Unsigned U.S. Highway Segments: Intentional Policy?

[xonhulu]

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.

[corco]

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 with some of the construction through there

[froggie]

Speaking of US 6 and US 50, both are ignored as one approaches I-70 on northbound US 191.

[Rover_0]

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):

[xonhulu]

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.

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):

Looks good.

[NE2]

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

[Scott5114]

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.

[NE2]

Have you seen the documents listed on ODOT's page?

[Scott5114]

Yeah, that was my source.

[NE2]

Ah. Did they have AASHTO's reasons for rejecting?

[Scott5114]

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.

[Rover_0]

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)...

[mobilene]

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.

[Alps]

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...

[xonhulu]

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.

[J N Winkler]

That means you, I-25/NM 181-185-187...

The real goal, from NMDOT's point of view, is to kill US 85 altogether.

[xonhulu]

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

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.

[flowmotion]

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.

[Ned Weasel]

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?

[J N Winkler]

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.

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.

[xonhulu]

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?

[J N Winkler]

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.

[NE2]

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.

[xonhulu]

That really makes their insistence on hanging onto US 85 a little mystifying.

[J N Winkler]

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."