish Arkansas would go back to that habit, but I don't see that happening anytime in the near future.
Ohio has a mixed track record on US highways...
Gone are US 21 and US 25, replaced by I-85 and I-77 respectively...US 25 still exists in many places along I-75 as County Road 25A except for Ohio 25 between Cygnet and Toledo (Dunno why ODOT simply doesnt recommission all the CR 25As as US 25, since in many places, it is a four-lane road...)
US 21 is more piecemeal....
When US 40 jumps on I-70 in eastern Ohio for about 20 miles, it is co-signed with I-70 on all assemblies...
In Connecticut, the only abolishments of US Highways have been primarily the A-routes (only one US 1A alignment left in Connecticut)....most US routes have been realigned a few times...and when US 6 jumps on I -84, they are both co-signed...
QuoteYou could've found a better example. I disagree with you on MnDOT and US 14, given that US 14 is a major east-west route and is mostly on the NHS.
Yes, US14 is the direct connection between Makato, Owatonna, and Rochester and quite aways away from I-90. There's no reason that MnDot would need to remove this route.
A nearby example of what I'm thinking of would be US 12 in Wisconsin between Hudson and Wisconsin Dells. For the most part this is a glorified access road for I-94 and should be signed as state or local routes instead.
Signing this road as a US route just makes US routes seem unimportant. Plus few would notice if US 12 disappeared at Wis Dells and reappeared in the western Minneapolis suburbs.
You gotta give Arkansas credit, they have brought in quite a few US highways over the last several years:
US 278: was AR 4
US 425: was AR 81
US 371: was AR 129
US 270, US 412: I need your help with these, US 71.
US 63: :banghead: Yes, the dumbest one of all!! :pan: The majority of the southern extension was AR 15, but at least that terrible road was reworked because of it! :clap:
Not sure if this was mentioned before, but the beltway in Indianapolis has up to five US routes (plus two state roads) concurrent with the 1 to 2 interstates following it - only the interstates are marked
As far as Oregon's US routes go, most of the routes that have been decommissioned in the past usually have retained their number as a state route (OR 99 and the E/W suffixed routes, OR 126 for examples). The only US routes that have been replaced entirely was US 28 (by US 26 and US 126) and US 630, now supplanted by SPUR US 95. Considering interstates that replaced a US route, the multiplexed US route still serves as the business route for the interstate when it leaves the mainline (US 30 for I-84, OR 99 for I-5). Dunno if it's considered too disrespectful, but US routes are still pretty well-used.
How about US 130 in NJ... I would like to see 301 extened across the Delaware Memorial Bridge and change 130 to 301.. It would be nice to have the north end of 301 at 1... and it would eliminate a less that 300 mile US route entireley within one state
Quote from: flaroads on February 07, 2009, 11:42:58 PM
Florida has been pretty decent as far as its US highways go. There have only been a few notable decommissions (namely US 94 and US 541 and probably ALT 129) and very few truncations (US 41 in Miami comes to mind). The one decommission that nearly happened was US 92. There were plans to decommission the route entirely because it only stretched across the state and was less than 150 miles in length. It was decided, however, that retiring the number would have caused major disruption for businesses and residences along the route, so US 92 remains intact.
The "replacement" for 92 is I-4. 92 is good because it does link major cities St Pete/Tampa/Lakeland/Orlando/Daytona. I4 is only 132 miles so no reason not to keep 92 in the US saystem
I have seen it posted elsewhere ( dont remember where) but US 23 Should be truncated at Alama, GA no need to multiplex w US1 into Jax... unless SR 23 is extended and sign it as US 23 to St Augustine... but then you have the problem w the toll road
New York seemed to grudgingly accept the US highway system in 1926; see its portion of the nationwide map: http://wchsutah.org/maps/1926us.jpg
Quote from: geoking111 on February 07, 2009, 11:04:45 PM
My question is which states are the most disrespectful to US Routes and which states are the most respectful?
Arkansas hates co-signing US Routes along the Interstates.
Oregon seems to be hit and miss. OR 99 and OR 99E are well signed along I-5; US 26's signage along the I-405 duplex and through Ross Island Interchange leaves much to be desired; US 30 is not signed along I-405 or I-5, but is prematurely signed on the I-5 N to I-84 E ramps (technically I-84), decently signed along I-84 except through the Gorge from Troutdale to exit 35, and ODOT's justified this with Hist. US 30 markers along OR 100.
Quote from: jwolfer on October 30, 2010, 12:08:17 PM
Quote from: flaroads on February 07, 2009, 11:42:58 PM
Florida has been pretty decent as far as its US highways go. There have only been a few notable decommissions (namely US 94 and US 541 and probably ALT 129) and very few truncations (US 41 in Miami comes to mind). The one decommission that nearly happened was US 92. There were plans to decommission the route entirely because it only stretched across the state and was less than 150 miles in length. It was decided, however, that retiring the number would have caused major disruption for businesses and residences along the route, so US 92 remains intact.
The "replacement" for 92 is I-4. 92 is good because it does link major cities St Pete/Tampa/Lakeland/Orlando/Daytona. I4 is only 132 miles so no reason not to keep 92 in the US saystem
I have seen it posted elsewhere ( dont remember where) but US 23 Should be truncated at Alama, GA no need to multiplex w US1 into Jax... unless SR 23 is extended and sign it as US 23 to St Augustine... but then you have the problem w the toll road
If US 17 and FL 17 can coexist, then so can US 23 and FL 23 (if and when it makes it up that way) ;) If US 23 is truncated, then Jax would probably cry foul. Jacksonville, Miami and Kissimmee are the only cities down here to have four US Routes running through them.
Quote from: florida on November 04, 2010, 05:29:03 PM
If US 17 and FL 17 can coexist, then so can US 23 and FL 23 (if and when it makes it up that way) ;) If US 23 is truncated, then Jax would probably cry foul. Jacksonville, Miami and Kissimmee are the only cities down here to have four US Routes running through them.
I don't think "coexist" is the right word in this situation. FL-17 branches off US-17 in Haines City and then remains confusingly close as the two head generally southward.
one really needs to be renumbered. Calling it FL-171 or something similar would not tragically upend the grid.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on November 04, 2010, 07:02:56 PM
Quote from: florida on November 04, 2010, 05:29:03 PM
If US 17 and FL 17 can coexist, then so can US 23 and FL 23 (if and when it makes it up that way) ;) If US 23 is truncated, then Jax would probably cry foul. Jacksonville, Miami and Kissimmee are the only cities down here to have four US Routes running through them.
I don't think "coexist" is the right word in this situation. FL-17 branches off US-17 in Haines City and then remains confusingly close as the two head generally southward.
one really needs to be renumbered. Calling it FL-171 or something similar would not tragically upend the grid.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought FL 17 roughly follows US 27 after branching off of US 17.
Quote from: florida on November 04, 2010, 05:29:03 PM
Quote from: jwolfer on October 30, 2010, 12:08:17 PM
Quote from: flaroads on February 07, 2009, 11:42:58 PM
Florida has been pretty decent as far as its US highways go. There have only been a few notable decommissions (namely US 94 and US 541 and probably ALT 129) and very few truncations (US 41 in Miami comes to mind). The one decommission that nearly happened was US 92. There were plans to decommission the route entirely because it only stretched across the state and was less than 150 miles in length. It was decided, however, that retiring the number would have caused major disruption for businesses and residences along the route, so US 92 remains intact.
The "replacement" for 92 is I-4. 92 is good because it does link major cities St Pete/Tampa/Lakeland/Orlando/Daytona. I4 is only 132 miles so no reason not to keep 92 in the US saystem
I have seen it posted elsewhere ( dont remember where) but US 23 Should be truncated at Alama, GA no need to multiplex w US1 into Jax... unless SR 23 is extended and sign it as US 23 to St Augustine... but then you have the problem w the toll road
If US 17 and FL 17 can coexist, then so can US 23 and FL 23 (if and when it makes it up that way) ;) If US 23 is truncated, then Jax would probably cry foul. Jacksonville, Miami and Kissimmee are the only cities down here to have four US Routes running through them.
If you count 301 running thru the far western part of Jacksonville there are 5 US highways