Most useless US Hwys

[dgolub]

US 202 is a personal favorite of mine -- it's the "back hallway" of the Northeast, running through many cool areas at or just beyond the edge of the big metropolises.  I muse periodically about driving it end to end in one trip.

Yes, it is interesting how it covers a fairly long distance without going through any major cities.

[emory]

In Florida, US 92 and its child route US 192. US 92 has been superceded by Interstate 4 now, and runs parallel for the entire length from Daytona Beach to Tampa Bay. US 192 is only 75 miles long, with 26 of those miles co-signed by US 441.

[PurdueBill]

US 211 isn't what it used to be.
US 311 should be part of US 360.
US 264, 522 and 701 are all just kind of there. The latter two kind of go places but 264 is really just an incredibly long US 64A.

264 at least serves Greenville and other places along the way that 64 misses far enough to the north to make a 64A not that worthwhile, especially when they went and made old 64 into 64A in many places already.  At least 264 sorta follows the same kind of three-digit numbering scheme as an Interstate would, meeting its parent at both ends.  (Possibly I am biased by living for at least a short time just off a posted US 264A)

[Charles2]

Would anyone miss U.S. 411 if it went away?

[vtk]

Would anyone miss U.S. 411 if it went away?

Nah, these days everyone just uses Google or online directory sites.  Oh, wait, wrong 411...

[SD Mapman]

I bet you could get away with getting rid of 189. Most of it's multiplexed anyway.

[dlainhart]

Some of US 202 is not needed (largely multiplexed with other routes).

I generally hate this type of thread, but ding-ding-ding we have a winner.

[roadman65]

US 202 is a personal favorite of mine -- it's the "back hallway" of the Northeast, running through many cool areas at or just beyond the edge of the big metropolises.  I muse periodically about driving it end to end in one trip.

Yes, it is interesting how it covers a fairly long distance without going through any major cities.

Well put.  It passes through many communities that are far reaches of other metro areas as you state, but also keep in mind before the interstates were around US 1 was the main route along the east coast.  From PA one traveling US 1 could have used US 202 (as US 1 and US 202 intersect in Chester County) and then head north to Maine without stopping at those many signals that lined US 1 north of there. 

US 202, as useless as it may seem now, had far less signals than US 1 because of its alignment away from large city metroplexes.  I am even sure that even in NJ at one time, Morris, Passaic, and Bergen Counties once had the route better signed than it is now as presently you have little to no shields in many places where county maintained.  Plus the ones that are there now (someone brought this up as still are present) are so old and non reflective at night. 

[texaskdog]

Some of US 202 is not needed (largely multiplexed with other routes).

I generally hate this type of thread, but ding-ding-ding we have a winner.

Of course US 400 is not only a useless number it is also duplexed almost it's whoe distance.

[Brandon]

I might catch some flak for this, but US-6.  In the Midwest, there is almost nothing that US-6 does that other routes don't do better.  In Indiana, it parallels US-30 and the Toll Road.  In Ohio, US-20 goes to more places.  In Illinois and Iowa, it might as well be a part of I-80.

[hotdogPi]

I might catch some flak for this, but US-6.  In the Midwest, there is almost nothing that US-6 does that other routes don't do better.  In Indiana, it parallels US-30 and the Toll Road.  In Ohio, US-20 goes to more places.  In Illinois and Iowa, it might as well be a part of I-80.

And in Massachusetts, it is very important.

[Brandon]

I might catch some flak for this, but US-6.  In the Midwest, there is almost nothing that US-6 does that other routes don't do better.  In Indiana, it parallels US-30 and the Toll Road.  In Ohio, US-20 goes to more places.  In Illinois and Iowa, it might as well be a part of I-80.

And in Massachusetts, it is very important.

But what does US-6 really do west of the Hudson River?  West of Ellicott's Line, it does nothing much of anything.  It duplicates other US highways (20 and 30), is a duplicate of an interstate (80, 76, 70), or goes through the middle of nowhere (Nevada).

[corco]

It's important in Utah for I-70 traffic heading to Salt Lake.

It's also the main, I guess, Salt Lake to Yosemite connector. I feel like it's good to have a US highway that does that, but I can see why others might think that's pointless.

[Brandon]

Basically, US-6 could theoretically be split up into a few routes without a problem.  US-6 in the east, US-38 across Nebraska and into Colorado, and US-750 across Utah and Nevada.

[DandyDan]

I might catch some flak for this, but US-6.  In the Midwest, there is almost nothing that US-6 does that other routes don't do better.  In Indiana, it parallels US-30 and the Toll Road.  In Ohio, US-20 goes to more places.  In Illinois and Iowa, it might as well be a part of I-80.

I think that depends on whether you are talking on a national level or a local level.  Nationally, it isn't very important, for the above reasons, but locally, it can be very important.  US 6 is an important road in Council Bluffs, Iowa (Broadway), Omaha (Dodge Street, West Dodge Road Freeway, the segment between Elkhorn and Gretna it shares with NE 31), and Lincoln (Cornhusker Highway).  Of course, the real question is whether you need a US Highway shield to sign those particular roads.  Or any shield, for that matter.

[Beeper1]

US-44.  Pretty much redundant to US-6 in the only major corridor it serves (Hartford-Providence).  No reason for the Providence-Plymouth corridor to warrant a US highway, and the route west of Hartford doesn't really see much long distance through traffic.

[TheOneKEA]

US 11 from the Mason-Dixon Line to Winchester is completely useless, since it is parallelled throughout by I-81, and that highway is in the process of being widened to six lanes for the majority of its route through WV. MDRoads even suggested that US 11 could be decommissioned throughout its entire length and that no one would miss it.

[roadman65]

What about US 5?  It is totally in the shadows of I-91 its entire length.  US 3, even though most of it is with I-93, from Nashua to I-95 its a freeway and has its own identity carrying commuters around the North Boston area.

My only reason to keep both are for nostalgic purposes as the west has too many decommissioned routes. 

[briantroutman]

I might catch some flak for this, but US-6.

I think that depends on whether you are talking on a national level or a local level...Of course, the real question is whether you need a US Highway shield to sign those particular roads.  Or any shield, for that matter.

Right. I think a lot of these arguments boil down to how broad of a perspective you want to take and what you consider to be a duplication.

Take US 6, for example. On a national level, it connects Massachusetts to Chicago, Denver, then (formerly) LA. Sure, I-84, 80, 76, 70, and 15 do roughly the same today. But on a more regional level, there are corridors, like in the northern tier of PA, where US 6 does serve a purpose for the manufacturing, timber, oil, and more recently, gas industries–as well as the people and communities in those northern counties–in a way that the parallel I-80 does not. And I believe that this kind of a corridor does warrant a numerical designation–whether that be a US route or not.

On the other hand, the US 6 designation being overlaid onto local streets, important though they may be (such as in Omaha/Council Bluffs) is probably of no benefit.

I do agree that these long distance routes could probably be split up, although for the purposes of simplicity, the designations themselves could be left untouched for the most part–just decommission the unnecessary parts. For example, heading west, decommission US 6 between Bolton and Scranton. Place a couple of signs reading "US 6 - FOLLOW I-384 WEST TO I-84 WEST" . Then at the western terminus of I-84, US 6 signs reappear. This would allow the designation to remain unchanged in corridors where it has local and regional importance but avoid cluttering up sign messages where it merely overlaps or closely parallels a more modern route.

[theline]

US 6 is an important truck route through most of Indiana and northeastern Ohio. A surprising amount of manufacturing takes place within a few miles of the road. Yes, I get the point that it may not have that much national significance. You could call it SR-6 (and O-6?) and it works as well, but I think there are a lot of other US highways that are more expendable.

[mcdonaat]

US 11 in Louisiana! Superceded by US 90 and I-10/59.

US 84 between Winnfield and Jena, and US 71 between Bunkie and US 190. Other than those routes, our US routes are actually useful.

US 425 is useless because of number.

Nexus 7

[dgolub]

What about US 5?  It is totally in the shadows of I-91 its entire length.  US 3, even though most of it is with I-93, from Nashua to I-95 its a freeway and has its own identity carrying commuters around the North Boston area.

My only reason to keep both are for nostalgic purposes as the west has too many decommissioned routes.

I'm not sure why that's a problem--a lot of US routes have parallel interstates that were built later.  My one gripe with US 3 is why it ends where it does rather than following MA 3 down to US 6 by Cape Cod.

[PHLBOS]

I'm not sure why that's a problem--a lot of US routes have parallel interstates that were built later.  My one gripe with US 3 is why it ends where it does rather than following MA 3 down to US 6 by Cape Cod.

The reasoning for the now-odd US 3/MA 3 hand-off point in Cambridge is due to that location originally (prior to 1971) had US 1 (& MA 28) intersecting w/it. 

South of that location, US 1/ MA 3/28 multiplexed w/each other for a short distance to where MA 28 met its MA C28 partner and MA 3 piggy-backed w/US 1 until it breaks east (along the present MA 203) towards the Southeast Expressway.

When the C-routes were abolished in 1971, for some reason & despite the MassDPW relocating MA 3 to its current locations (in hindsight, they shouldn't have bothered given the fact that the Southeast Expressway was on its way to becoming a de-facto Interstate a year later); they chose not to move the US 3/MA 3 hand-off location to where MA 3 then multiplexed w/US 1, at the Storrow Drive/Longfellow Bridge interchange (most of Storrow Drive was US 1 from 1971 to 1989, it was MA C1 prior to 1971).  Whether the DPW sought permission from AASHTO to extend US 3 southeast (and it got rejected) or didn't bother to do so is unknown.

As far as MassDPW/MassHighway/MassDOT not making all of Route 3 (to Sagamore) a US route is concerned; they probably did not want to any north-south US highway located east of US 1, despite other states having such.  Mind you, the above is only speculation; no more no less.

[roadman]

And in Massachusetts, it (US 6) is very important.

But only east of the Cape Cod Canal.

[Alps]

I'm not sure why that's a problem--a lot of US routes have parallel interstates that were built later.  My one gripe with US 3 is why it ends where it does rather than following MA 3 down to US 6 by Cape Cod.

The reasoning for the now-odd US 3/MA 3 hand-off point in Cambridge is due to that location originally (prior to 1971) had US 1 (& MA 28) intersecting w/it. 

*cough cough* The handover actually happens at Massachusetts Avenue. That was the original route of US 1 in the 1920s, but 1 pretty soon after came up VFW Pkwy. to Storrow. For whatever reason, the 3/3 handoff never moved to the south end of the Longfellow Bridge where it would have made sense.