SO What Should be the Minimum Road Sizes of US Numbered routes be?

[bwana39]

We pretty much agree with what the minimums are on Interstates.

What should be the minimums on US Highways.

Many have 2 12 foot lanes with minimal / no shoulders.  Examples are (but far from only) US-259 (recent rebuilt with no shoulders) in Texas. US-371 in Arkansas. US-71 in Arkansas and Louisiana.

To me, these roads and many like them should be either improved or taken out of the US Highway System.

SO what do I see as the desirable minimums.   At least 2 12' lanes with 8' shoulders on the outer lanes (In the case of the 2-lane ones, that would be both sides.)  Periodic passing lanes for 2-laned roads. Speed limits of 55 or greater in most, if not all, rural areas. (Rural stretches of US-278 running through non-crossroads communities have many stretches of 35 or 45 mph.)

While I support waivers for nearly all of the 24 & 25 foot wide bridges There should be a push to upgrade then all to 40'. All of the short 20 or 22 foot wide bridges and culverts should be on a priority list to replace.

You guys have any comments or ideas?

[Max Rockatansky]

Truth be told I would prefer if stuff like US 191 along the Coronado Trail was converted back to gravel.  It probably be way easier for AZDOT to maintain that particular segment, especially around the Morenci Mine.

[pderocco]

Truth be told I would prefer if stuff like US 191 along the Coronado Trail was converted back to gravel.  It probably be way easier for AZDOT to maintain that particular segment, especially around the Morenci Mine.

Something tells me the Morenci Mine is maintaining it, since it keeps moving.

Personally, I don't feel the need for some master specification for state highways. I like some of the oddities we have in California, like skinny little CA-4 over Ebbets Pass, and the dirt part of CA-178 near Lake Arrowhead, which I managed to drive twice before they finally closed it for good. And Arizona has other dirt stretches that I loved driving, like the AZ-88 Apache Trail. I can't say honestly that it wouldn't be nicer if it were paved, but I'm sure there would still be narrow winding stretches that wouldn't meet bwana39's suggested standards.

[Max Rockatansky]

I should clarify.  US 191 is maintained by the mining operation in the Morenci Mine itself.  That said, a couple years AZDOT tried floating to Greenlee Counry dumping maintenance responsibility of US 191 north to US 180.  The rationale was low traffic counts and the difficulty in maintaining a paved surface highway (or rather budgeting for it). 

Part of the proposal was to reroute US 191 east into New Mexico and back into Arizona via AZ 78.  The local consensus was a hard no due to it bypassing Morenci, possibly cutting fire evacuation egress and being a blow to tourism.  This was an era when AZDOT was trying to dump a lot of low mileage highway stock and or threatening to get it the dirt CA 173 treatment (meaning close it).  I think the overwhelming negative response they got over Fish Creek Hill on AZ 88 taught them a lesson.

[kphoger]

Anyone know what's in 'the green book'?  That would be a good starting point.

Speed limits

That's a matter of state and local laws, not design standards.

[Big John]

US routes have no special design standards. 12' lanes are preferred but can go as low as 10' lanes.

[kphoger]

US routes have no special design standards.

Unless they're part of the NHS, right?
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-23/chapter-I/subchapter-G/part-625

[ElishaGOtis]

We pretty much agree with what the minimums are on Interstates.

What should be the minimums on US Highways.

Many have 2 12 foot lanes with minimal / no shoulders.  Examples are (but far from only) US-259 (recent rebuilt with no shoulders) in Texas. US-371 in Arkansas. US-71 in Arkansas and Louisiana.

To me, these roads and many like them should be either improved or taken out of the US Highway System.

SO what do I see as the desirable minimums.   At least 2 12' lanes with 8' shoulders on the outer lanes (In the case of the 2-lane ones, that would be both sides.)  Periodic passing lanes for 2-laned roads. Speed limits of 55 or greater in most, if not all, rural areas. (Rural stretches of US-278 running through non-crossroads communities have many stretches of 35 or 45 mph.)

While I support waivers for nearly all of the 24 & 25 foot wide bridges There should be a push to upgrade then all to 40'. All of the short 20 or 22 foot wide bridges and culverts should be on a priority list to replace.

You guys have any comments or ideas?

Pretty much all US routes in Florida—regardless of lane count—have 4-5' paved shoulders and 3-5' more of unpaved shoulder. I think that is fine as is, but could be useful to emphasize in other states where no shoulder is present.

Alabama currently has many US routes with 3-5' paved shoulders, but they almost universally have rumble strips. Seems like the newer ones constructed after widening have the full 8-10' paved. Some resurfacing projects are introducing 4-5' paved shoulders like in Florida, however (see US-29 east of Brewton).

[bwana39]

US routes have no special design standards.

Unless they're part of the NHS, right?
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-23/chapter-I/subchapter-G/part-625

But they are no stated minimums in many cases.  It may demand particular welding, but shoulder and even lane width, not so much.

[Max Rockatansky]

US routes have no special design standards.

Unless they're part of the NHS, right?
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-23/chapter-I/subchapter-G/part-625

But they are no stated minimums in many cases.  It may demand particular welding, but shoulder and even lane width, not so much.

The standard always seems to have been if AASHO/AASHTO Executive Committee agrees a proposed addition to the system is a good idea.  The actual only rule to they seem to be serious about strictly following is no new sub-300 mile US Routes in one state (which I think is kind of lame personally). 

Looking back through the AASHTO database there are a lot rejections on sound corridors simply because the Executive Committee didn't like the proposals (like Winnemucca to the Sea).  Likewise a lot of questionable stuff got pushed through due to political forces of will when they shouldn't have been.  US 6 being extended to California despite not having an actual state owned facility constructed eastern Nevada circa 1937 is a great example of the latter. 

FWIW I'm amused at how many "fuck you" additions to the US Route System there has been.  Almost all the Alternate corridors in Nevada were signed posted anyways following initial Executive Committee rejections.  In that particular case most were later approved via new applications that basically said "we sign these Alternates and are going to continue to do so even if you don't like it."

[ClassicHasClass]

the dirt part of CA-178 near Lake Arrowhead

Wasn't that CA 173?

[pderocco]

the dirt part of CA-178 near Lake Arrowhead

Wasn't that CA 173?

Oops. Right.

I get 168 in Bishop confused with 163 in San Diego too. I also used to get 58 and 53 confused in southeast Massachusetts.

[SEWIGuy]

Aren't USHs just state highways with common numbering? IMO it should be whatever those states decide.

[kphoger]

Aren't USHs just state highways with common numbering?

On some level, that's also true of Interstate highways.

[Molandfreak]

Aren't USHs just state highways with common numbering? IMO it should be whatever those states decide.

The problem is when states completely derail the route from the obvious thru route for political or historical reasons, such as the US 41/SR 63 split in Indiana or the US 23/SR 15 split in Ohio. Obviously, it is AASHTO's job to ensure US highways follow the best route, but they have done a public disservice in these cases by endorsing random tangents away from the clear thru route.

[hbelkins]

Aren't USHs just state highways with common numbering? IMO it should be whatever those states decide.

The problem is when states completely derail the route from the obvious thru route for political or historical reasons, such as the US 41/SR 63 split in Indiana or the US 23/SR 15 split in Ohio. Obviously, it is AASHTO's job to ensure US highways follow the best route, but they have done a public disservice in these cases by endorsing random tangents away from the clear thru route.

US 23 predates the OH 15 four-lane extension of the route to I-75. And in Indiana, the US 41 designation predates the IN 63 four-lane route. I suppose ODOT could petition AASHTO to put US 23 on OH 15 and I-75 up to I-475, and InDOT could ask to swap 41 and 63, but at this point, would the signage changes be worth the cost? Especially when people can 1.) read a map and see what's a four-lane vs. what's a two-lane, and 2.) GPS navigation will pick the best route automatically and drivers will blindly follow what the GPS says?

[Molandfreak]

Aren't USHs just state highways with common numbering? IMO it should be whatever those states decide.

The problem is when states completely derail the route from the obvious thru route for political or historical reasons, such as the US 41/SR 63 split in Indiana or the US 23/SR 15 split in Ohio. Obviously, it is AASHTO's job to ensure US highways follow the best route, but they have done a public disservice in these cases by endorsing random tangents away from the clear thru route.

US 23 predates the OH 15 four-lane extension of the route to I-75. And in Indiana, the US 41 designation predates the IN 63 four-lane route. I suppose ODOT could petition AASHTO to put US 23 on OH 15 and I-75 up to I-475, and InDOT could ask to swap 41 and 63, but at this point, would the signage changes be worth the cost? Especially when people can 1.) read a map and see what's a four-lane vs. what's a two-lane, and 2.) GPS navigation will pick the best route automatically and drivers will blindly follow what the GPS says?

ODOT petitioned AASHTO to swap the designations of SR 199 and US 23 after the SR 15 expressway had been completed. AASHTO effectively endorsed this nonsense before GPS technology became available to the general public.

And I still think there is room for having logic to a route in the age of GPS. There needs to be a clear purpose behind an highway number. Otherwise, why don't we simply go back to using auto trails? I can think of two cases where someone may not have reliable GPS coverage in the modern age. Route numbers should serve as a helpful guide for outsiders, not locals who already know where they're going.

If humans were 100% logical like computers and not subject to grogginess or wandering thoughts, maybe the "just read the map correctly" argument would have some merit. Actually, if we were 100% logical, this would never fly in anyone's mind and 23 would already follow SR 15 and I-75.

The fact that some hand-holding still needs to be done with the "15 north to 75" signs is pretty much a tacit admission by the DOT that the way the highways are aligned makes no sense. Put yourself in the mindset of a low-income motorist from Kentucky with a limited data plan on their phone, or a foreigner who wants to rent a car and explore this part of the country without racking up exorbitant roaming charges--they just want to have a nice vacation to northern Michigan and follow the best route possible. With just two exceptions up to this point--I-270 to bypass Columbus and US 23 Truck to bypass Portsmouth, their best route has followed US 23 the entire time. At this point, would this motorist think the current arrangement makes any sense? Absolutely not. Something like this would get the point across in a much more direct way:


Or, you could substitute US 23A with US 23 Business, US 223, SR 420, or whatever else you want. Go nuts with it. The point is that this is significantly less confusing to these sets of motorists who are unfamiliar with the area. An alternate doesn't even have to be signed with this amount of fanfare; ODOT posts an alternate route for I-76/US 224 in Akron, which amusingly is picked up by Google Maps even though it is obviously not the primary highway number. They can and should do the same to provide an alternate route for I-75/US 23 in this area, if it is needed.

There is a time and a place where US Highways are useful as alternate routes, if they are consistent in quality. Nevada had the right idea to move US 395 to I-580, because that way it is consistent in quality as the thru north-south route people take. There is also a signed alternate that is useful for motorists in the event of an emergency or if they simply choose not to take the freeway--the point is that the thru route is very clearly designated and consistently numbered.

[bwana39]

I should clarify.  US 191 is maintained by the mining operation in the Morenci Mine itself.  That said, a couple years AZDOT tried floating to Greenlee Counry dumping maintenance responsibility of US 191 north to US 180.  The rationale was low traffic counts and the difficulty in maintaining a paved surface highway (or rather budgeting for it). 

Part of the proposal was to reroute US 191 east into New Mexico and back into Arizona via AZ 78.  The local consensus was a hard no due to it bypassing Morenci, possibly cutting fire evacuation egress and being a blow to tourism.  This was an era when AZDOT was trying to dump a lot of low mileage highway stock and or threatening to get it the dirt CA 173 treatment (meaning close it).  I think the overwhelming negative response they got over Fish Creek Hill on AZ 88 taught them a lesson.

It was decades ago. We went from Clifton with family who lived there to Alpine via NM. My uncle said it was an hour faster and a lifetime safer,

[Max Rockatansky]

I should clarify.  US 191 is maintained by the mining operation in the Morenci Mine itself.  That said, a couple years AZDOT tried floating to Greenlee Counry dumping maintenance responsibility of US 191 north to US 180.  The rationale was low traffic counts and the difficulty in maintaining a paved surface highway (or rather budgeting for it). 

Part of the proposal was to reroute US 191 east into New Mexico and back into Arizona via AZ 78.  The local consensus was a hard no due to it bypassing Morenci, possibly cutting fire evacuation egress and being a blow to tourism.  This was an era when AZDOT was trying to dump a lot of low mileage highway stock and or threatening to get it the dirt CA 173 treatment (meaning close it).  I think the overwhelming negative response they got over Fish Creek Hill on AZ 88 taught them a lesson.

It was decades ago. We went from Clifton with family who lived there to Alpine via NM. My uncle said it was an hour faster and a lifetime safer,

That depends.  I got used to the Coronado Trail enough that I could make it Nutriso in about the same amount of time.  That road in hands of a capable driver is sublime. 

[bwana39]

Truth be told I would prefer if stuff like US 191 along the Coronado Trail was converted back to gravel.  It probably be way easier for AZDOT to maintain that particular segment, especially around the Morenci Mine.

Something tells me the Morenci Mine is maintaining it, since it keeps moving.

Personally, I don't feel the need for some master specification for state highways. I like some of the oddities we have in California, like skinny little CA-4 over Ebbets Pass, and the dirt part of CA-178 near Lake Arrowhead, which I managed to drive twice before they finally closed it for good. And Arizona has other dirt stretches that I loved driving, like the AZ-88 Apache Trail. I can't say honestly that it wouldn't be nicer if it were paved, but I'm sure there would still be narrow winding stretches that wouldn't meet bwana39's suggested standards.

I was talking about the US marked hwys US-1 to 101  and the 3 digit "spurs" Even Texas has a handful of stretches of dirt / gravel FM roads (after previously having none)

[SEWIGuy]

Aren't USHs just state highways with common numbering? IMO it should be whatever those states decide.

The problem is when states completely derail the route from the obvious thru route for political or historical reasons, such as the US 41/SR 63 split in Indiana or the US 23/SR 15 split in Ohio. Obviously, it is AASHTO's job to ensure US highways follow the best route, but they have done a public disservice in these cases by endorsing random tangents away from the clear thru route.

AASHTO isn't going to tell a state where to place US highways. If Indiana petitions them, they should endorse it. But they aren't a proactive body in that regard.

[Molandfreak]

Aren't USHs just state highways with common numbering? IMO it should be whatever those states decide.

The problem is when states completely derail the route from the obvious thru route for political or historical reasons, such as the US 41/SR 63 split in Indiana or the US 23/SR 15 split in Ohio. Obviously, it is AASHTO's job to ensure US highways follow the best route, but they have done a public disservice in these cases by endorsing random tangents away from the clear thru route.

AASHTO isn't going to tell a state where to place US highways. If Indiana petitions them, they should endorse it. But they aren't a proactive body in that regard.

They forced Wyoming to keep US 87 on a permanently-closed alignment for years. The only alternative was to move it to I-90. It wasn't until very recently that WYODOT moved it onto WYO 193 in a vigilante move anyway. The same thing could and should have happened with ODOT.

[Max Rockatansky]

The mistake a lot of states is make is telling AASHTO they intend to move a highway.  Other states move them all the time and don't tell AASHTO.  The hook is that they don't change the control points. 

[Molandfreak]

The mistake a lot of states is make is telling AASHTO they intend to move a highway.  Other states move them all the time and don't tell AASHTO.  The hook is that they don't change the control points. 

Still begs the question why AASHTO endorsed moving US 23 onto a random two-lane road in Ohio which wasn't the original alignment, when a better route had already been completed.