Decommissioning US Highways

[Fred Defender]

I'm sure that this has been discussed in a thread somewhere - probably multiple threads:

Why are US highways decommissioned in some states but not in others? For example, US25 runs parallel to I-75 through Kentucky from the Tennessee border to the Ohio River. In some places, literally a stone's throw away. And US25 exists throughout the entire state of Kentucky (I believe). But US25 has been decommissioned in Ohio. North of the Ohio river, it is OH25 and MI25. The same thing was done with US21 in Ohio. Parts of it (from north of Strasburg north to Cleveland) are OH21. Other segments have reverted to county maintenance.

So why is there a US25 in, say, Whitley County, Kentucky (I know, it's US25W) which is almost completely rural? Who makes these high-level decisions? If it's a matter of maintenance, what's the difference between OH25 and US25? Either way, ODOT pays to maintain, does it not?

[coatimundi]

California is possibly the biggest offender on decommissions of US highways. It came up in a thread on that board very recently, where someone mentioned that, at the time of all the slashing, Caltrans just had a guy that just had it out for them, and the state just went along with it. Because why would legislatures - or really anyone but roadgeeks - care? And, really, to Caltrans - and many other agencies - it doesn't matter. It's not a federal route or a state route; it's just a route.

[hotdogPi]

It's not a federal route or a state route; it's just a route.

US 5, which parallels I-91 and is no more important than nearby surface roads, stays US 5.

US 201, although it doesn't parallel a freeway, is no more important than other similar state routes. And it's only in one state! It hasn't been downgraded.

US 202 has long overlaps in several states, and it is almost completely overlapped in Maine. US 202 even has a county-maintained section in New Jersey. But US 202 remains a US route.

If US 99, a route that is much more important than the surrounding state routes, got downgraded, why did these stay?

[PHLBOS]

It's not a federal route or a state route; it's just a route.

US 5, which parallels I-91 and is no more important than nearby surface roads, stays US 5.

US 201, although it doesn't parallel a freeway, is no more important than other similar state routes. And it's only in one state! It hasn't been downgraded.

US 202 has long overlaps in several states, and it is almost completely overlapped in Maine. US 202 even has a county-maintained section in New Jersey. But US 202 remains a US route.

If US 99, a route that is much more important than the surrounding state routes, got downgraded, why did these stay?

You might want to reread coatimundi's entire post again (reposted below w/bold emphasis added); none of your other listed examples are located in California or even the west coast for that matter.

California is possibly the biggest offender on decommissions of US highways. It came up in a thread on that board very recently, where someone mentioned that, at the time of all the slashing, Caltrans just had a guy that just had it out for them, and the state just went along with it. Because why would legislatures - or really anyone but roadgeeks - care? And, really, to Caltrans - and many other agencies - it doesn't matter. It's not a federal route or a state route; it's just a route.

[coatimundi]

If US 99, a route that is much more important than the surrounding state routes, got downgraded, why did these stay?

I think you have the idea that there's responsibility for this at the federal level. In reality, it's up to the states. US 99 was decommissioned by California first and by Oregon and Washington later on. It wasn't a sweeping national removal. US 66 was similar. And, in another example, US 60 was long ago totally removed from California but still exists almost as it has always existed in Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, etc.

[cpzilliacus]

Maryland has not been all that much into decommissioning of U.S. routes.

Long sections of U.S. 40 are still signed, but now exist as multiplexes with I-68 (Keysers Ridge to Hancock);  I-70 (Hancock to Big Pool; and Frederick to Marriottsville)

U.S. 111 was entirely replaced by I-83 (in function) and most of what was signed as U.S. 111 became Md. 45.

U.S. 140 became mostly today's Md. 140, though north of Westminster it followed the present-day routing of Md. 97.

U.S. 213 was converted to U.S. 50 (or Md. 662) south of Queenstown (near Wye Oak), and north of there to Elkton, it became Md. 213.

U.S. 222 south of U.S. 1 was converted to Md. 222.

U.S. 240 was mostly superseded by I-70S (I-270 today), and the portion  from I-495 to the D.C. line became Md. 355.

U.S. 301 north of Bowie became Md. 3 after 301 was re-routed to follow U.S. 50 across the Chesapeake Bay Bridge and then replaced Md. 71 to the Delaware border.

U.S. 340 was (slightly) truncated in Frederick.  It once followed Jefferson Street toward Patrick Street near the downtown area, now it ends at U.S. 40/U.S. 15 near the southwest edge of Frederick.

[Avalanchez71]

Tennessee extended US 412 to I-65 I think around 1989.  US 641 was just extended over from I-40 all the way south to US 64.  US 23 is still on the books after I-26 was completed.

[GaryV]

For example, US25 runs parallel to I-75 through Kentucky ...

A good example of a route that has been superseded by a parallel Interstate, but still remains.  But not a good example of a road that would be decommissioned.  With all the route miles that the state of Kentucky is responsible for, the road would remain as a state highway in some form or another.  KY probably thinks this is good enough reason to keep it as US-25.  Else they'd need to re-sign it as another number.

Now if Tennessee were to make a proposal that 25W was no longer needed as a US route, they might be able to get KY to go along with them.  Otherwise, there would probably be no point.

Michigan and Ohio are good examples of states that decommissioned or truncated US routes when the new Interstates were built.  They also are good examples of building new freeways that replace the old US routes, and take over the route numbers, without needing to apply for Interstate numbers.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

Yeah. It depends on states; some states have mileage caps and are unable to maintain both the Interstate and the US route it replaced due to money or mileage cap restrictions. Minnesota has obviously been one of those states that was/is aggressive about removing superfluous US routes.

[jwolfer]

U.S. 301 north of Bowie became Md. 3 after 301 was re-routed to follow U.S. 50 across the Chesapeake Bay Bridge and then replaced Md. 71 to the Delaware border.

301 replaced MD 3 from Baltimore south.. when 301 was rerouted Route 3 was recommissioned from US 50 to Baltimore.. some of route 3 is now i97..

[Max Rockatansky]

A lot of the routes were shortened when the Interstates were being complete.  Basically looking back at the time almost nobody wanted to drive a US Route in the 1970s or 80s.....so why not shorten routes that were largely were thought to become obsolete?....which they really never did.  Coatimundi listed California as one of the biggest offenders but there was others like Michigan who slashed like crazy with US 2, US 10, US 16, US 25 and US 27 basically being cut back or deleted completely right off the top of my head.  A lot of the eastern states kept their US Routes intact since they basically acted as business loops/spurs and kept their importance.  I don't think the slashing would have been drastic with modern traffic patterns and increased population sprawl seen in modern times.

[hbelkins]

I'm guessing that the states who kept the parallel US routes (like 25/25W in Kentucky) did not petition AASHTO for decertification, whereas Ohio did. And yes, Kentucky would keep state maintenance. Even the old route where US 25 joins I-75 to cross the Kentucky River has a state designation.

I'm presuming that in instances where a route was decommissioned across state lines, such as US 21 in Virginia, West Virginia and Ohio, the states were in agreement that it should be done. AASHTO can't force compliance. If Alabama wanted to do away with US 11 (which it should, since US 11 is almost entirely paralleled by Interstate routes) no one could make Mississippi or Georgia, or any of the other states it runs through, do so as well.

[Quillz]

A lot of the routes were shortened when the Interstates were being complete.  Basically looking back at the time almost nobody wanted to drive a US Route in the 1970s or 80s.....so why not shorten routes that were largely were thought to become obsolete?....which they really never did.  Coatimundi listed California as one of the biggest offenders but there was others like Michigan who slashed like crazy with US 2, US 10, US 16, US 25 and US 27 basically being cut back or deleted completely right off the top of my head.  A lot of the eastern states kept their US Routes intact since they basically acted as business loops/spurs and kept their importance.  I don't think the slashing would have been drastic with modern traffic patterns and increased population sprawl seen in modern times.

I don't think most of the US highways that were outright deleted would have occurred if the interstates were a new thing today. Back in the day, it was still a bit uncommon for random routes to be built up to freeway standards, so having that interstate shield was a good form of advertising.

But I do wish more US routes were retained and used for frontage roads, business loops, etc. Oregon does this with US-30, and I think it's a good idea.

[Max Rockatansky]

A lot of the routes were shortened when the Interstates were being complete.  Basically looking back at the time almost nobody wanted to drive a US Route in the 1970s or 80s.....so why not shorten routes that were largely were thought to become obsolete?....which they really never did.  Coatimundi listed California as one of the biggest offenders but there was others like Michigan who slashed like crazy with US 2, US 10, US 16, US 25 and US 27 basically being cut back or deleted completely right off the top of my head.  A lot of the eastern states kept their US Routes intact since they basically acted as business loops/spurs and kept their importance.  I don't think the slashing would have been drastic with modern traffic patterns and increased population sprawl seen in modern times.

I don't think most of the US highways that were outright deleted would have occurred if the interstates were a new thing today. Back in the day, it was still a bit uncommon for random routes to be built up to freeway standards, so having that interstate shield was a good form of advertising.

But I do wish more US routes were retained and used for frontage roads, business loops, etc. Oregon does this with US-30, and I think it's a good idea.

The best example nationwide is US 1.  That whole corridor is still viable in full despite I-95 carrying the bulk of the traffic. Basically for the most part US 1 is the defacto surface and/or business route.

[bulldog1979]

...Michigan who slashed like crazy with US 2, US 10, US 16, US 25 and US 27 basically being cut back or deleted completely ...

In 1979, MDOT and FHWA did a study of guide signage near the interchange between I-296/US 131 and I-96/M-37 in Walker, northwest of downtown Grand Rapids. Out of that study, MDOT recommended, and then FHWA and AASHTO both concurred with, removing the I-296 designation from signage to simplify things. In the aftermath of that study, MDOT looked at other two- and three-way concurrencies in the state. In the department's recommendations, US 2 and US 10 were removed from I-75. US 33 was also judged to be redundant to US 31 and recommended for removal.

As for the others, given the timeline between the approval on US 27, the study of I-73 and the implementation of the removal of US 27 (1999—2002), I have a theory that MDOT may have waited to actually kill off US 27 once it was clear I-73 could or could not have been signed instead of US 127 north of Lansing. US 16 was totally replaced by I-96 in terms of function, so it made sense to ax it. US 25 was mostly functionally replaced by I-75 and I-94, and the rest could be easily assigned other numbers (M-125, M-3, M-25).

[8.Lug]

I think you'd have to look at how the upkeep of these routes is funded.

[Max Rockatansky]

I think you'd have to look at how the upkeep of these routes is funded.

A lot of them out east just became state highways, so really the funding didn't change all that much.  I had a discussion in some other thread about a month back about Grand River (Old M-16/US 16) becoming a single state highway again instead of several with gaps in the middle between Lansing and Detroit.  Even out west a lot of the old US Routes became state highways, even here in California.  US 60 mostly became CA 60, US 299 became CA 299, US 466 became CA 46/58, US 99 became CA 99 and CA 111.  Really for the most part who funded the routes didn't change but the signs and traffic counts did when the Interstates came around.

[flowmotion]

But I do wish more US routes were retained and used for frontage roads, business loops, etc. Oregon does this with US-30, and I think it's a good idea.

This practice in my opinion is why the US route system sucks. Too many useless roads, it can't be relied upon. There's really no reason to have a separate category of supposedly better routes if states refuse to use them as such.

[Quillz]

But I do wish more US routes were retained and used for frontage roads, business loops, etc. Oregon does this with US-30, and I think it's a good idea.

This practice in my opinion is why the US route system sucks. Too many useless roads, it can't be relied upon. There's really no reason to have a separate category of supposedly better routes if states refuse to use them as such.

Using them as frontage roads is good practice, I think. But really, what I would like to see US routes do is be re-routed to provide access to more localized areas. I was doing a California renumbering, and one of the things I did was move US-60 out of downtown LA (where I-10 obsoleted it), and instead put it through the Valley to reach Ventura. I think things like this is a good way to get mileage (pun intended) out of the network. Send them into cities and towns that are satellites to the greater metropolitan areas near them.

[Max Rockatansky]

But I do wish more US routes were retained and used for frontage roads, business loops, etc. Oregon does this with US-30, and I think it's a good idea.

This practice in my opinion is why the US route system sucks. Too many useless roads, it can't be relied upon. There's really no reason to have a separate category of supposedly better routes if states refuse to use them as such.

Using them as frontage roads is good practice, I think. But really, what I would like to see US routes do is be re-routed to provide access to more localized areas. I was doing a California renumbering, and one of the things I did was move US-60 out of downtown LA (where I-10 obsoleted it), and instead put it through the Valley to reach Ventura. I think things like this is a good way to get mileage (pun intended) out of the network. Send them into cities and towns that are satellites to the greater metropolitan areas near them.

But that's where the "we can't or don't like change brigade," "but it isn't necessary with GPS" or something like legislative number duplicates being a no-no like California really shoot that all down.  Really if you think about it there is enough available state maintained roads across the country that could be used to create a much better grid updated to fit in with the modern Interstates if there was ever a push for it.  Some like a new US 60 in California along existing state routes seems to me and a whole bunch of people on this forum like a no-brainier but you have to compete with all those obstacles I just described even for a signage swap.  Really there is going to probably have to be a nation wide infrastructure push that hasn't really happened since the 1960s to get people and legislative bodies interested again....

[Quillz]

Well, exactly. Realistically, there is no need for three tiers of highways, only two.

[cappicard]

Kansas has a lot former US Routes, too.  Most of them being 3-digit routes that were wholy within the state itself. 

One example being K-156. US-156 went from Dodge City to Great Bend to Ellsworth. The section between Great Bend to Ellsworth was originally K-45 (simply because it does follow a roughly 45 degree angle southwest to northeast).  US-156 was given back to the State in 1982 as K-156.

Perhaps the most famous former US Route was 66. Kansas' short section of 66's final alignment is now K-66. 


iPhone

[cappicard]

The odd thing is that US-266 still exists, but wholy within Oklahoma.


iPhone

[cappicard]

US 40 used to snake its way through Kansas along the Missouri Pacific line through northern parts of the state.  It wasn't replaced  by I-70, but merely realigned to I -70 itself.  Old US-40 became mostly county roads, but the section between Ellsworth and Salina became K-140.

The section between Topeka and Kansas City/Kansas City is still intact. Never was realigned to the Turnpike.  But, US 24 and 40 was realigned from State Avenue to I-70 between K-7 and 18th Street in 2008.

US 73's southern terminus went from at I-435 on State Avenue to at I-70 along K-7.


iPhone

[cappicard]

US-75 used to be Gage Boulevard in Topeka, but has since been realigned to I -70 west of Gage to I-470 and then back to Gage and Topeka Boulevards just before the Turnpike.


iPhone