I know that Interstate and U.S. route multiplexes have been discussed at length before (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=1999.0), but I am specifically curious about unsigned segments of U.S. Highways that make the route impossible to follow without using a map, and these tend to occur where a U.S. route duplexes with an Interstate route. The two examples that always come to mind for me are US 6 in Denver, Colorado, which I only know from maps and images, and US 169 in Johnson County, Kansas, with which I am familiar. In both instances, following the U.S. route by signs is impossible, because their signing disappears when they become duplexed with interstates. From the images I have seen of US 6 in Colorado, the lack of signing appears consistent enough to be intentional, but please correct me if I'm wrong. US 169 in Kansas was recently rerouted, but signs for the highway were actually removed from segments that would have been unaffected by the rerouting (US 56/Shawnee Mission Parkway and Rainbow Boulevard).
I am wondering, are there specific policies that states use to determine when not to sign U.S. Highways concurrently with Interstates? I know some states have highway mileage caps, but that shouldn't affect concurrent signing. If the goal is to reduce what some may consider "sign clutter," then why are some U.S. Highways signed where they run concurrently with Interstates while others are not? Furthermore, is this rule frequently applied to non-Interstate duplexes (such as the US 56/US 169 example in Kansas)?
A similar example is I-465 in Indiana, which has several U.S. routes running concurrently along much of its length, unsigned. The difference, though, is that, at least from the images I have seen, it appears possible to follow these U.S. routes by signs (correct me if there are junctions where this is not true), although one would not know if he or she were joining a U.S. route in the middle of its multiplex with I-465, and I don't remember there being any reassurance shields. This approach seems preferable for maintaining the continuity of a U.S. route while minimizing signs. But then, do other states, such as Colorado, actually find it preferable to have a U.S. route appear to end at an Interstate and then reappear somewhere else?
Quote from: stridentweasel on June 05, 2011, 03:18:19 PMI am wondering, are there specific policies that states use to determine when not to sign U.S. Highways concurrently with Interstates? I know some states have highway mileage caps, but that shouldn't affect concurrent signing. If the goal is to reduce what some may consider "sign clutter," then why are some U.S. Highways signed where they run concurrently with Interstates while others are not? Furthermore, is this rule frequently applied to non-Interstate duplexes (such as the US 56/US 169 example in Kansas)?
As far as I am aware, no policies exist at the national level, while state-level policies vary considerably in depth and detail. I have long suspected that the process of developing signing schemes at the state level (which is essentially what a decision to sign or not to sign a US highway in a given corridor is) relies heavily on engineering judgment, rather than formal codified policies. I also suspect that the outcomes are often not committed to paper except possibly as memoranda restricted to internal circulation in the traffic design office.
In the case of New Mexico, for example, US 85 is not signed at all while it is in both Texas and Colorado. I think there must have been a deliberate decision to this effect but I have never been shown a memo which says, explicitly, "Do not sign US 85 and do not make signing plans for I-25 which show US 85."
QuoteA similar example is I-465 in Indiana, which has several U.S. routes running concurrently along much of its length, unsigned. The difference, though, is that, at least from the images I have seen, it appears possible to follow these U.S. routes by signs (correct me if there are junctions where this is not true), although one would not know if he or she were joining a U.S. route in the middle of its multiplex with I-465, and I don't remember there being any reassurance shields. This approach seems preferable for maintaining the continuity of a U.S. route while minimizing signs. But then, do other states, such as Colorado, actually find it preferable to have a U.S. route appear to end at an Interstate and then reappear somewhere else?
Again, I suspect the decision-making processes are largely undocumented. However, TxDOT's
Freeway Signing Handbook, which was developed largely as a model of good signing practice and is not meant to be completely specific to Texas conditions, spells out a unit system for measuring sign message loading which is designed to be more comprehensive than the
MUTCD's sketchy guidance (which relies largely on limits on numbers of destinations on individual panels and across a gantry). Each arrow, cardinal direction word, and discrete destination is treated as a single unit, with (IIRC) recommended maxima of 20 units per gantry and 5-7 per sign panel. This unit system is based on sign comprehension research which goes all the way back to a couple of papers published by T.W. Forbes in the late 1930's/early 1940's, which gave minimum letter heights and word limits for signs based on the intrinsic legibility of the sign lettering and the amount of time the driver has to read the sign while approaching it. (I have long suspected that Forbes' research was funded by the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission as part of an effort to develop signing for the newly opened Turnpike, but I haven't found documentation to prove this.)
Applying this unit system (or any other quantitative measure of message loading) to the signing in a given highway corridor gives an idea of whether there is enough of a "hole" to allow signing for concurrent routes of a secondary class. If there is a determination that the "hole" is not large enough to provide continuity for the less important route on the advance guide and exit direction signing, the choices become arbitrary. Signing can be omitted altogether, or various "Hail Mary" approaches can be pursued, such as putting the route in question on supplemental guide signs or trailblazers at exit ramps. This is essentially what engineering judgment is about.
Quote from: stridentweasel on June 05, 2011, 03:18:19 PMUS 169 in Kansas was recently rerouted, but signs for the highway were actually removed from segments that would have been unaffected by the rerouting (US 56/Shawnee Mission Parkway and Rainbow Boulevard).
In regard to this specific case, a possible motivation for removing US 169 signing is to clear the decks for elimination of city connecting link mileage in exchange for a capital improvement elsewhere. It would have been KDOT's decision to do this because KDOT is responsible for trailblazers for state routes on city connecting links, regardless of whether maintenance responsibility in general rests with KDOT or the city. One imagines that KDOT would first have obtained the localities' consent, or at least their acquiescence, to this change, and it may even have been documented in city council meeting minutes (or the like) on the Web.
There is a thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4524.0) which explains city connecting links.
Quote from: stridentweasel on June 05, 2011, 03:18:19 PM
A similar example is I-465 in Indiana, which has several U.S. routes running concurrently along much of its length, unsigned. The difference, though, is that, at least from the images I have seen, it appears possible to follow these U.S. routes by signs (correct me if there are junctions where this is not true), although one would not know if he or she were joining a U.S. route in the middle of its multiplex with I-465, and I don't remember there being any reassurance shields. This approach seems preferable for maintaining the continuity of a U.S. route while minimizing signs. But then, do other states, such as Colorado, actually find it preferable to have a U.S. route appear to end at an Interstate and then reappear somewhere else?
You are correct in that there is a sign from when you get on I-465 from the particular U.S. or state road that tells the motorist to what exit they need to proceed to continue on that route. Of course, few people really care whether or not there is a state or U.S. highway along 465 and the sign assemblys along the highway would look ridicioulous with all those state and U.S. shields, especially between Exits 46 and 47 where there's like eight different highways. Interestingly, Fort Wayne, which have similar situation with a couple or so U.S. highways that follow the bypass I-469, all highways are signed along the multiplex, so maybe it's just a matter of how many highways there are.
US 12 and 52 have signs that explicitly say to follow I-94 in Minnesota.
US 30 'disappears' from I-84 through the western portion of the Columbia River Gorge, presumably as Hist. US 30 takes up OR 100's alignment (officially, US 30 is still on I-84 and OR 100 is an independent route).
Sometimes I just wish they'd not sign the US Route (I-39 and US 51) :P
Quote from: J N Winkler on June 05, 2011, 03:58:44 PM
As far as I am aware, no policies exist at the national level, while state-level policies vary considerably in depth and detail. I have long suspected that the process of developing signing schemes at the state level (which is essentially what a decision to sign or not to sign a US highway in a given corridor is) relies heavily on engineering judgment, rather than formal codified policies. I also suspect that the outcomes are often not committed to paper except possibly as memoranda restricted to internal circulation in the traffic design office.
In the case of New Mexico, for example, US 85 is not signed at all while it is in both Texas and Colorado. I think there must have been a deliberate decision to this effect but I have never been shown a memo which says, explicitly, "Do not sign US 85 and do not make signing plans for I-25 which show US 85."
Again, I suspect the decision-making processes are largely undocumented. However, TxDOT's Freeway Signing Handbook, which was developed largely as a model of good signing practice and is not meant to be completely specific to Texas conditions, spells out a unit system for measuring sign message loading which is designed to be more comprehensive than the MUTCD's sketchy guidance (which relies largely on limits on numbers of destinations on individual panels and across a gantry). Each arrow, cardinal direction word, and discrete destination is treated as a single unit, with (IIRC) recommended maxima of 20 units per gantry and 5-7 per sign panel. This unit system is based on sign comprehension research which goes all the way back to a couple of papers published by T.W. Forbes in the late 1930's/early 1940's, which gave minimum letter heights and word limits for signs based on the intrinsic legibility of the sign lettering and the amount of time the driver has to read the sign while approaching it. (I have long suspected that Forbes' research was funded by the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission as part of an effort to develop signing for the newly opened Turnpike, but I haven't found documentation to prove this.)
Applying this unit system (or any other quantitative measure of message loading) to the signing in a given highway corridor gives an idea of whether there is enough of a "hole" to allow signing for concurrent routes of a secondary class. If there is a determination that the "hole" is not large enough to provide continuity for the less important route on the advance guide and exit direction signing, the choices become arbitrary. Signing can be omitted altogether, or various "Hail Mary" approaches can be pursued, such as putting the route in question on supplemental guide signs or trailblazers at exit ramps. This is essentially what engineering judgment is about.
That makes sense that such signing decisions would be made on a case-by-case basis. Thank you for the insight.
If I recall correctly, Washington's Interstate/US multiplexes are usually perfectly signed with reassurance markers (i.e. an I-5 reassurance marker is always accompanied by a US 12 one), but pull-throughs and signs on intersecting roads generally only have the interstate shield.
Quote from: Bickendan on June 05, 2011, 08:14:03 PM
US 12 and 52 have signs that explicitly say to follow I-94 in Minnesota.
I've seen this in other places, too. I think Utah does this for US 50 when it merges with I-70, but they actually cosign them for several miles before the 50 shields disappear.
QuoteUS 30 'disappears' from I-84 through the western portion of the Columbia River Gorge, presumably as Hist. US 30 takes up OR 100's alignment (officially, US 30 is still on I-84 and OR 100 is an independent route).
I'm not sure this was intentional. There are still plenty of dual references to 30/84 left through there, and the stand-alone 84 shields are of more recent vintage, leading me to think leaving 30 off the assemblies was just an oversight. However, I think that 30
should be signed on the historic highway instead of along the freeway, so I'd be pleased if your theory was accurate.
There's also the short duplex of US 31 with I-65 from Exit 1 in Tennessee to Exit 354 in Alabama.
It is clear on each end that you are supposed to get on I-65 to stay on US 31 and each end tells you to get off at the correct place. However, I don't recall seeing any US 31 signs on the I-65 mainline where they are duplexed.
Quote from: Kacie Jane on June 05, 2011, 10:27:24 PM
If I recall correctly, Washington's Interstate/US multiplexes are usually perfectly signed with reassurance markers (i.e. an I-5 reassurance marker is always accompanied by a US 12 one), but pull-throughs and signs on intersecting roads generally only have the interstate shield.
They do the same thing here in Pittsburgh along I-376, US-22, US-30. All the signage on I-79 mentions just I-376 (previously I-279 North, and US-22/US-30 West). But when you're on the Parkway, US-22 and US-30 are co-signed with I-376 reassurance shields.
In Arkansas, this is intentional.
US 71 and US 62 follow I-540 in NW Arkansas, but neither is posted.
US 65 follows I-40 from Conway to North Little Rock, but is not posted independently: only on BGS's approaching the split.
I forget what their reasoning is. I think Jeremy Lance may have spoken to AHTD about this once, so I'll see if he remembers.
*UPDATE* AHTD says it's to "avoid confusion" :confused:
QuoteIf I recall correctly, Washington's Interstate/US multiplexes are usually perfectly signed with reassurance markers (i.e. an I-5 reassurance marker is always accompanied by a US 12 one), but pull-throughs and signs on intersecting roads generally only have the interstate shield.
Except on I-90/US-2/US-395. It gets a bit sketchy there.
For US-2 east there is one sign that says it follows I-90 when you merge from 2 east to I-90 east but nothing on the mainline
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2Fhighways%2F2%2F231to90%2F9.JPG&hash=b8184bef294cc613b91716a604a41b7272d83f0c)
and then 395 is referenced northbound at the approach (marked as east)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2Fhighways%2F395%2F21to90%2F4.JPG&hash=5d5ca535753c7bf8a8831ed6ba50a3fd5a4ce226)
then marked after the SR 261 interchange (but not on the reassurance marker after the 90/395 merge)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2Fhighways%2F90%2F261to23%2F1.JPG&hash=a1e857632982f4433d0fde98bd960a7e17d8da2c)
and that's it.
For 2 west/395 south I thought there was a sign on I-90 west that said "2 W and 395 S follow I-90" but I can't find my photo of it and I can't find it on SRWeb, so maybe I dreamt it. In my dream it was mounted on an overpass.
Quote from: corco on June 06, 2011, 10:51:14 AMFor 2 west/395 south I thought there was a sign on I-90 west that said "2 W and 395 S follow I-90" but I can't find my photo of it and I can't find it on SRWeb, so maybe I dreamt it. In my dream it was mounted on an overpass.
Did it have fresh sheeting? If it did, then I suspect I have the sign design sheet for it. (1500 sheets to go through for Washington state, though . . .)
Well, I emailed this worker at UDOT concerning the I-70/US-6/50/191 quad-plex and he guessed that, at least in that case, only the most major route (I-70) is signed to avoid "Information Overload."
Still, that doesn't explain why we see US-189 "ending" at Heber City. Nor does it explain why we don't see US-50 on its short duplex with I-15*, or why US-89 dissapears and reappears on I-15 along the Wasatch Front.
*Though you at least have signs pointing westbound US-50 drivers to use I-15 south at Scipio, (north/east end of duplex), though US-50 signs aren't posted on I-15 itself nor are there US-50 signs at Holden (south/west end of the duplex). That might be something I can email UDOT about, as well.
There is also US 74 whose western terminus is at the I-24/75 interchange in Chattanooga, but there is no mention of it until Cleveland, TN, and even then it is spotty until you pass through the Ocoee River Gorge as US 64 is the main route. I wonder of US 74 was intended on being extended west but never occured?
Quote from: J N Winkler on June 06, 2011, 01:25:10 PM
Quote from: corco on June 06, 2011, 10:51:14 AMFor 2 west/395 south I thought there was a sign on I-90 west that said "2 W and 395 S follow I-90" but I can't find my photo of it and I can't find it on SRWeb, so maybe I dreamt it. In my dream it was mounted on an overpass.
Did it have fresh sheeting? If it did, then I suspect I have the sign design sheet for it. (1500 sheets to go through for Washington state, though . . .)
It's been two years since I would have driven by it and at that point it didn't look brand new but it wasn't particularly old, either. I'd guess 5-15 years old
Quote from: corco on June 06, 2011, 04:12:21 PMIt's been two years since I would have driven by it and at that point it didn't look brand new but it wasn't particularly old, either. I'd guess 5-15 years old
Thanks for this--I'm afraid this one would be a long shot because my WSDOT archive goes back only to 2003. I did have a quick look and found a Class A sign (which is what WSDOT calls its designable orange-background construction signs) advising traffic for US 2 and US 395 (directions given) to use Exit 282.
It's at the Arthur Street overpass (though not quite mounted on it): http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=47.652279,-117.395074&spn=0.012518,0.041199&t=k&z=16&layer=c&cbll=47.652068,-117.39504&panoid=JtX1c69O4bCCiiZNVT7Btg&cbp=12,282.17,,0,-4.41
Quote from: Rover_0 on June 06, 2011, 02:24:03 PM
Well, I emailed this worker at UDOT concerning the I-70/US-6/50/191 quad-plex and he guessed that, at least in that case, only the most major route (I-70) is signed to avoid "Information Overload."
Still, that doesn't explain why we see US-189 "ending" at Heber City. Nor does it explain why we don't see US-50 on its short duplex with I-15*, or why US-89 dissapears and reappears on I-15 along the Wasatch Front.
*Though you at least have signs pointing westbound US-50 drivers to use I-15 south at Scipio, (north/east end of duplex), though US-50 signs aren't posted on I-15 itself nor are there US-50 signs at Holden (south/west end of the duplex). That might be something I can email UDOT about, as well.
I suspected avoiding "information overload" or "sign clutter" was the rationale in most cases. Still, it seems like it usually would be feasible to use a supplementary guide sign, such as "US XX Follow I-XX" or just a shield with an arrow, as in the cases in Minnesota and Indiana that were mentioned previously, but that's just my preference.
From looking at interchanges on I-70 in Utah on Google Maps and Street View, it seems that US 50 is usually signed, while US 6 disappears when it turns onto I-70.
Also, from what I've read recently, US 66 apparently had unsigned segments after the Interstates were in place and before it was decommissioned. It's described in the 1995 edition of the book
Main Street to Miracle Mile by Chester H. Liebs, where he says that some of its identification markers had been removed by 1980. US 66 was decommissioned one year after I was born, so I wouldn't know about it first-hand.
If they put one of these at the Holden end of the I-15/US-50 duplex, I'd take it as a consolation to having US-50 fully signed on I-15:
I-15/US-50 Sign at Scipio (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=39.253259,-112.114964&spn=0.101423,0.222988&t=h&z=13&layer=c&cbll=39.253345,-112.115174&panoid=UjBu7RbnRPstnq3ZDgvC9g&cbp=12,12.96,,0,-4.23)
Contrast with the Holden end:
Just I-15 at Holden (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=39.144057,-112.235405&spn=0.012698,0.027874&t=h&z=16&layer=c&cbll=39.144104,-112.235524&panoid=1z_HFIG-prd68soQcEfG0g&cbp=12,142.18,,0,10.12)
Quote from: Rover_0 on June 06, 2011, 02:24:03 PM
Well, I emailed this worker at UDOT concerning the I-70/US-6/50/191 quad-plex and he guessed that, at least in that case, only the most major route (I-70) is signed to avoid "Information Overload."
It's not on the I-70 mainline, but they at least acknowledge the US Routes on the business loop in Green River:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FUS%2520Routes%2FUS6-50-191I-70GreenRiver.jpg%3Ft%3D1272632227&hash=2fff6908f5a3f0fd55b6423545b63d6602d109b9)
On the west end of town, though, 50 gets no love:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FUS%2520Routes%2FUS6-191I70GreenRiver1.jpg%3Ft%3D1307407521&hash=643d49f6fbb87e0d4523a74a4f34e907f6480933)
Quote from: xonhulu on June 06, 2011, 08:14:51 PM
Quote from: Rover_0 on June 06, 2011, 02:24:03 PM
Well, I emailed this worker at UDOT concerning the I-70/US-6/50/191 quad-plex and he guessed that, at least in that case, only the most major route (I-70) is signed to avoid "Information Overload."
It's not on the I-70 mainline, but they at least acknowledge the US Routes on the business loop in Green River:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FUS%2520Routes%2FUS6-50-191I-70GreenRiver.jpg%3Ft%3D1272632227&hash=2fff6908f5a3f0fd55b6423545b63d6602d109b9)
On second thought, I do remember that one, but I think he was referring to the mainline. Nevertheless, there is progress being made to appropriately sign all routes on multiplexes in Utah...albeit slowly.
I'd still like to see US 50 take over UT 24 through Capitol Reef NP, eliminating most of its duplex with I-70 in Utah.
Quote from: xonhulu on June 06, 2011, 08:50:45 PM
I'd still like to see US 50 take over UT 24 through Capitol Reef NP, eliminating most of its duplex with I-70 in Utah.
how would you route it back to the 50 alignment which heads west past Salina?
I'd always thought UT-24 would've made a sensible US-24 extension - maybe somehow find an alternate alignment to avoid a long 6/50/24 multiplex
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 06, 2011, 08:58:12 PM
how would you route it back to the 50 alignment which heads west past Salina?
I'd always thought UT-24 would've made a sensible US-24 extension - maybe somehow find an alternate alignment to avoid a long 6/50/24 multiplex
UT 24 actually meets US 50 west of Salina, although UT 260 might be a better, more direct route. I just think the highway through Capitol Reef should be a US Highway, and that would also break up that long duplex with I-70.
But yours is a good idea, too. Making it US 24 would be very easy for the public to digest. I'm not really sure how you'd find an alternative to that long multiplex.
Quote from: NE2 on June 06, 2011, 04:46:06 PM
It's at the Arthur Street overpass (though not quite mounted on it): http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=47.652279,-117.395074&spn=0.012518,0.041199&t=k&z=16&layer=c&cbll=47.652068,-117.39504&panoid=JtX1c69O4bCCiiZNVT7Btg&cbp=12,282.17,,0,-4.41
Ah, perfect. I knew I'd seen it. It looks like it's been removed though (http://images.wsdot.wa.gov/StateRoute/PictureLog/2009/EA/090/M/M/I/27/M/27975M.JPG) with some of the construction through there :(
Speaking of US 6 and US 50, both are ignored as one approaches I-70 on northbound US 191 (http://www.ajfroggie.com/roadpics/ut/us191/nb27.jpg).
Yea, I like the idea of making UT-24 into US-24...though you'd have to have another long multiplex on I-70/US-6/50.
Again, I've emailed this same worker at UDOT about re-routing US-50 along UT-24, and his response was that UT-24 doesn't meet AASHTO criteria for the most direct route across an area. Also, I think that UT-24's condition was also part of the reason why then-US-666 wasn't extended to Richfield in the mid-1980s.
However, I prefer the idea of re-routing US-50 along UT-24 (preferrably along UT-24 and UT-260)...but here's a map anyways (I made both the actual and reroute routes dark, so you could see US-50 in that context):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3365%2F5809161124_8dd889f138_b.jpg&hash=0c18f803a5d60c27bf5bb9fa477f7da6069f3591)
Quote from: Rover_0 on June 07, 2011, 01:50:18 PM
Again, I've emailed this same worker at UDOT about re-routing US-50 along UT-24, and his response was that UT-24 doesn't meet AASHTO criteria for the most direct route across an area. Also, I think that UT-24's condition was also part of the reason why then-US-666 wasn't extended to Richfield in the mid-1980s
What's wrong with the condition of UT 24? The road seemed perfectly fine the times I've driven it.
Yes, routing US 50 along I-70 is the most direct route, but since 50 isn't signed along I-70, it's kind of a moot point. My thought was that the UT 24 alignment would both return US 50 to existence in eastern Utah and establish a more prominent route to Capitol Reef. Certainly, you could make a strong enough argument that I doubt AASHTO would turn down this re-routing request. However, I've scratched my head about a few of their decisions before.
For that matter, did UDOT formally request the truncation of US 189 to Heber City? And didn't they also change 163 to 191 without AASHTO's consent, or at least put off requesting 163's truncation for decades? It seems they're perfectly willing to buck AASHTO when it suits them.
QuoteHowever, I prefer the idea of re-routing US-50 along UT-24 (preferrably along UT-24 and UT-260)...but here's a map anyways (I made both the actual and reroute routes dark, so you could see US-50 in that context):
Looks good.
The most blatant disregard of AASHTO I can think of is US 377: OKDOT requested an extension over SH 99 (eight times? can't tell if each listing is a separate application or just a different related document in the file), and after being rejected every time, they went and signed it anyway. http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/memorial/legal/us377.htm
Quote from: NE2 on June 07, 2011, 08:46:32 PM
The most blatant disregard of AASHTO I can think of is US 377: OKDOT requested an extension over SH 99 (eight times? can't tell if each listing is a separate application or just a different related document in the file), and after being rejected every time, they went and signed it anyway. http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/memorial/legal/us377.htm
I did an analysis of this and it's in the OK-99 article on Wikipedia.
Have you seen the documents listed on ODOT's page?
Yeah, that was my source.
Ah. Did they have AASHTO's reasons for rejecting?
As far as I am aware the only documentation ODOT keeps on their website is the highway designation file, and that is only available for highways with segments that are given a memorial designation. I don't believe ODOT has copies of the actual AASHTO requests online, though you might be able to do an open records request for them if you were so inclined.
Quote from: xonhulu on June 07, 2011, 08:20:22 PM
Quote from: Rover_0 on June 07, 2011, 01:50:18 PM
Again, I've emailed this same worker at UDOT about re-routing US-50 along UT-24, and his response was that UT-24 doesn't meet AASHTO criteria for the most direct route across an area. Also, I think that UT-24's condition was also part of the reason why then-US-666 wasn't extended to Richfield in the mid-1980s
What's wrong with the condition of UT 24? The road seemed perfectly fine the times I've driven it.
Yes, routing US 50 along I-70 is the most direct route, but since 50 isn't signed along I-70, it's kind of a moot point. My thought was that the UT 24 alignment would both return US 50 to existence in eastern Utah and establish a more prominent route to Capitol Reef. Certainly, you could make a strong enough argument that I doubt AASHTO would turn down this re-routing request. However, I've scratched my head about a few of their decisions before.
For that matter, did UDOT formally request the truncation of US 189 to Heber City? And didn't they also change 163 to 191 without AASHTO's consent, or at least put off requesting 163's truncation for decades? It seems they're perfectly willing to buck AASHTO when it suits them.
(Snipped Quote)
Well, the thought crossed my mind, but when US-50 was routed to duplex I-70 back in the 1970s, wasn't there some kind of "US Route 50 Commission" that helped get US-50 re-routed onto I-70? Did they ever exist, and are they around today?
Of course, there's a new person overseeing the route numbering at UDOT, as well (though he hasn't responded to my questions yet)...
I think the I-465 situation is plenty clear for drivers. If you're on, say, US 40, there's a sign pointing you to I-465 to continue to follow that road. And then when you need to get off of I-465 onto US 40 on the other side of town, the exit sign has a big US 40 shield on it. This prevents gargantuan reassurance-marker sign gantries all over I-465.
UT-24 is too far out of the way to be a viable reroute of US 50. I would first pursue a policy that takes US highways off Interstates whenever there's a state-maintained parallel highway. That means you, I-25/NM 181-185-187...
Quote from: Steve on June 08, 2011, 07:59:22 PM
UT-24 is too far out of the way to be a viable reroute of US 50. I would first pursue a policy that takes US highways off Interstates whenever there's a state-maintained parallel highway. That means you, I-25/NM 181-185-187...
By your standard, then, US 6 should also be forced onto the I-70/US 50 alignment, as it strays farther afield than UT 24 does. This argument doesn't hold a lot of traction in my mind.
First, there are plenty of fairly indirect US Routes; just look at a map of Montana or Wyoming to see some significantly meandering US Routes. But they still function pretty well as routes, both regionally and locally.
Second, some might say that it's paralleling the interstate that renders the US Route redundant and unnecessary. For example, while I'd like to see US 85 signed along its old routing in NM, I understand the arguments for why it isn't.
No reason we can't have both. US Routes can be adjuncts to interstates in both capacities: as parallel routes directly serving the communities the interstate closely bypasses, and as loops off the interstate to assist traffic to destinations away from the freeway and then back to the interstate.
Quote from: Steve on June 08, 2011, 07:59:22 PMThat means you, I-25/NM 181-185-187...
The real goal, from NMDOT's point of view, is to kill US 85 altogether.
Quote from: Rover_0 on June 08, 2011, 02:55:37 PM
Well, the thought crossed my mind, but when US-50 was routed to duplex I-70 back in the 1970s, wasn't there some kind of "US Route 50 Commission" that helped get US-50 re-routed onto I-70? Did they ever exist, and are they around today?
Of course, there's a new person overseeing the route numbering at UDOT, as well (though he hasn't responded to my questions yet)...
You might be right, but I just did a quick search and couldn't find anything about them. While I did find some old documents detailing the route switch, they didn't go into a lot of detail about why 50 was moved.
The re-routing makes sense as US 6 already served the other corridor, it established a connection between Delta and the Sevier Valley (although UT 26 already did this), and gave westbound I-70 traffic the chance to head in a different direction than towards St George and points beyond.
Post Merge: June 09, 2011, 09:56:09 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on June 08, 2011, 08:47:26 PM
The real goal, from NMDOT's point of view, is to kill US 85 altogether.
You're probably right, but then they should get Texas and maybe Colorado to jointly apply to truncate the route at the Colorado state border or Denver.
The confusing thing is why these unsigned US routes continue to exist "on paper", and therefore on maps. The same "message loading" problem also exists on maps, which are junked up with invisible routes that serve no real purpose to the travelling public. I mean, how many people actually 'follow' a US route for long-distances of Interstate?
(This is especially a problem with Google Maps, where the automatic marker placement sometimes favors secret duplexes over the main route number.)
I suspect this is because AASHTO wants to maintain the fiction that US routes are continuous, and won't allow states to decommission them even when they've been overlaid by interstates for hundreds of miles.
I like the roadgeekyness of signs such as "US52 follow I94 West", but in reality they're bureaucratic work-arounds for a poorly maintained numbering system.
Quote from: flowmotion on July 03, 2011, 06:58:50 PM
The confusing thing is why these unsigned US routes continue to exist "on paper", and therefore on maps. The same "message loading" problem also exists on maps, which are junked up with invisible routes that serve no real purpose to the travelling public. I mean, how many people actually 'follow' a US route for long-distances of Interstate?
(This is especially a problem with Google Maps, where the automatic marker placement sometimes favors secret duplexes over the main route number.)
I suspect this is because AASHTO wants to maintain the fiction that US routes are continuous, and won't allow states to decommission them even when they've been overlaid by interstates for hundreds of miles.
I like the roadgeekyness of signs such as "US52 follow I94 West", but in reality they're bureaucratic work-arounds for a poorly maintained numbering system.
That's a good point, and I think it gets at the issue of why we even still have the U.S. Highway system, which is whole debate in itself. Perhaps part of it is that there are still some U.S. Highways that drivers would logically follow across large portions of one or more states, where there isn't an Interstate that would serve the same function (US 54, 61, and 69 come to mind, and I'm sure others could find several more examples).
I'm not opposed to a large scaling back of the U.S. Highway system, although I imagine that keeping some U.S. routes whose functions aren't served by Interstates would be preferable to having drivers follow multiple state routes. I wonder if part of the reason the AASHTO is hesitant to decommission U.S. Highways is a result of the nostalgia over US 66, and perhaps the AASHTO is afraid of taking away another beloved route. That would be an interesting topic to look into, and it's purely a guess on my part.
I would, however, like to see U.S. Highways treated more consistently across state lines. Of course, they'll always take a back seat to Interstates, but I think they could feasibly enjoy some of the consistent treatment that Interstates are given, which would mean consistent signage and, if at all possible, avoiding irrational routing. Frankly, I think the inconsistent treatment that U.S. Highways are given presents the image that you describe: "a poorly maintained numbering system." In other words, why have the system at all if we're not going to maintain it?
Quote from: xonhulu on June 08, 2011, 09:00:51 PMQuote from: J N Winkler on June 08, 2011, 08:47:26 PMThe real goal, from NMDOT's point of view, is to kill US 85 altogether.
You're probably right, but then they should get Texas and maybe Colorado to jointly apply to truncate the route at the Colorado state border or Denver.
I don't know if NMDOT ever tried to coordinate truncation of US 85 with TxDOT and CDOT. My suspicion, based on an unsourced comment someone made in MTR long ago, is that it is TxDOT that wants US 85 in the El Paso area. Since there is no mandate to sign US routes either in the
MUTCD or in (as far as I know) the AASHTO US route guidelines, systematically removing US 85 signing (which is what NMDOT did in the 1988 renumbering) is a way for NMDOT to remove itself from the issue altogether. Whether US 85 is removed in Texas or not, the current situation means no signs need to change in NM.
AASHTO doesn't really have the power to dictate or mandate anything, but I think there's an intention that routes be signed.
Did that MTR source give a particular reason TxDOT wants US 85 in El Paso?
It has been said that the El Paso MPO has a thoroughfare plan which calls for US 85 in El Paso, which is currently a signalized arterial called Paisano Drive, to be upgraded to full freeway.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.transport.road/browse_thread/thread/914a7ee753531781/0b1f95e43a469cdf
Another discussion on US 85 in MTR:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.transport.road/browse_thread/thread/7fd9c7916cde658c/52156c310796484f
TxDOT highway designation file for US 85:
http://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/hwy/us/us0085.htm
I don't know if TxDOT has a policy of resisting decertification of US routes within Texas. I believe some MTR regulars have suggested this in the past because Texas has a number of single-state US routes which do not meet the length threshold--e.g. US 57 (about 100 miles) and US 96 (about 130 miles). If this is true, I think it is the likeliest reason for US 85 continuing to exist in El Paso. Because AASHTO in recent years has shown no interest in allowing multiple state DOTs to combine to inflict routing changes on another state DOT, TxDOT effectively has the power to veto decertification of US 85 even if NMDOT and CDOT want it.
I don't buy the (remote) possibility of a Paisano Drive freeway as a convincing reason to keep the US 85 designation since TxDOT has plenty of freeways with oddball state spur and loop designations (there may even be a few isolated miles of FM/RM freeway). El Paso already has Loop 375, Spur 601, etc.
TXDOT got rid of the long overlaps on US 75, US 80, US 81, US 290, and possibly other routes, and renumbered the non-Interstate pieces as state highways.
That really makes their insistence on hanging onto US 85 a little mystifying.
US 85 isn't in quite the same position as US 75 and the others--in Texas it is an important highway in its own right, not concurrent for a significant distance with any other route of equal or higher status. With the exception of the length outside Texas, which in itself removes one of the standard arguments for decommissioning "short" US routes, it is more nearly comparable with US 57 and US 96. An additional argument for truncating US 75 etc., which does not apply to US 85, is to avoid the added cost and message loading of co-signing or providing trailblazers.
Look at it in terms of cost. Texas has the US 85 designation, which works just fine for Texas; it is traffic in New Mexico and Colorado, not Texas, that has the potential (more in theory than in actual fact) to be inconvenienced by the long-distance unsigned concurrency with I-25. If NMDOT and CDOT went jointly to TxDOT and asked TxDOT to support an application to decertify US 85 below its first segment on its own alignment in Colorado, TxDOT would be justified in asking them why they are asking Texas to spend money fixing a problem that is so unimportant to them that they don't even try to solve it themselves by providing dual signing or trailblazers for US 85 in their own states. (The three DOTs would have to cooperate since AASHTO requires that applications be made jointly by all the state DOTs involved in a proposed change.) This is not to say that TxDOT would necessarily refuse to eat the cost of US 85 truncation, but it might expect a quid pro quo for doing so, such as the support of the other two state DOTs for some other action being considered by AASHTO that TxDOT wants.
I also suspect that NMDOT and CDOT may not even have progressed to a first refusal from TxDOT because the hidden concurrency on I-25 is so long that, in practice, almost no-one relies on US 85 for navigation and so is not inconvenienced by the sudden disappearance of US 85 signing. I would bet that most of the VMT on the affected length of I-25 is racked up on journeys which do not overlap either terminus of the concurrency, and that the two state DOTs receive few, if any, inquiries from the public about why US 85 "disappears."
Actually about two-thirds of US 85 in Texas is an overlap with I-10 (and US 180).
Personally I think it would be perfect as an extension of Loop 375; alternately US 180 could be rerouted to take over the independent piece of US 85 and then overlap US 62 from downtown El Paso rather than from I-10. But this is getting into fictional highways territory.
Quote from: NE2 on July 05, 2011, 12:13:54 AMActually about two-thirds of US 85 in Texas is an overlap with I-10 (and US 180).
From AASHTO's point of view, yes. TxDOT's certified mileage (which presumably includes only the independent length of US 85) is 5.630, all in El Paso County, while the US 85/Interstates concurrency begins at I-10 Exit 14. I'm willing to bet US 85 is not even signed north of Exit 14 in Texas.
QuotePersonally I think it would be perfect as an extension of Loop 375; alternately US 180 could be rerouted to take over the independent piece of US 85 and then overlap US 62 from downtown El Paso rather than from I-10. But this is getting into fictional highways territory.
Those options are certainly feasible, but what would be gained from resorting to either of them? It costs nothing to keep the status quo, while changing signs has resource implications not just for TxDOT but also for any businesses which reference US 85 in their advertising.
A small problem with both ideas is that US 85 actually begins at the Mexican border (Santa Fe Bridge), while both of the proposed replacements are notionally parallel to the border. A new state highway would have to be created to avoid the need for a jurisdictional transfer of the length immediately north of the Mexican border. This length is admittedly short (Loop 375 is almost at the border where US 85 crosses, for example), but bridges to Mexico are a big deal and involve not just TxDOT but also FHWA, SCT, and the IBWC.
Quote from: J N Winkler on July 05, 2011, 12:47:12 AM
From AASHTO's point of view, yes. TxDOT's certified mileage (which presumably includes only the independent length of US 85) is 5.630, all in El Paso County, while the US 85/Interstates concurrency begins at I-10 Exit 14. I'm willing to bet US 85 is not even signed north of Exit 14 in Texas.
You'd lose that bet. Here's one of the last northbound US 85 shields near Anthony, TX:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FUS%2520Routes%2FUS85Anthony1.jpg%3Ft%3D1275197730&hash=a2354a61d99c587664dd5f08dc963231f31e56ee)
Quote from: J N Winkler on July 05, 2011, 12:47:12 AM
A small problem with both ideas is that US 85 actually begins at the Mexican border (Santa Fe Bridge), while both of the proposed replacements are notionally parallel to the border. A new state highway would have to be created to avoid the need for a jurisdictional transfer of the length immediately north of the Mexican border. This length is admittedly short (Loop 375 is almost at the border where US 85 crosses, for example), but bridges to Mexico are a big deal and involve not just TxDOT but also FHWA, SCT, and the IBWC.
US 62 uses the same one-way pair to the border. The Loop 375 option would require a new designation for one block of Paisano between Santa Fe and El Paso, while the US 180 option would require no new numbers.
Just wish they'd redo the whole system on an updated grid :) I'd love to draw my own map, but haven't found a good program yet.
The easiest way to solve the whole issue brought up in this thread with the least amount of work and expense would be for AASHTO to officially allow discontinuous sections of US highways, as long as those discontinuous segments were connected by one or more Interstate highways. That is de-facto what you already have with US 85, US 87, and numerous other "interrupted" US highways throughout the country.
Quote from: RoadWarrior56 on July 05, 2011, 07:05:28 PM
The easiest way to solve the whole issue brought up in this thread with the least amount of work and expense would be for AASHTO to officially allow discontinuous sections of US highways, as long as those discontinuous segments were connected by one or more Interstate highways. That is de-facto what you already have with US 85, US 87, and numerous other "interrupted" US highways throughout the country.
Well, there is US 422 already, and US 2 now that I think of it, so it's not like we're without precedent here.