Unnecessary highways

[SkyPesos]

1. The entire I-69 corridor between Indianapolis and Mexico. Huge waste of time and resources. It will never be completed entirely and it is super redundant to existing Interstates. Shame it went forward.

Most of us would agree that the stretch of I-69 between Tenaha and Memphis would fit this description. However other sections have their merits, which shows when you look at which states are building their portion of I-69 (Texas, Kentucky, Indiana) and which (except for a couple short exceptions) aren't (Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennessee).

What purpose does I-69 serve between Indianapolis and Memphis that existing Interstates couldn't handle?

building i-69 from indy to eville fills a glaring gap in freeway coverage, i find it crazy that a highway was never built there until now. not even a us highway. anything south of memphis is a waste of time and money. the texas portions are meh.

My thoughts on the I-69 corridor:
- 69C shouldn't exist at all, as 69E parallels it 20 miles to the east. I don't have an opinion on 69W yet
- Section between Victoria and Tenaha, as well as all of I-369 is needed imo, as Houston's lack of a connection to its southwest and especially the northeast seems like another glaring gap in the system to me. Jumping to fictional territory a bit here, but I had this as I-47.
- Section between Tenaha and Memphis is a waste to me, as I-369/I-30/I-40 parallels it a bit to the north, and looks like a straighter path than I-69.
- Agree with you that Indianapolis to Evansville is necessary, especially since the route goes through Bloomington, which is where IU is, and the city was at some point one of the largest in the US without an interstate connection.
- And then there's Memphis to Evansville. I'm going to pull I-71 into here because I view it as a branch of the I-69 corridor. It continues the NE-SW trajectory of I-69 and brances it from points south to Ohio and the Northeast. Both Memphis-Indianapolis and Memphis-Cincinnati are served well by existing interstates (I-55/57/70 for the former and I-40/65/71 for the latter), but a corridor between both of what I mentioned via Paducah to serve both cities is a nice to have, relieves the other 2 routings, and for the case of the combined I-69/71 corridor, bypasses Nashville.

[Ketchup99]

Only one I can think of in Pennsylvania is I-99 between Altoona and Bedford, which could probably get away with being two lanes. But generally, Pennsylvania isn't that generous with lanes to begin with, so most four-lane routes badly need it and many could use six.

[KCRoadFan]

Because this is my 400th post, I figured it would be an appropriate time to state my opinion here: US 400 has no reason to exist.

For one, its number implies that it branches off or connects with US 0, which doesn't exist (and even if it did, it would presumably be a lot further north).

However, that's not the biggest problem I have with US 400: rather, it's the fact that almost two-thirds of its total mileage is concurrent with other US highways, and the multiplex with US 50 - which the westernmost 130 miles of US 400 (about a quarter of its total length!) overlaps with - is completely pointless.

The blog post linked here (https://www.usends.com/blog/us-400-its-number-is-not-the-only-error) explains it in depth, but basically, it says that in 1994, the highway was commissioned as a means of connecting Wichita with Garden City, Dodge City, and I-44. As the linked article explains, the reason it was a US route in the first place, instead of a state route, is because of the need to briefly enter Missouri to connect to I-44 (at least, that was KDOT's rationale). At the same time, US 400 (which originally had its western end it Garden City) was functionally an intrastate route, which - as the article points out - contravened a 1937 policy from AASHTO which supposedly discouraged such highways. (I guess New Jersey with US 130, and Texas with US 57 and US 96, didn't get the memo. But I digress.)

Anyway, because of that, KDOT eventually decided to designate US 400 along a completely redundant multiplex all the way to the Colorado border. In fact, according to the linked article, the only reason that it goes into Colorado at all is because AASHTO didn't allow a US route to end at a state line (or so KDOT believed, anyway). For their part, Colorado wanted no part of the whole charade, unceremoniously dumping the US 400 designation at the first possible opportunity (namely, the US 50/US 385 junction in Granada).

Because of all this, I believe that US 400 should be decommissioned. Most of it overlaps with existing highways (in the case of US 50, pointlessly so); as far as the standalone sections, those could easily be state routes. I think the short solo stretch between US 50 east of Dodge City and US 54 at Mullinville should have a number that alludes to either route (I'm thinking either K-350 or K-354); as for the section between Leon (where US 54 splits off east of Wichita) and US 69 near Pittsburg, we can renumber that to K-171, which is the road that goes east from that US 69 junction, eventually becoming MO 171 going into Joplin. (Alternatively, if KDOT still thinks that Dodge City, Wichita, and I-44 should be linked with a single number, they can call the whole stretch K-400, overlapping with US 54 along the way.) Regardless, in my opinion, there's no need for such a designation to extend along US 50 west of Dodge City (to say nothing of Garden City).

[kphoger]

as for the section between Leon (where US 54 splits off east of Wichita) and US 69 near Pittsburg, we can renumber that to K-171, which is the road that goes east from that US 69 junction, eventually becoming MO 171 going into Joplin.

It used to be K-96.

But, anyway, AADT counts along that stretch range between 3400 and 6530, with the average being 4647.  By way of comparison, US-54 between the same longitudes gets down to 1190 AADT between Eureka and Yates Center, and the only locations with counts over 3000 AADT are (1) just outside El Dorado, (2) the short stretch between Iola and La Harpe, and (3) just outside Fort Scott.  To me, it's a strange suggestion that 54 should keep its US Route shield but 400 should not, when 400 is the busier highway of the two.

But here's the real kicker:  more than half of the count locations between Leon and US-69 report more than 25% "Heavy Commercial" traffic.  Having driven the highway numerous times, I can assert that it's a popular corridor for long-distance traffic–long-haul truckers, regional farm trucks, vacationing RVs, boats on trailers...  In fact, with it having so few towns along the route, I daresay it's more important as a cross-country route than it is as a local route.

[paulthemapguy]

My thoughts on the I-69 corridor:
- 69C shouldn't exist at all, as 69E parallels it 20 miles to the east. I don't have an opinion on 69W yet
- Section between Victoria and Tenaha, as well as all of I-369 is needed imo, as Houston's lack of a connection to its southwest and especially the northeast seems like another glaring gap in the system to me. Jumping to fictional territory a bit here, but I had this as I-47.
- Section between Tenaha and Memphis is a waste to me, as I-369/I-30/I-40 parallels it a bit to the north, and looks like a straighter path than I-69.

Agreed for the most part, but I think there might be some value to a Houston-to-Memphis corridor.  A corridor from Houston to Memphis might be more easily accomplished, though, by providing a link from Houston to Texarkana via I-69, I-369, and maybe I-49 if Shreveport gets involved...then using existing I-30 and I-40 the rest of the way.  In any case, I-69C is a ridiculous idea and a ridiculous designation (and I-69W if built should be designated I-6).

Because this is my 400th post, I figured it would be an appropriate time to state my opinion here: US 400 has no reason to exist.

In short, I agree.

[sprjus4]

^ Agree for the need of a Memphis-Houston corridor, particularly to provide a redundancy in the system and alleviate congestion / heavy truck on I-30 and I-40 by providing a direct shot on a dedicated route to the northeast from southern Texas. However, I can understand why this is a lower priority than the rest of the corridor, and is evident by its lack of progress.

As for I-69C, I'd argue it's more of a priority than I-69 north of Shreveport. It's seen as "redundant"  to I-69E by some roadgeeks, however the reality on the ground is that both highways are major freight corridors, carry large truck volumes, and are both warranting of a freeway design. They go to different places in the Valley, different border crossings, etc.

I'd argue I-69W is more useless than I-69C, given I-10 and I-35, and given that actual traffic volumes are much lower.

[gr8daynegb]

I think in Wisconsin I'd look at concurrencies(like WI-34 with WI-13)......many of those not needed.  Highways like WI-127 seems unnecessary to have and could be a county trunk instead

[amroad17]

Because this is my 400th post, I figured it would be an appropriate time to state my opinion here: US 400 has no reason to exist.

For one, its number implies that it branches off or connects with US 0, which doesn't exist (and even if it did, it would presumably be a lot further north).

However, that's not the biggest problem I have with US 400: rather, it's the fact that almost two-thirds of its total mileage is concurrent with other US highways, and the multiplex with US 50 - which the westernmost 130 miles of US 400 (about a quarter of its total length!) overlaps with - is completely pointless.

The blog post linked here (https://www.usends.com/blog/us-400-its-number-is-not-the-only-error) explains it in depth, but basically, it says that in 1994, the highway was commissioned as a means of connecting Wichita with Garden City, Dodge City, and I-44. As the linked article explains, the reason it was a US route in the first place, instead of a state route, is because of the need to briefly enter Missouri to connect to I-44 (at least, that was KDOT's rationale). At the same time, US 400 (which originally had its western end it Garden City) was functionally an intrastate route, which - as the article points out - contravened a 1937 policy from AASHTO which supposedly discouraged such highways. (I guess New Jersey with US 130, and Texas with US 57 and US 96, didn't get the memo. But I digress.)

Anyway, because of that, KDOT eventually decided to designate US 400 along a completely redundant multiplex all the way to the Colorado border. In fact, according to the linked article, the only reason that it goes into Colorado at all is because AASHTO didn't allow a US route to end at a state line (or so KDOT believed, anyway). For their part, Colorado wanted no part of the whole charade, unceremoniously dumping the US 400 designation at the first possible opportunity (namely, the US 50/US 385 junction in Granada).

Because of all this, I believe that US 400 should be decommissioned. Most of it overlaps with existing highways (in the case of US 50, pointlessly so); as far as the standalone sections, those could easily be state routes. I think the short solo stretch between US 50 east of Dodge City and US 54 at Mullinville should have a number that alludes to either route (I'm thinking either K-350 or K-354); as for the section between Leon (where US 54 splits off east of Wichita) and US 69 near Pittsburg, we can renumber that to K-171, which is the road that goes east from that US 69 junction, eventually becoming MO 171 going into Joplin. (Alternatively, if KDOT still thinks that Dodge City, Wichita, and I-44 should be linked with a single number, they can call the whole stretch K-400, overlapping with US 54 along the way.) Regardless, in my opinion, there's no need for such a designation to extend along US 50 west of Dodge City (to say nothing of Garden City).

US 400 (as well as US 412 and US 425) was developed as a specific numbered corridor designated for possible future improvements/upgrades.  Having the corridor be a single number would make it easier for motorists to navigate.  Someone (AASHTO, FHWA, or some government agency) chose to use US Highways with 4xx, maybe to follow Canada's preference of having their major freeways having 4xx numbers.

Unfortunately, US 400 will be signed just like the similar "one corridor number" CKC 110, mainly overlapping existing signed highways just so there is "one number for motorists to remember".

As for my (partial fictional/somewhat suggesting) take, US 400, I believe, was supposed to be the placeholder number for the I-66 Transcontinental Corridor that was supposed to, at its greatest extent, start in Fresno, CA and somehow connect to the existing I-66 near Strasburg, VA.  The current routing through Kansas was supposed to be part of that corridor.  As we now know, that project is dead.  What I believe would be a better routing would be to truncate US 54 near Leon, KS and have US 400 replace it to El Paso.  The independent sections west and east of Dodge City could become an extension of K-34 with the section from K-34 to US 54 becoming K-434.  This would at least give some credence for having a US 400 in the system without unnecessary overlaps.

[Rothman]

...or get rid of US 400 altogether.

[US71]

...or get rid of US 400 altogether.

I'll drink to that, 

[skluth]

^ Agree for the need of a Memphis-Houston corridor, particularly to provide a redundancy in the system and alleviate congestion / heavy truck on I-30 and I-40 by providing a direct shot on a dedicated route to the northeast from southern Texas. However, I can understand why this is a lower priority than the rest of the corridor, and is evident by its lack of progress.

As for I-69C, I'd argue it's more of a priority than I-69 north of Shreveport. It's seen as "redundant"  to I-69E by some roadgeeks, however the reality on the ground is that both highways are major freight corridors, carry large truck volumes, and are both warranting of a freeway design. They go to different places in the Valley, different border crossings, etc.

I'd argue I-69W is more useless than I-69C, given I-10 and I-35, and given that actual traffic volumes are much lower.

I'd say there's a need for completing the Houston to Shreveport (if incorporating I-49 as part of the corridor) or Texarkana freeway corridor. There's a completely good freeway connection already from Texarkana to Memphis. A third Mississippi crossing at Memphis would be a bonus and certainly more useful needed than the proposed I-69 crossing (which I believe is near Rosedale MS, but I'm too lazy to look up right now). That no complete freeway goes north/northeast from Houston to I-20 and I-30 is currently a gap that I-69 should fix whenever it's actually complete in Texas.

[kphoger]

...or get rid of US 400 altogether.

It still doesn't make sense to me that a route recently slated for upgrade to Interstate corridor should instead be downgraded to state route.

[Bickendan]

I'd nominate West Bengal's state highways for their tortured routings. If differing segments were renumbered, they'd make sense, but with massive overlaps with Indian National Highways and Alternate routes with no relation to their parent route...
At some point I should make a map and propose a renumbered scheme.

[Max Rockatansky]

CA 77 comes to mind in Oakland.  Unlike many of the freeways in the Bay Area that were built CA 77 actually had a half mile segment constructed between CA 185 and I-880.  Really the CA 77 freeway doesn't serve anyone and could easily be converted to a locally maintained surface street.  I'm not really even sure if the entire planned route of CA 77 would have been all that useful beyond providing another connection between I-880 and I-580.

[US20IL64]

I'd ask Milwaukee folks to defend I-794. Is it really necessary? One highway was torn down, a WI state rt. Will there be a future removal of this, in my opinion, white elephant?      Glad there is no I-494 viaduct on Chicago's Lakefront, 

[Avalanchez71]

as for the section between Leon (where US 54 splits off east of Wichita) and US 69 near Pittsburg, we can renumber that to K-171, which is the road that goes east from that US 69 junction, eventually becoming MO 171 going into Joplin.

It used to be K-96.

But, anyway, AADT counts along that stretch range between 3400 and 6530, with the average being 4647.  By way of comparison, US-54 between the same longitudes gets down to 1190 AADT between Eureka and Yates Center, and the only locations with counts over 3000 AADT are (1) just outside El Dorado, (2) the short stretch between Iola and La Harpe, and (3) just outside Fort Scott.  To me, it's a strange suggestion that 54 should keep its US Route shield but 400 should not, when 400 is the busier highway of the two.

But here's the real kicker:  more than half of the count locations between Leon and US-69 report more than 25% "Heavy Commercial" traffic.  Having driven the highway numerous times, I can assert that it's a popular corridor for long-distance traffic–long-haul truckers, regional farm trucks, vacationing RVs, boats on trailers...  In fact, with it having so few towns along the route, I daresay it's more important as a cross-country route than it is as a local route.

I am going to concur here on this one.  I just recently drove this route from El Dorado to Parsons.  I took a side trip into OK then back up Joplin.  There was considerable RV and truck traffic along this route.  I noticed that there are fewer towns along this route then up northern KS say along US 36.  I remember driving US 36 and noting the further east I drove that more and more towns were popping up.  Not so much on US 400.

[SeriesE]

While I don't have comments on how useful any of the I-69E/C/W routes were, I think that the designation is whack. It should've been I-69 and 2 I-x69s.

[ctkatz]

the only reason that I can think of for why the kentucky segment of I 69 exists is because compared to other states we barely spent anything for it since 100% of it was redesignated existingparkway.  other than converting 2 major interchanges and upgrading the few old tolled exits along the way the entire route was already built with no other upgrades made. had 164 in evansville not been used as part of 69 I don't think 69 ever would have existed in kentucky at all.

I'm not sure why 69 exists outside of indiana and texas since if the purpose was to connect indy to memphis you could do that already.

[silverback1065]

US 150, have no idea why this highway ever existed. most of its route overlaps with state highways.

[US71]

Arkansas eliminated 2 sections of AR 180 in Fayetteville a few years bac, but there are still  plenty of  1/2 mile "corporate driveways"

[US20IL64]

US 150, have no idea why this highway ever existed. most of its route overlaps with state highways.

In IL, it is next to Interstate 74, can be a state highway. Kind of how I think of US-6, 

[AcE_Wolf_287]

I-376 Between I-80 & I-76, I-79 is paralleling the highway less then 15-20 miles away, could be used for people on I-80 to get to the philly airport but even then I-79 is still right there from erie to charleston, WV

And someone explain what's the Real Purpose for I-990?

[vdeane]

I-990 was intended to go all the way to Lockport.  Some plans even had it extend along the NY 31 corridor and take over NY 531 to I-490 near Rochester.  However, it was never completed, and it doesn't strike me as particularly likely that it will (the northern stub is really more of a traffic calming device than a provision for a future extension; note that there is no stub SB).  Even as-is, it at least provides a freeway bypass of NY 263 around SUNY Buffalo on the busy Buffalo-Lockport corridor.

I can see a case where it would make more sense for it to be a state route freeway rather than an interstate, but it would seem that a similar case could be made for things like I-795 in MD, so I-990 is hardly unique there.

[achilles765]

While I don't have comments on how useful any of the I-69E/C/W routes were, I think that the designation is whack. It should've been I-69 and 2 I-x69s.

They are actually quite useful: they are major trucking routes that lead to US-Mexico bridges; and the Rio Grande Valley Region is growing very fast. 
I do agree that it would have been totally fine for I-69, with the other two being I-x69s...or make I-69E into I-37, turn the current I 37 from I69E/US77 in to Corpus Christi into I-137; then have Interstate 69 head along US 59 to Laredo, and have the stretch to Pharr (69C) be I-169.  Renumber the current 169 to I-369 and renumber the I-369 near Texarkana to I-969.

[SkyPesos]

While I don't have comments on how useful any of the I-69E/C/W routes were, I think that the designation is whack. It should've been I-69 and 2 I-x69s.

They are actually quite useful: they are major trucking routes that lead to US-Mexico bridges; and the Rio Grande Valley Region is growing very fast. 
I do agree that it would have been totally fine for I-69, with the other two being I-x69s...or make I-69E into I-37, turn the current I 37 from I69E/US77 in to Corpus Christi into I-137; then have Interstate 69 head along US 59 to Laredo, and have the stretch to Pharr (69C) be I-169.  Renumber the current 169 to I-369 and renumber the I-369 near Texarkana to I-969.

I don't really like a 9xx being use on possibly the longest 3di, and a pretty important one too.