Missing US highway signage

[Brandon]

And because most states don't have this urge to renumber an independent route, which US 40 is east of the Mississippi.

However, through Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio, it might as well not be an independent route.  It's extremely close to I-70, and at times is I-70.

[NE2]

My point is that for most people, including those at the state DOTs, replacing US 40 shields with SR 40 shields is about as useful as learning to burp the national anthem.

[Brandon]

My point is that they could simply be moved to I-70 a la Colorado or New Mexico with the old route turned back to the counties and municipalities.  (Actually, that's one of my ideas of cleaning up Illinois's routes in the Fictional forum.)

[flowmotion]

My point is that for most people, including those at the state DOTs, replacing US 40 shields with SR 40 shields is about as useful as learning to burp the national anthem.

Sure, DOTs have far more important things to worry about. However, if AASHTO changed their policy regarding the continuity of US routes, the DOTs would find plenty of US40 segments that didn't need to be state highways at all. (Especially in states like Indiana, where there apparently is a cap on highway mileage.)

I imagine that when the Interstate system was being built, towns had a fear of being "bypassed", and the old US roads were left put to mollify them. Thirty-Forty years later, I doubt anyone cares.

[Michael in Philly]

^^Isn't there a certain amount of tourist promotion of 40 through Ohio and Indiana because of its historicity (the National Road)?  Like 66 or the Lincoln Highway?

[codyg1985]

I'm surprised Arkansas has not been mentioned yet in this thread. US 63 following I-40 and I-55 anyone?

[xonhulu]

^^Isn't there a certain amount of tourist promotion of 40 through Ohio and Indiana because of its historicity (the National Road)?  Like 66 or the Lincoln Highway?

I didn't think "historicity" was even a word, but sure enough, it means "historical authenticity."  You learn something new every day, I guess!

And you're probably right, as there has been a lot of interest in signing or promoting historic US Routes lately in several states.  You might as well leave US 40 and promote it this way instead of short-sightedly removing it.  I wonder if they would've been so eager to decommission US 66 back in the 70's and 80's if they would've envisioned the rejuvenated interest in it as a tourist attraction only a few years later.

Also, there's no point to removing US 40 from its parallel segments to I-70.  I doubt if those segments get less traffic than remote stretches of US Routes in the west, and I don't think the distinction between local and through traffic is all that significant.  Unlike AASHTO, I don't see a lot of sense in duplexing US Highways with interstates when viable parallel routes exist.

[NE2]

However, if AASHTO changed their policy regarding the continuity of US routes, the DOTs would find plenty of US40 segments that didn't need to be state highways at all. (Especially in states like Indiana, where there apparently is a cap on highway mileage.)

You say that like they don't do it anyway. US 40 through Terre Haute was just recently moved onto I-70.

[Ned Weasel]

I know there are many hidden numbered routes, but I'm considering those separately for now.  Besides, one could perhaps make the case that a hidden route is a numbered route on paper but not on the ground.  But once a numbered route has an identifying sign somewhere, it's definitely a numbered route, either way one looks at it.  Does the MUTCD say anywhere when it is permissible not to sign a numbered route?  If so, I haven't found that part.

It is somewhere in the front and the language goes like this (loose paraphrase)--"Nothing in this manual shall be construed as requiring the erection of a sign."

I think the real intent of § 2D.10 is not to require the signing of hidden routes, or the provision of continuity of signing, but rather to prevent agencies from using something other than a route marker as the sole means of identifying a numbered highway.  An example of this might be using an isolated sign reading "You are now on Route No. 2" as the only means of identifying Route 2.

Thanks.  I found it.  It's in Section 1A.09: "This Manual describes the application of traffic control devices, but shall not be a legal requirement for their installation."

[flowmotion]

^^Isn't there a certain amount of tourist promotion of 40 through Ohio and Indiana because of its historicity (the National Road)?  Like 66 or the Lincoln Highway?

A lot of the interest in Route 66 was driven by the fairly well-preserved "roadside architecture" present along the southwestern segment of the route. (And of course the famous song.) I'm not sure how much of this stuff is still there, but there were still plenty of vintage motels and tourist traps still around in the late 1980s, most with easy access from the freeway.

Bumping into small town stoplights across Indiana might not carry that same romantic appeal. I'm sure a few brown signs here and there could suffice for whatever tourist demand exists.

[SSOWorld]

Minnesota doesn't sign US 52 (along I-94) or US 12 along I-94/I-394 except to say US 52 North follow I-94 West or similar on a BGS.  Yet they sign short concurrencies along interstates.  When you get to North Dakota, US 52 magically reappears on I-94 - but not consistently (mostly on BGS's).  There's also a many cases of missing US 81's on I-29 in North Dakota.  Fargo is a big exception to this.

[NE2]

A lot of the interest in Route 66 was driven by the fairly well-preserved "roadside architecture" present along the southwestern segment of the route. (And of course the famous song.) I'm not sure how much of this stuff is still there, but there were still plenty of vintage motels and tourist traps still around in the late 1980s, most with easy access from the freeway.

Bumping into small town stoplights across Indiana might not carry that same romantic appeal. I'm sure a few brown signs here and there could suffice for whatever tourist demand exists.

The National Road is signed: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22national%20road%22%20signs&tbm=isch

[Greybear]

I'm surprised Arkansas has not been mentioned yet in this thread. US 63 following I-40 and I-55 anyone?

What about US 67/70 following I-30 through southwest Little Rock, or US 65/167 following I-30 through downtown LR?

[adt1982]

However, if AASHTO changed their policy regarding the continuity of US routes, the DOTs would find plenty of US40 segments that didn't need to be state highways at all. (Especially in states like Indiana, where there apparently is a cap on highway mileage.)

You say that like they don't do it anyway. US 40 through Terre Haute was just recently moved onto I-70.

Indiana is the exception, not the rule.  Heck, they're in the wrong time zone!

[ftballfan]

US routes paralleling Interstates are useful when the Interstate is blocked or congested.

[Quillz]

US routes paralleling Interstates are useful when the Interstate is blocked or congested.

I always thought it would have been nice to do this for all obsolete US Routes, rather than just delete them entirely (66, 99, etc).

[NE2]

The main problem there is that many states get bugs up their asses about putting numbered routes on non-state-maintained roads.

[froggie]

US routes paralleling Interstates are useful when the Interstate is blocked or congested.

In my experience, it doesn't necessarily have to be a US route paralleling the Interstate in order to perform this function when the Interstate is blocked.  Any signed route will do just fine.

Going back to the OP's original question, MDOT isn't exactly the greatest with signage to begin with, and US 51 in Jackson is an excellent example of what happens when you have a DOT that doens't do good route signage combined with a state legislature that adds/removes segments of road to/from the state highway system on a regular basis.  When I inquired about this with someone at MDOT (as part of Clinched Highway Mapping), I got what basically was an endless loop of E-mail confusion.

With the limited information I had, and the lack of help from MDOT, my conclusion was as such:  "mainline" US 51 follows I-55 all the way from MS 27/Crystal Springs to County Line Rd on the north side of Jackson, and that signed bit of US 51 from the I-20/55 interchange onto State Street is a Spur route.

[apeman33]

There is no indication that U.S. 400 passes through Cimarron, Kan. It's never been signed inside the city limits. I got some shots of the signs at the intersection with K-23 on one of my trips back to Garden City earlier this summer.

Looking east on U.S. 50/400 at K-23 (also note the peeling "50"):


Looking at the signs on the signal facing K-23:

All of the signs on the traffic signal arms at this intersection were replaced between the last week of July and last weekend when I made another trip to Garden City. All with Series D. And still no U.S. 400 signs.

[Scott5114]

That's because nobody, not even KDOT, really gives a rat's ass about US 400

[Quillz]

I think US-400 is a worse violation of the numbering grid than I-99. Somebody explained the reasoning behind US-400, US-412 and a couple others had something to do with dividing the nation into equal strips of twelfths or something. But it's just a mystery to me why the number was ever approved when there were plenty of unused 3dus left.

[mtantillo]

I know there are many hidden numbered routes, but I'm considering those separately for now.  Besides, one could perhaps make the case that a hidden route is a numbered route on paper but not on the ground.  But once a numbered route has an identifying sign somewhere, it's definitely a numbered route, either way one looks at it.  Does the MUTCD say anywhere when it is permissible not to sign a numbered route?  If so, I haven't found that part.

It is somewhere in the front and the language goes like this (loose paraphrase)--"Nothing in this manual shall be construed as requiring the erection of a sign."

I think the real intent of § 2D.10 is not to require the signing of hidden routes, or the provision of continuity of signing, but rather to prevent agencies from using something other than a route marker as the sole means of identifying a numbered highway.  An example of this might be using an isolated sign reading "You are now on Route No. 2" as the only means of identifying Route 2.

Thanks.  I found it.  It's in Section 1A.09: "This Manual describes the application of traffic control devices, but shall not be a legal requirement for their installation."

Right.  There is always room for engineering judgment.  Especially when it comes to guide signs, which, theoretically, omitting them will not cause safety problems....the requirements are much looser for guide signs than for regulatory and warning signs. 

[apeman33]

That's because nobody, not even KDOT, really gives a rat's ass about US 400

It matters to KDOT (which wanted the designation )to the point that it's posted above the U.S. 54 shields in some parts of Wichita (although I think that's in anticipation of moving U.S. 54 to a proposed northwest bypass and on to K-254 someday).

I think Cimarron itself may be responsible for the signage and why would Cimarron care about U.S. 400? I think it's the same deal in Garden City where for years, the "Business" tab didn't appear anywhere on Fulton Street (Business 50) except at junctions. Even now, the business route signage for 50 and 83 as well as for K-156 is pretty inconsistent inside the city limits. Heck, if KDOT had it's way and Garden City wasn't paying for the signs, they may have added a "Business 400" to the whole deal.

[Bickendan]

US 30 mysteriously vanishes from I-84 between Troutdale and exit 35... but that's because OR 100's gone to the costume ball as Hist US 30. (US 30's really on the freeway down by the river, not up in the hills by the waterfalls)

[NE2]

OR 100

Isn't it only Highway 100, not Route 100?