Are US Highways obsolete?

[texaskdog]

US Highways were created to move people across the country quickly.  Now we have interstate highways to do that.  Wouldn't the systems work just as well without US Highways at all?

[hotdogPi]

What would the routes become if the US designations were removed?

[oscar]

US Highways were created to move people across the country quickly.  Now we have interstate highways to do that.  Wouldn't the systems work just as well without US Highways at all?

The US Highways are often good alternatives for people who can't stand Interstates, or are tired of a particular Interstate and are looking for a change of pace.  And especially west of the Mississippi, they help fill in the large spaces in the Interstate network, and help the people in those spaces find their way to the Interstates.

[Roadrunner75]

Agreed with above, but they would function the same whether they were State (which they really are) or "U.S." highways.  Most people wouldn't really notice the difference if they officially became state routes (assuming the states maintained the route numbers), but it would probably drive everyone nuts on this forum.

[hotdogPi]

What about state routes and US routes with the same number close to each other? (example: US 4 and NH 4)

[Roadrunner75]

What about state routes and US routes with the same number close to each other? (example: US 4 and NH 4)

That was a bad idea by NH to begin with (not sure of the history), and probably would confuse the average motorist now.  I don't think most people notice the difference between state and U.S. highways.  States should not be duplicating any numbers for interstate, state or U.S. routes, although many do.  U.S/State and interstates are easier to tell apart, but I still laugh when I look at U.S. 74 running right onto I-74 in NC.

[Ned Weasel]

I think it's time to turn the U.S. Highway system over to state numbering, or at least scale back the system significantly.  When you look at the way US 6 is signed through the Denver area or the way US 169 is signed in Johnson County, Kansas, just to name a couple of examples, it's obvious that significant portions of that highway system are considered irrelevant and that practically no one really cares about the continuity of its routes.  From what I've observed, state routes are often treated with more respect; they're usually signed consistently, and they end in appropriate, understandable places because there's less of a reason to dump them on Interstate routes.

[roadman65]

US Highways are needed. Sure many states have them next to interstates and many like Colorado do a terrible job signing them when concurrent with interstates, but are still needed in many places like US 101 (hence we hate its unusual number) which serve as a major corridor and used by all kinds of travelers.

However, to decommission them is costly and troublesome like removing US 92 and US 5 that are both in the wake of major interstates their whole length.  Plus in Florida we do use the designation in everyday talk. US 17 & 92 are referred to as such and not like the northeast that refers to all route numbers as route x.  We do say US 1 and we do say US 92, so we do look at them as more of a major arterial rather than some local road.  Even US 192 is looked at a major road because of its importance in the Disney World tourist area and having that gives that stretch more importance to visitors as it stands out in front of the rest of the area road names and numbers.

[Alps]

US highways aren't necessarily needed in the corridors parallel to Interstates, though most here would argue to keep them for nostalgia, grid, etc. (I happen to like them a whole bunch.) But there are so many US routes in their own corridors that the system itself shouldn't die. Examples abound, even in the east: US 6 across PA and NY (and through RI), US 22 across OH, WV and most of PA, US 30 across IN, OH, WV, US 206, US 209, just for starters.

[mcdonaat]

I'd say that they aren't obsolete. The numbers can be kept from state to state, where state highways might end up changing numbers over a few years. Sure, we have the example of TX 12/LA 12, but that's a rarity. US highways do give a solid number to follow, and the Interstates are freeways. You can't really turn US 84 in rural Louisiana into a freeway, nor can you turn it into LA 84 (because you would need to make sure TX would number theirs 84, and the same with MS, CO, AL, and GA).

Just keep em! Why change what ain't broke? I'd trust driving along a US highway more than a state highway, because a state highway could end in the middle of nowhere at a closed gate.

[Pete from Boston]

The system implies, "secondary corridor between regionally significant places, that has multi-state importance."  As that, it's useful.  I'm sure we've all followed a US route between small cities we aren't familiar with and/or that are not necessarily connected by another clear straight route.

[mcdonaat]

The system implies, "secondary corridor between regionally significant places, that has multi-state importance."  As that, it's useful.  I'm sure we've all followed a US route between small cities we aren't familiar with and/or that are not necessarily connected by another clear straight route.

That I have. US 79 is used mostly to get from Minden/Shreveport to El Dorado, US 167 from Ruston/Alexandria to El Dorado/Little Rock, US 425 to get from Baton Rouge to Little Rock, and US 84 from Alexandria (via LA 28) to Natchez. Multistate importance is key, and even if it has been bypassed by an Interstate, people growing up knowing a road as "Highway 51" will be confused by it randomly changing for no purpose.

Hence, why Ferriday has US 65.

[kkt]

No, but the Interstates should have continued the U.S. numbering.  When Interstates were just a widened or parallel route to an existing U.S. route, they should have taken over the U.S. route number.  When they were new routes, they should have been numbered as new U.S. routes of either 2 or 3 digits as appropriate.

[cpzilliacus]

US highways aren't necessarily needed in the corridors parallel to Interstates, though most here would argue to keep them for nostalgia, grid, etc. (I happen to like them a whole bunch.) But there are so many US routes in their own corridors that the system itself shouldn't die. Examples abound, even in the east: US 6 across PA and NY (and through RI), US 22 across OH, WV and most of PA, US 30 across IN, OH, WV, US 206, US 209, just for starters.

Some examples of U.S. highways that have significant sections that are not near Interstates (or are needed even though they have sections that are close to one or more Interstates (Warning: East Coast and California bias ahead):

Odd:
1
7
13
15
17
21
27
29
33
41
101
119
201
209
219
221
421
301
322
501

Even:

2
4
6
22
30
40
44
46
48
50
52
58
60
64
70
158
258
202
220
250
264
460
522

[TheStranger]

US highways aren't necessarily needed in the corridors parallel to Interstates, though most here would argue to keep them for nostalgia, grid, etc. (I happen to like them a whole bunch.) But there are so many US routes in their own corridors that the system itself shouldn't die. Examples abound, even in the east: US 6 across PA and NY (and through RI), US 22 across OH, WV and most of PA, US 30 across IN, OH, WV, US 206, US 209, just for starters.

Some examples of U.S. highways that have significant sections that are not near Interstates (or are needed even though they have sections that are close to one or more Interstates (Warning: East Coast and California bias ahead):

Odd:

Surprised you didn't mention 395, which other than the segments in Spokane, the Washington Tri-Cities, and Reno, really runs apart from any Interstate corridor.

93 (due to its long stretch in Nevada north of Vegas) would also fit this as well.

US 83 and its child routes also fit in nicely in this determination, as does US 281.

[SteveG1988]

US routes should not be decomissioned, as mentioned previously they form a secondary route network to the interstate highway, and in many places compliment it. For example in north dakota US-2 forms the northern east-west route across the state, and does not meet another interstate until it is half way through montana, and it does not meet an east-west interstate until it hits spokane washington. This one US route connects I-75, I-29, I-15 and I-90 accross the northern parts of many states that I-94 does not touch.

[texaskdog]

How about this?  (if someone wants a big project).  Strip off all the US highway numbers and put down US highway numbers on the roads that really truly still are national highways or have use away from Interstates, etc.

Some of this is pretty rhetorical but I thought it would make for good discussion.

[froggie]

How about this?  (if someone wants a big project).  Strip off all the US highway numbers and put down US highway numbers on the roads that really truly still are national highways or have use away from Interstates, etc.

Some of this is pretty rhetorical but I thought it would make for good discussion.

I've been working on such a system for about 8 years...close to finished with the 1/2-digit routes.  I intend to post it in the Fictional Highways folder when I get to it.

[roadman65]

We mention here that many of the interstates that not only are in the shadow of the interstate system that are important, but what of those not near interstates that are not very independent on their own ? Those that are not near an interstate that serve really no purpose as a major corridor.  Those that act as a glorified local road and only us road geeks have actually clinched end to end in one sitting.  US routes like US 4, US 160, and some here may even argue US 400 (although I say despite its unusual numbering it does create a full corridor across Southern Kansas) are not used primarily as through routes but long local corridors between points along its route.

From Albany, NY to Concord, NH no one ever uses US 4 to complete its journey even without the Mass Pike being built.  Most would have used NY 7, VT 9, and NH 9 as it is most direct where US 4 goes way north to Whitehall before turning east and then SE after Rutland.  It is used mainly as a regional corridor for points between that are several miles apart, but not in the long run for it. 

These too maybe something to consider as well as US 98 in the peninsula of Florida.  Does anyone actually use US 98 from West Palm Beach to Perry?  Does anyone even go from Lakeland to Perry or Lakeland to West Palm Beach?  There are plenty of these types of scenarios where independent US routes are not used for the long haul or make up major arterials.  Do we consider these for distinction as well?

[froggie]

Your argument discounts the fact that most people use US 4 out of the Capitol Region to go to/from/through Vermont...which by the book is still an inter-state function.  Sure, they're not using it all the way from Albany to Concord, but that doesn't mean it's not an important or major route in other aspects.

[roadman65]

That is why I say regional corridor.  For those from the Capital Region to Northern Vermont is regional considering that from Albany area to Portsmouth, NH is what US 4 runs, it only makes about a third to half.  Basically US 4 is 2 or 3 different corridors that use the same number.
 
From White River Junction to Concord it is one corridor because there I-89 takes the through traffic away and locally used there, so from Albany to Rutland areas are another one and from Rutland (Northern VT) to the NH Seacoast is number three (along with I-89).

[texaskdog]

How about this?  (if someone wants a big project).  Strip off all the US highway numbers and put down US highway numbers on the roads that really truly still are national highways or have use away from Interstates, etc.

Some of this is pretty rhetorical but I thought it would make for good discussion.

I've been working on such a system for about 8 years…close to finished with the 1/2-digit routes.  I intend to post it in the Fictional Highways folder when I get to it.

SOmething for me to look forward to this summer.  8 years dang!!

[RoadWarrior56]

I had commented on this subject on an earlier posting thread that I had started several years ago. But here would be my "solution" to the question raised in this thread:

1.  I would more or less use a "California" solution to US Highways nationwide - I would not eliminate the US Highway system but I would pair the total mileage down substantially, leaving important routes that compliment Interstate Highways and connect large "un-served" areas of the country to the Interstate Highway System intact.

2.  I would allow discontinuous segments of US Highways -make official what many states are already doing "de-facto" - long sections where US Highways share the alignment with Interstates (e.g. - US 40 in Missouri and Kansas and much of US 87, etc), those highways would be officially be decommissioned where they share roadways with interstates).  Intact sections of the same US highway could connect to the interstate at either end.  Shorter sections of concurrencies would include full US highway signage.

3. Drastically expand the "Historic US Route" designation.  Include old parallel sections of US Highways alongside interstates and in other areas that could include roadways that are locally maintained as well state maintained.  That way, famous old sections of roadways could be remembered and commemorated beyond US 66, even as they serve a much less useful through traffic purpose today.  That way, they could still be driven over long distances.

I don't expect any of my "recommendations" to happen.  The current system is not terrible, and I don't see the desire or money to change it.  Getting rid of the US highways altogether would be worse than leaving as is, IMHO.

[jeffandnicole]

If it wasn't for US 130, I'd have no clue how to get from North Jersey to South Jersey!

But seriously, I do think US routes still serve a very important purpose. Many people may use them as local routes within town or from one town to the next, but people do the same with interstates, with many trips being simple commutes to work or the mall. Interstates are great to get from city to city via long distances. US routes serve the same purpose connection small & medium size towns.

[Avalanchez71]

The current US Highway system has evolved into a brand name rather than a system of through highways in many areas.  Not all US Highways are useless parallel highways either, though many are.  The current systems provides three things of interest at least in Tennessee.

1.  Convenient system of highways with through number to provide an adequate system of highways in which one may navigate in lieu of the interstate.  This is especially convenient in the case of emergency closures.  It is much easier to put signs up on the big road like use US 41 next XX miles due to emergency road closure then it would to say put up a bunch of detour signs.

2.  Tourism

3.  Economic development.  TDEC can sell an area better by saying that it is served by four-lane US 43 and US 64 then say SR 6 and SR 15.