201 - 156 miles, Maine only
6N - Suffixed route, 28 miles, Pennsylvania
9W - Suffixed route, New Jersey and New York
11W - Suffixed route, Tennessee and Virginia
11E - Suffixed route, Tennessee and Virgina
211 - 53 miles, Virginia
311 - 67 miles, North Carolina
117 - 115 miles, North Carolina
19W - Suffixed route, Tennessee and North Carolina
19E - Suffixed route, Tennessee and North Carolina
25W - Suffixed route, Tennessee and Kentucky
25E - Suffixed route, Tennessee and Kentucky
130 - 85 miles, New Jersey
341 - 227 miles, Georgia
45W - Suffixed route, Tennessee
45E - Suffixed route, Tennessee
46 - 74 miles, New Jersey
48 - 12 miles(!), Virginia
49W - Suffixed route, Mississippi
49E - Suffixed route, Mississippi
350 - 79 miles, Colorado
57 - 100 miles, Texas
(158 breaks the 300 mile minimum for intrastate at 349 miles, North Carolina)
360 - 219 miles, Virginia
264 - 217 miles, North Carolina
266 - 44 miles, Oklahoma
70S - Suffixed route, Tennessee
70N - Suffixed route, Tennessee
171 - 178 miles, Louisiana
175 - 110 miles, Texas
181 - 137 miles, Texas
290 - 275 miles, Texas
92 - 185 miles, Florida
192 - 76 miles, Florida
96 - 167 miles, Texas
Soooo... remind me. Why were the likes of 126, 299, 466 and 399 decommed? I see far more egregious violations than them...
I also suspect that if, say, ODOT were to reestablish 126 and AASHTO had a conniption, there's a nice, long list of violations that ODOT could rub AASHTO's nose in...
Note, in the list, there was exactly ONE intrastate US highway that met the 300 mile minimum rule. (99 in California would too, but CalTrans... yeah).
223 - 47 miles, Michigan only except for a tiny bit in OH uselessly multiplexed at its south end with US 23.
48 in Virginia will eventually be joined by a longer stretch in West Virginia.
US-199 since its parent doesn't exist anymore.
Oh, and the state of Oregon for flipping all of their east-west federal highways.
What's wrong with suffixed routes?
QuoteI also suspect that if, say, ODOT were to reestablish 126 and AASHTO had a conniption, there's a nice, long list of violations that ODOT could rub AASHTO's nose in...
Your list is not violations, per se. AASHTO policy points out that no *NEW* routes that are split or single-state or less than 300 miles should be established. While their policy prefers elimination or consolidation of existing routes meeting those criteria, it does not expressly prohibit the existing routes from remaining.
Quote48 in Virginia will eventually be joined by a longer stretch in West Virginia.
Indeed. In fact, the soon-to-open stretch of Corridor H between Moorefield and Forman has US 48 shields posted.
QuoteWhat's wrong with suffixed routes?
AASHTO policy discourages split routes (E/W or N/S). Alternate or Business routes that are suffixed (i.e. US 82B or US 31A) instead of bannered are allowable.
Quote from: KEK Inc. on August 23, 2010, 08:10:29 AM
What's wrong with suffixed routes?
One explanation I found, digging through AASHTO's files for something else, is the fear of motorist confusion, such as that motorists would think "US 99 West" referred not to the western branch of US 99, but rather the westbound direction of US 99. Of course, if motorists refer to a suffixed route by only the number and suffix, rather than the word the suffix stands for (like "99W" rather than "99 West"), that issue should disappear.
I guess Tennessee is the king of suffixed US routes, eh?
One more pair to add to the list 31E and 31W Tennessee and Kentucky.
The thing, to me, that makes the 70N and 70S east of Nashville especially odd it that US 70 also exists. So, you have US 70N, US 70 and US 70S all running parallel to each other.
Quote from: mightyace on August 23, 2010, 10:26:23 AM
I guess Tennessee is the king of suffixed US routes, eh?
11, 19, 25, 31, 45, and 70 all spend some time in Tennessee as a suffixed route. In fact, the only current suffixed US routes that do not spend time in that state are 9, 6, and 49.
Also note that 70 and 70S actually run concurrent for a few blocks in Nashville!!
Quote from: KEK Inc.US-199 since its parent doesn't exist anymore.
Non-existent route parents don't result in the three-digit routes being renumbered: i.e. US 138, 266, 191.
---
Quote from: Bickendan
311 - 67 miles, North Carolina
Which was recently extended to a terminus at a state route, IIRC!
Quote from: TheStranger on August 23, 2010, 11:19:57 AM
Non-existent route parents don't result in the three-digit routes being renumbered: i.e. US 138, 266, 191.
91 still exists. Barely. It happens to not intersect 191, though.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 23, 2010, 11:30:32 AM
Quote from: TheStranger on August 23, 2010, 11:19:57 AM
Non-existent route parents don't result in the three-digit routes being renumbered: i.e. US 138, 266, 191.
91 still exists. Barely. It happens to not intersect 191, though.
IIRC, 191 was rerouted to not intersect 91 (or even historic 91) over time, but originally comprised the segment of I-15 that did not supplant the remaining US 91.
I think at the very least, 96 needs to truncated to US 69 at Lumberton.
US 287 needs to be terminated at Woodville.
<snark> unless Texas gets 3 times the highway money for having 3 designations on one road </snark>
Most of US 11 could be eliminated - essentially serving as various local access roads for paralleling interstates.
I would also eliminate US 18 east of Dodgeville, WI.
Mike
Quote from: oscar on August 23, 2010, 08:37:13 AM
One explanation I found, digging through AASHTO's files for something else, is the fear of motorist confusion, such as that motorists would think "US 99 West" referred not to the western branch of US 99, but rather the westbound direction of US 99. Of course, if motorists refer to a suffixed route by only the number and suffix, rather than the word the suffix stands for (like "99W" rather than "99 West"), that issue should disappear.
That doesn't make sense, as a spur route (US xxS) could be confused with "South."
Quote from: bugo on August 23, 2010, 01:09:50 PM
That doesn't make sense, as a spur route (US xxS) could be confused with "South."
has there ever been a signed US spur route with S suffix? I've never seen one. Spur 95 in Idaho has a banner-in-shield configuration.
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/ID/ID19700951i1.jpg)
Quote from: TheStranger on August 23, 2010, 11:19:57 AM
Quote from: mightyace on August 23, 2010, 10:26:23 AM
I guess Tennessee is the king of suffixed US routes, eh?
11, 19, 25, 31, 45, and 70 all spend some time in Tennessee as a suffixed route. In fact, the only current suffixed US routes that do not spend time in that state are 9, 6, and 49.
Do you not consider xxA, xxB, xxS, etc as suffixed routes? Arkansas is full of xxB and xxS routes.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 23, 2010, 01:14:14 PM
has there ever been a signed US spur route with S suffix? I've never seen one. Spur 95 in Idaho has a banner-in-shield configuration.
Yes. US 62S in northern Arkansas for example.
There also used to be a US 82T (Truck) in south Arkansas. I haven't been there in a few years so I'm not sure if it's still signed or not.
Combined posts. ~S
Quote from: bugo on August 23, 2010, 01:14:56 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on August 23, 2010, 11:19:57 AM
Quote from: mightyace on August 23, 2010, 10:26:23 AM
I guess Tennessee is the king of suffixed US routes, eh?
11, 19, 25, 31, 45, and 70 all spend some time in Tennessee as a suffixed route. In fact, the only current suffixed US routes that do not spend time in that state are 9, 6, and 49.
Do you not consider xxA, xxB, xxS, etc as suffixed routes? Arkansas is full of xxB and xxS routes.
I was referring specifically to directional suffixes, as opposed to alternates and business routes - the nearest area to where I live that uses suffixed alternates would be Arizona.
Quote from: bugo on August 23, 2010, 01:15:26 PM
Yes. US 62S in northern Arkansas for example.
didn't know such a thing existed. got a photo for us?
I don't recall seeing an 82T in Arkansas in 2008. I drove 82 from 71 to the Mississippi state line, so if it exists, it must be in the very western part of the state. I did see state route 133T.
Quote from: mgk920 on August 23, 2010, 01:07:44 PM
I would also eliminate US 18 east of Dodgeville, WI.
Between Cambridge and Waukesha, US-18 would be deserving of a WI highway status. So all you would be doing is replacing a USH with a WIH, and the cost and confusion that would involve, for the sake of getting rid of a couple duplexes totalling about 65 miles. Is that really worth it?
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 23, 2010, 01:37:06 PM
Quote from: bugo on August 23, 2010, 01:15:26 PM
Yes. US 62S in northern Arkansas for example.
didn't know such a thing existed. got a photo for us?
David (US 71) does:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2534%2F4200464952_17773a72d8_z.jpg&hash=070969fda14dca8ecb05d4fcc196cad9e160fb58)
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 23, 2010, 01:37:06 PM
I don't recall seeing an 82T in Arkansas in 2008. I drove 82 from 71 to the Mississippi state line, so if it exists, it must be in the very western part of the state. I did see state route 133T.
I think it might have been in Stamps. Seems like I remember it being decommissioned, but I'm not sure.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 23, 2010, 01:37:06 PM
I don't recall seeing an 82T in Arkansas in 2008. I drove 82 from 71 to the Mississippi state line, so if it exists, it must be in the very western part of the state. I did see state route 133T.
82T is/was old US 82 in Stamps, partially co-signed with AR 53. Along mainline 82 it was posted as 82B, but when you turned onto it from WB 82, it became 82T. I had a photo of it, but it's AWOL at the moment. It's been 8-10 years ago, at least.
A quick look at Google Maps seems to indicate 82T no longer exists. 82B also appears to be gone.
For SPUR Routes, there used to be US 65S (now part of I-530 at Pine Bluff).
Arkansas has quite a few STATE Spur Routes: 16S, 14S, 112S, 282S, 365S, 367S to name a few.
Though none are posted in the wild, Arkansas also has US "Y" Routes (such as 412Y at Paragould). There is a AR 176Y near Jacksonville, AR, but it's the only Y route I know that's posted in the field.
Quote from: froggie on August 23, 2010, 08:17:23 AM
QuoteI also suspect that if, say, ODOT were to reestablish 126 and AASHTO had a conniption, there's a nice, long list of violations that ODOT could rub AASHTO's nose in...
Your list is not violations, per se. AASHTO policy points out that no *NEW* routes that are split or single-state or less than 300 miles should be established. While their policy prefers elimination or consolidation of existing routes meeting those criteria, it does not expressly prohibit the existing routes from remaining.
You're right. The restrictions really only apply to new routes. But with this many routes grandfathered in, it makes the restrictions rather ridiculous.
Quote from: Bickendan on August 23, 2010, 03:24:46 PM
You're right. The restrictions really only apply to new routes. But with this many routes grandfathered in, it makes the restrictions rather ridiculous.
What intrigues me is that I've read that AASHO/AASHTO has looked down upon the suffixed-directional routes since the early 1930s - yet state DOTs have actively resisted the national organization's mandates on several occasions, in this regard and in others!
Quote from: TheStranger on August 23, 2010, 03:54:49 PM
What intrigues me is that I've read that AASHO/AASHTO has looked down upon the suffixed-directional routes since the early 1930s - yet state DOTs have actively resisted the national organization's mandates on several occasions, in this regard and in others!
If DOTs would only ignore the MUTCD like they ignore AASHTO...
Quote from: bugo on August 23, 2010, 03:56:34 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on August 23, 2010, 03:54:49 PM
What intrigues me is that I've read that AASHO/AASHTO has looked down upon the suffixed-directional routes since the early 1930s - yet state DOTs have actively resisted the national organization's mandates on several occasions, in this regard and in others!
If DOTs would only ignore the MUTCD like they ignore AASHTO...
California does sometimes! :p
Looking at Robert Droz's site, AASHO attempted to create alternative designations for the suffixed-directional routes in 1934, but it appears no state DOT ever went along:
http://www.us-highways.com/usdiv.htm
EDIT: I was mistaken, judging from the amount of 1934-era redesignations, as noted by Froggie below
QuoteLooking at Robert Droz's site, AASHO attempted to create alternative designations for the suffixed-directional routes in 1934, but it appears no state DOT ever went along:
Not true. Plenty of states went along with it (for example, what used to be US 10S becoming part of US 52 in Minnesota). It's just that the more egrarious examples remain.
Quote from: froggie on August 23, 2010, 04:20:35 PM
QuoteLooking at Robert Droz's site, AASHO attempted to create alternative designations for the suffixed-directional routes in 1934, but it appears no state DOT ever went along:
Not true. Plenty of states went along with it (for example, what used to be US 10S becoming part of US 52 in Minnesota). It's just that the more egrarious examples remain.
Yeah, it seems that after the 1934 directive, a handful of states immediately renumbered their split routes (i.e. Texas, Georgia, Minnesota) but others aggressively maintained the status quo designations.
Add US 275 to that list. In Missouri, it's only 16 miles and easily replaced by an extended MO 111. In Iowa, north of US 34, it's overlapping another route (US 34, I-29, and Iowa 92). Create Iowa 111 and have it run from the new MO 111 to US 34. That leaves Nebraska, which puts it in the under 300 miles category.
Now, if the Avenue of the Saints were to ever become I-37, or whatever number, US 218 would be significantly neutered and could be replaced easily by state highways.
Quote
US Highways that AASHTO probably want to murder
All of them...
Quote from: Fredddie on August 23, 2010, 05:56:49 PM
Now, if the Avenue of the Saints were to ever become I-37, or whatever number, US 218 would be significantly neutered and could be replaced easily by state highways.
I still don't get why the state route 27 designation needed to be created instead of simply giving 218 the whole AOTS corridor (except for that east-west segment along US 20) and making the older, indirect local routings 218A.
Quote from: mgk920 on August 23, 2010, 01:07:44 PM
Most of US 11 could be eliminated - essentially serving as various local access roads for paralleling interstates.
I would also eliminate US 18 east of Dodgeville, WI.
Mike
Just because you can doesnt mean you should....
If you want to look at it this way, the Interstates represent through traffic....the parallel US routes would serve local traffic of an interstate nature such as shipments to and from businesses on the highway...
Maybe i am a traditionalist, but i prefer Interstates paired with US routes....if nothing else, if i need to duck off the freeway for any reason, the US route assures I will eventually find my way back to the Interstate again....
of course, technically US highways ARE state highways anyway....so there really is no need to change shields
Quote from: Fredddie on August 23, 2010, 05:56:49 PM
Now, if the Avenue of the Saints were to ever become I-37, or whatever number, US 218 would be significantly neutered and could be replaced easily by state highways.
Quote from: TheStranger on August 23, 2010, 06:29:58 PM
I still don't get why the state route 27 designation needed to be created instead of simply giving 218 the whole AOTS corridor (except for that east-west segment along US 20) and making the older, indirect local routings 218A.
I don't know, I kind of disagree with the premise that AOTS is just an "improved US 218". There are segments where the AOTS corridor significantly deviates from US 218, such as Owatonna MN to Charles City IA; Waterloo to Cedar Rapids; and fairly importantly, US 218 directly serves downtown Keokuk, while AOTS bypasses that city.
Suppose you did move the US 218 designation over to the AOTS corridor - then you'd have to renumber significant segments, change thousands of signs, and deal with the Keokuk issue. That solution would not have been without its own awkwardness, expense, and inconvenience to people along US 218. And for what purpose? Really, what would have been accomplished? So I think Iowa chose the lesser of two evils by leaving US 218 as-is, and assigning AOTS its own number.
Apparently they were pleased enough with that solution that they've used it again: they've extended the IA 163 designation south and east from Oskaloosa, along US 63 and US 34. The idea is that the entire 4-lane route from Des Moines to Burlington is unified under a single number. (Of course the corridor still retains its old numbers as well, and as a result there's a segment of the Mt. Pleasant bypass that carries four designations.)
I actually don't think AASHTO wants to murder anything. I don't see that organization as particularly proactive. Rather, they're reactive to whatever the individual state DOTs want to do. Seems to me they rubber-stamp probably 95% of whatever proposals the states put before them.
I think US-201 could remain, it's a link to connect Maine with PQ-173 and A-73 to Quebec City.
Quote from: usends on August 24, 2010, 09:58:55 AM
I don't know, I kind of disagree with the premise that AOTS is just an "improved US 218". There are segments where the AOTS corridor significantly deviates from US 218, such as Owatonna MN to Charles City IA; Waterloo to Cedar Rapids; and fairly importantly, US 218 directly serves downtown Keokuk, while AOTS bypasses that city.
Suppose you did move the US 218 designation over to the AOTS corridor - then you'd have to renumber significant segments, change thousands of signs, and deal with the Keokuk issue. That solution would not have been without its own awkwardness, expense, and inconvenience to people along US 218. And for what purpose?
This goes more with the AASHTO concept of "moving the US route to the best possible/most direct corridor", i.e. when US 40 was moved in some states to almost entirely concur with I-70.
In a case like this, wouldn't simply tagging a few Alternate banners serve as the cheapest way to a reroute? Certainly that's not too much more expensive than Iowa 27 signs.
I'm not disagreeing with you so much as feeling ike 218 represents an existing designation for part of the St. Louis-Twin Cities corridor and could be given more emphasis - but at the same time completely understanding why a new number was used instead. Iowa 27, Illinois 110 (and years ago, Wymong 789) represent a numbering approach that isn't particularly common on the West Coast.
Quote from: usends
I actually don't think AASHTO wants to murder anything. I don't see that organization as particularly proactive. Rather, they're reactive to whatever the individual state DOTs want to do. Seems to me they rubber-stamp probably 95% of whatever proposals the states put before them.
That then makes me wonder why Oklahoma basically had to defy AASHTO in order to get US 377 extended...
Quote from: TheStranger on August 24, 2010, 11:09:08 AM
Quote from: usends
I actually don't think AASHTO wants to murder anything. I don't see that organization as particularly proactive. Rather, they're reactive to whatever the individual state DOTs want to do. Seems to me they rubber-stamp probably 95% of whatever proposals the states put before them.
That then makes me wonder why Oklahoma basically had to defy AASHTO in order to get US 377 extended...
That's a good counterpoint, but I was referring more to AASHTO's modern-day decisions. I've never really understood the rationale behind the negative stance AASHTO took on OKDOT's
past attempts to get a US route through Ada, but since OKDOT signed US 377 north to Stroud about 20 years ago, I assume AASHTO's most recent rejection of OKDOT's proposal dates back at least that far. If OKDOT were to try and get AASHTO's US 377 route log synched with theirs
today, I'd be really surprised if AASHTO were to reject them.
Quote from: usends on August 24, 2010, 02:04:41 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on August 24, 2010, 11:09:08 AM
Quote from: usends
I actually don't think AASHTO wants to murder anything. I don't see that organization as particularly proactive. Rather, they're reactive to whatever the individual state DOTs want to do. Seems to me they rubber-stamp probably 95% of whatever proposals the states put before them.
That then makes me wonder why Oklahoma basically had to defy AASHTO in order to get US 377 extended...
That's a good counterpoint, but I was referring more to AASHTO's modern-day decisions. I've never really understood the rationale behind the negative stance AASHTO took on OKDOT's past attempts to get a US route through Ada, but since OKDOT signed US 377 north to Stroud about 20 years ago, I assume AASHTO's most recent rejection of OKDOT's proposal dates back at least that far. If OKDOT were to try and get AASHTO's US 377 route log synched with theirs today, I'd be really surprised if AASHTO were to reject them.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=2425.msg55002#msg55002
The most recent rejection was in 1980 (along with 9 other attempts to gain AASHTO approval), with the extension being signed by Oklahoma's DOT in 1991 unilaterally.
While that was 19 years ago, it was well after the 400-series US routes were already in existence, as one example of designations that didn't fit past AASHTO standards but were already signed.
so wait, why can't Oklahoma route US-377 within its boundaries as it sees fit? I thought AASHO only coordinated how the US routes cross state lines.
AASHTO coordinates US route numbering, period, not just across state lines. And part of the agreement with the state DOTs is that they'll take AASHTO route numbering decisions in good faith, which ODOT obviously hasn't done with the US 377 example (and more recently Mississippi and US 49W).
Quote from: froggie on August 24, 2010, 03:05:07 PM
(and more recently Mississippi and US 49W).
What happened in that instance?
When MDOT built a 4-lane north of Yazoo City, they put it on new alignment between Yazoo City and Silver City. AASHTO has thus far denied MDOT's requests to reroute US 49W onto the new alignment on the grounds that it's a split route.
So does that mean that U.S. 49W simply does not exist in AASHTO's eyes between the two towns since MS 149 is currently signed along the original alignment? Or does AASHTO still consider that routing part of U.S. 49W?
Quote from: bugo on August 23, 2010, 01:15:26 PM
Yes. US 62S in northern Arkansas for example.
For some reason, I'm also wanting to think there's a US 67S somewhere north of Corning, along the US 67/US 62 concurrency.
Quote from: hbelkins on August 25, 2010, 12:13:53 AM
Quote from: bugo on August 23, 2010, 01:15:26 PM
Yes. US 62S in northern Arkansas for example.
For some reason, I'm also wanting to think there's a US 67S somewhere north of Corning, along the US 67/US 62 concurrency.
There are two roads labeled US 67 BUS on the AHTD county maps, but both roads are spurs and they could very well be signed as 67S instead of 67B.
If you're interested in the pathology of US 377, the Wikipedia article on OK-99 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_State_Highway_99) has all my research. Reference 20 in that document, which is an ODOT highway designation file (http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/memorial/legal/us377.htm), gives the exact dates each of those applications were rejected by AASHTO, so if you have access to some AASHTO document repository you might be able to track down the meeting minutes and other documentation.
Quote from: froggie on August 24, 2010, 08:27:00 PM
When MDOT built a 4-lane north of Yazoo City, they put it on new alignment between Yazoo City and Silver City. AASHTO has thus far denied MDOT's requests to reroute US 49W onto the new alignment on the grounds that it's a split route.
That's idiotic. I'm all for eliminating split routes but you shouldn't deny a reroute for one just because of its number. You shouldn't grandfather it into the system and then lock it into its current state for all eternity.
Quote from: froggie on August 24, 2010, 08:27:00 PM
When MDOT built a 4-lane north of Yazoo City, they put it on new alignment between Yazoo City and Silver City. AASHTO has thus far denied MDOT's requests to reroute US 49W onto the new alignment on the grounds that it's a split route.
Was the new alignment always signed as US 49W? It looks to be that way on Google Street View, so confirming that it would be the second notable recent instance (after Oklahoma and 377) of a direct defiance to AASHTO directives.
AASHTO seems to be more interested in the letter of the law rather than the spirit. While they are denying random changes to the US route system, are they doing anything to make the system as a whole more useful?
Seems to me that if you have an improved highway going from major cities A to B, that should qualify for US signs regardless of actual mileage or whatever.
Quote from: ctsignguy on August 23, 2010, 07:26:54 PM
If you want to look at it this way, the Interstates represent through traffic....the parallel US routes would serve local traffic of an interstate nature such as shipments to and from businesses on the highway...
Maybe i am a traditionalist, but i prefer Interstates paired with US routes....if nothing else, if i need to duck off the freeway for any reason, the US route assures I will eventually find my way back to the Interstate again....
The problem is that US routes then become "Don't exit here unless you know exactly where you are going" or "This is really a business route" or even "Drive this only if you are a roadgeek". All of which devalues the other US routes that actually go places.
In certain states the US routes system has almost become the tertiary system of "old roads", which not at all useful to the average traveler and not what the system is intended to be.
What the system is intended to be is what the Interstate system now is, scaled up for modern roadbuilding concepts.
Concur with the last two bits, except for this:
QuoteAASHTO seems to be more interested in the letter of the law rather than the spirit. While they are denying random changes to the US route system, are they doing anything to make the system as a whole more useful?
It's not law, per se. More like policy. Meanwhile, as was mentioned before, AASHTO can't go about proposing these changes. The changes have to come from the respective state DOTs. Thus, when it comes to the US routes, AASHTO is reactionary not by choice but by requirement.
QuoteSo does that mean that U.S. 49W simply does not exist in AASHTO's eyes between the two towns since MS 149 is currently signed along the original alignment? Or does AASHTO still consider that routing part of U.S. 49W?
AASHTO still considers the original alignment as US 49W.
QuoteWas the new alignment always signed as US 49W? It looks to be that way on Google Street View, so confirming that it would be the second notable recent instance (after Oklahoma and 377) of a direct defiance to AASHTO directives.
Yes, the new alignment is signed as US 49W. Hence why I brought it up as a point of reference.
Quote from: hbelkins on August 25, 2010, 12:13:53 AM
For some reason, I'm also wanting to think there's a US 67S somewhere north of Corning, along the US 67/US 62 concurrency.
I think there is a 67S at Walnut Ridge. It's part of old 67 IIRC. I need to take a trip up that way sometime soon.
Quote from: flowmotion on August 25, 2010, 03:30:12 AM
AASHTO seems to be more interested in the letter of the law rather than the spirit. While they are denying random changes to the US route system, are they doing anything to make the system as a whole more useful?
Seems to me that if you have an improved highway going from major cities A to B, that should qualify for US signs regardless of actual mileage or whatever.
Quote from: ctsignguy on August 23, 2010, 07:26:54 PM
If you want to look at it this way, the Interstates represent through traffic....the parallel US routes would serve local traffic of an interstate nature such as shipments to and from businesses on the highway...
Maybe i am a traditionalist, but i prefer Interstates paired with US routes....if nothing else, if i need to duck off the freeway for any reason, the US route assures I will eventually find my way back to the Interstate again....
The problem is that US routes then become "Don't exit here unless you know exactly where you are going" or "This is really a business route" or even "Drive this only if you are a roadgeek". All of which devalues the other US routes that actually go places.
In certain states the US routes system has almost become the tertiary system of "old roads", which not at all useful to the average traveler and not what the system is intended to be.
I pretty much agree with this. If the USH system is really going to be anything beyond a relic of the past, it really should be used on routes that are secondary routes that are significant, but do not wholly require interstate status.
Which, IMO, fits the non-Interstate part of the National Highway System (NHS) to a T. I've mentioned as much on my website (http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/ushwychg/policy-ideas.htm)...
Quote from: froggie on August 25, 2010, 09:55:53 AM
National Highway System (NHS)
now that's a relic of road geekery if I ever saw one. Most travelers can point out an interstate highway. Some even know the difference between the interstate and US route systems. Show me a single traveler that has ever heard of the NHS.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on August 25, 2010, 09:48:16 AM
If the USH system is really going to be anything beyond a relic of the past, it really should be used on routes that are secondary routes that are significant, but do not wholly require interstate status...
Quote from: froggie on August 25, 2010, 09:55:53 AM
...which, IMO, fits the non-Interstate part of the National Highway System (NHS) to a T. I've mentioned as much on my website (http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/ushwychg/policy-ideas.htm)...
I like your concept of synching the US highway system with the NHS. How does one find out which non-interstate roads are NHS? Is there some kind of mapping application that helps to visualize what's included in the system?
Quote from: usends on August 25, 2010, 10:21:50 AM
I like your concept of synching the US highway system with the NHS. How does one find out which non-interstate roads are NHS? Is there some kind of mapping application that helps to visualize what's included in the system?
the fact that it's this difficult and requires this much research just to track down a map of the NHS completely reinforces the notion that
nobody cares about it, and therefore using it as any sort of useful system is an exercise in futility.
I have been a user of the American road network since the mid-90s and have logged many hundreds of thousands of miles, and the total quantity of times I have read about the NHS, thought about the NHS, used the NHS as a navigational aid, or even acknowledged that NHS existed is ... approximately
zero.
QuoteHow does one find out which non-interstate roads are NHS? Is there some kind of mapping application that helps to visualize what's included in the system?
There is (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/nhs/)...
Quotethe fact that it's this difficult and requires this much research just to track down a map of the NHS completely reinforces the notion that nobody cares about it, and therefore using it as any sort of useful system is an exercise in futility.
That's in no small part because the layman doesn't care about road funding sources. They just want their road project.
Meanwhile, your continual rants and complaints against the NHS would easily be rectified by my proposal. Combining the NHS and the US route system into one entity both gives it an identifiable route marker (the US route shield), and a dedicated funding sources (FHWA NHS funds).
Quote from: froggie on August 25, 2010, 02:25:57 PM
That's in no small part because the layman doesn't care about road funding sources.
Thinking on a purely navigational basis, this is where I wish signage wasn't simply tied to funding sources, California in particular suffers from confusing route truncations as a result of this. (This also comes into play elsewhere into the discussion about why some substandard interstate routes get the red-white-and-blue shield, while others are forced to lose their designations.)
Quote from: froggie on August 25, 2010, 02:25:57 PMMeanwhile, your continual rants and complaints against the NHS would easily be rectified by my proposal. Combining the NHS and the US route system into one entity both gives it an identifiable route marker (the US route shield), and a dedicated funding sources (FHWA NHS funds).
and then we'd get things like C-470/E-470/anything but I-470 for that perfectly cromulent Denver beltway... or, as Chris mentioned, just plain old gaps in numbering because a road built to US highway standards was - horrors! - not in the NHS funding system.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 25, 2010, 03:04:24 PM
and then we'd get things like C-470/E-470/anything but I-470 for that perfectly cromulent Denver beltway... or, as Chris mentioned, just plain old gaps in numbering because a road built to US highway standards was - horrors! - not in the NHS funding system.
I think the only time a route gap could even be considered acceptable is if the route in question is on different sides of the continental divide (i.e. the repeated east-west interstates, US 2) - but really, if a route exists along a pathway, simply sign it, or decomission it with no seperate unconnected segments.
Not quite as macro as the NHS/US highway example, but California's handling of Route 1 and Route 160 fits into this paradigm, as does the move of all US routes in Indianapolis to I-465.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 25, 2010, 10:12:20 AM
Quote from: froggie on August 25, 2010, 09:55:53 AM
National Highway System (NHS)
now that's a relic of road geekery if I ever saw one. Most travelers can point out an interstate highway. Some even know the difference between the interstate and US route systems. Show me a single traveler that has ever heard of the NHS.
I have -- When Gresham wanted to build a parkway (freeway) from I-84 to the Mt Hood Freeway along 238th Ave, they noted that this was the NHS corridor. Troutdale, Fairview and Wood Village all NIMBY'ed the project and got Metro to nerf the project.
It took me a while to suss out the NHS corridors from there, but they're essentially the red routes on most paper maps (DOT and RMN are the two big ones, IIRC -- Thomas Bros. doesn't give a hoot about these), while black routes are non-NHS.
Quote from: Bickendan on August 25, 2010, 05:12:34 PM
I have -- When Gresham wanted to build a parkway (freeway) from I-84 to the Mt Hood Freeway along 238th Ave, they noted that this was the NHS corridor. Troutdale, Fairview and Wood Village all NIMBY'ed the project and got Metro to nerf the project.
you and the city of Gresham are not average travelers! Again, show me an
average traveler, with little interest in roads beyond the fact that they will get him to point B, who has heard of the NHS.
I should have mentioned, it was the Oregonian that noted the corridor was NHS, so presumably, every person that read the paper that day will have heard of it -- not that they'll have any working knowledge what it is or what it means.
Quote from: froggie on August 25, 2010, 07:00:10 AM
It's not law, per se. More like policy. Meanwhile, as was mentioned before, AASHTO can't go about proposing these changes. The changes have to come from the respective state DOTs. Thus, when it comes to the US routes, AASHTO is reactionary not by choice but by requirement.
While is true that AASHTO can't force states to do anything, I don't believe they have done a very good job promoting "best practices" for US Route signage. Leaving the decisions up to the locals with no guidance has lead to a highway system with very inconsistent standards for what is an 'acceptable' route.
Re the NHS: it looks you are suggesting that it be used to modify and extend the US route system, which seems like a good idea to me. AgentSteel is also correct that roads should not signed based on the funding program, but AFAICT nobody is suggesting that.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 25, 2010, 10:27:12 AM
Quote from: usends on August 25, 2010, 10:21:50 AM
I like your concept of synching the US highway system with the NHS. How does one find out which non-interstate roads are NHS? Is there some kind of mapping application that helps to visualize what's included in the system?
the fact that it's this difficult and requires this much research just to track down a map of the NHS completely reinforces the notion that nobody cares about it, and therefore using it as any sort of useful system is an exercise in futility.
I have been a user of the American road network since the mid-90s and have logged many hundreds of thousands of miles, and the total quantity of times I have read about the NHS, thought about the NHS, used the NHS as a navigational aid, or even acknowledged that NHS existed is ... approximately zero.
So if anything before 1995 is a relic, what does that make 99% of the people who post here (we have what, 2 posters born after 1995?)?
Otherwise, go visit your own website Jake.
https://www.aaroads.com/high-priority/index.html (https://www.aaroads.com/high-priority/index.html)
Quote from: Adam Smith on August 26, 2010, 01:09:01 AM
Otherwise, go visit your own website Jake.
http://shields.aaroads.com
you go visit it, then :sombrero:
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 25, 2010, 10:12:20 AM
Quote from: froggie on August 25, 2010, 09:55:53 AM
National Highway System (NHS)
now that's a relic of road geekery if I ever saw one. Most travelers can point out an interstate highway. Some even know the difference between the interstate and US route systems. Show me a single traveler that has ever heard of the NHS.
I just looked up the NHS map of Oklahoma to find that it includes the Chickasaw Turnpike.
...What the hell, FHWA.
The NHS is a funny system. It includes not just important through routes which are specialized to serve long-distance traffic, but also what are called "intermodal connectors." I think a straightforward NHS-to-US highway mapping would run into problems with the intermodal connectors, some of which would have to receive spur designations. The Interstate numbering system is set up to handle this better than the US highway numbering system, so a map of NHS onto the union of Interstates and US routes would probably work well. (Froggie--I see your proposal addresses the intermodal connectors by assigning unsigned four-digit US route designations to them, but this does nothing to establish a transparent link between US highways and the NHS and in general I believe four-digit US routes should be avoided like the plague.)
Of course, there are a fair few NHS routes which are state routes. This would give a whole new dimension to the "I want my favorite state route to be an Interstate" debate.
Quote from: J N Winkler on August 27, 2010, 04:28:02 AM
The NHS is a funny system. It includes not just important through routes which are specialized to serve long-distance traffic, but also what are called "intermodal connectors." I think a straightforward NHS-to-US highway mapping would run into problems with the intermodal connectors, some of which would have to receive spur designations. The Interstate numbering system is set up to handle this better than the US highway numbering system, so a map of NHS onto the union of Interstates and US routes would probably work well. (Froggie--I see your proposal addresses the intermodal connectors by assigning unsigned four-digit US route designations to them, but this does nothing to establish a transparent link between US highways and the NHS and in general I believe four-digit US routes should be avoided like the plague.)
Of course, there are a fair few NHS routes which are state routes. This would give a whole new dimension to the "I want my favorite state route to be an Interstate" debate.
There's actually a few that are county routes not maintained by any states. Parham Road in Henrico County, Virginia is in the NHS, and all but a small piece between US 1 (not on the NHS) and I-95 is county-maintained. I presume it's in the NHS because it connects a number of other NHS routes (I-95, US 33, US 250, I-64, VA 150). The piece between I-95 and US 301 doesn't seem to be in the NHS, though. Also, they messed up by labeling the whole thing as VA 73 (that's only from I-95 to US 1, the only VDOT-maintained portion other than a bridge over I-64).
Quote from: SyntheticDreamer on August 27, 2010, 07:22:57 AM
Quote from: J N Winkler on August 27, 2010, 04:28:02 AM
The NHS is a funny system. It includes not just important through routes which are specialized to serve long-distance traffic, but also what are called "intermodal connectors." I think a straightforward NHS-to-US highway mapping would run into problems with the intermodal connectors, some of which would have to receive spur designations. The Interstate numbering system is set up to handle this better than the US highway numbering system, so a map of NHS onto the union of Interstates and US routes would probably work well. (Froggie--I see your proposal addresses the intermodal connectors by assigning unsigned four-digit US route designations to them, but this does nothing to establish a transparent link between US highways and the NHS and in general I believe four-digit US routes should be avoided like the plague.)
Of course, there are a fair few NHS routes which are state routes. This would give a whole new dimension to the "I want my favorite state route to be an Interstate" debate.
There's actually a few that are county routes not maintained by any states. Parham Road in Henrico County, Virginia is in the NHS, and all but a small piece between US 1 (not on the NHS) and I-95 is county-maintained. I presume it's in the NHS because it connects a number of other NHS routes (I-95, US 33, US 250, I-64, VA 150). The piece between I-95 and US 301 doesn't seem to be in the NHS, though. Also, they messed up by labeling the whole thing as VA 73 (that's only from I-95 to US 1, the only VDOT-maintained portion other than a bridge over I-64).
Hawaii has one tiny county road in the NHS, unsigned with a five-digit route inventory number (four digits is the usual limit for route numbers, signed or not, in Hawaii). The only reason for including it in the NHS seems to be that it connects a Fort Shafter Army base entrance to the state highway system.
There are lots of short intermodal connector roads in the Hawaii state highway system (many unsigned), perhaps because Hawaii DOT also runs most of the state's harbors and airports. It wouldn't surprise me if they also were in the NHS.
Quote from: oscar on August 27, 2010, 09:05:19 AM
Hawaii has one tiny county road in the NHS, unsigned with a five-digit route inventory number (four digits is the usual limit for route numbers, signed or not, in Hawaii). The only reason for including it in the NHS seems to be that it connects a Fort Shafter Army base entrance to the state highway system.
isn't this road not even open to the public?
Another problem with synching the NHS with US Highways is that there are substantial sections of US Highway that are not currently part of the NHS. You would have to either add those portions to the NHS or reroute/cut them.
I don't necessarily synch the USH with the NHS, but I think the USH should rise to greater prominence. For instance, US-53 between La Crosse and Eau Claire, WI for example. WI-93 is clearly the faster route between these two cities. WIDOT gives it the "red line" treatment on the map, while US-53 is gray and lies on a more meandering route to the east.
US-53 should be on the more prominent route...especially since north of Eau Claire, US-53 is a prominent four lane highway. It are these types of gaps that are the problem with the USH numbering.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 26, 2010, 04:33:39 AM
Quote from: Adam Smith on August 26, 2010, 01:09:01 AM
Otherwise, go visit your own website Jake.
http://shields.aaroads.com
you go visit it, then :sombrero:
I have. You've used one of my photos without crediting me.
Quote from: Adam Smith on August 27, 2010, 05:07:06 PM
I have. You've used one of my photos without crediting me.
are you going to tell me which one, or do I have to guess?
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 27, 2010, 11:17:19 AM
Quote from: oscar on August 27, 2010, 09:05:19 AM
Hawaii has one tiny county road in the NHS, unsigned with a five-digit route inventory number (four digits is the usual limit for route numbers, signed or not, in Hawaii). The only reason for including it in the NHS seems to be that it connects a Fort Shafter Army base entrance to the state highway system.
isn't this road not even open to the public?
It is open to the general public -- all 0.12 miles of it -- but you have to do a U-turn at the base entrance if you don't have a military ID or other authorization to proceed onto the base.