Are US Highways obsolete?

[GaryV]

Some states, like Michigan, upgraded US highways without converting them to Interstate numbers.  US 31 and US 131 are certainly not minor unneeded routes - even though 131 is a single-state US route.

Those that were replaced by Interstates were decommissioned (e.g. US 16, 25, 27).

And some are "hybrid" - US 23 is an important freeway route in it's own right between Toledo and Flint, is cosigned with I-75 up to Bay City, and becomes a regional route along Lake Huron for the rest of it's Michigan length.  It's also a hybrid through Ohio, at least north of Columbus, then becomes a regional route into the South.

In some cases, the "old road" was kept as a state-maintained route, whether numbered (e.g. M-13) or not (Old 131).

There is still a place for the US Highways, although I agree that many of them should be decommissioned in parts or entirely.

[bugo]

Some states, like Michigan, upgraded US highways without converting them to Interstate numbers.  US 31 and US 131 are certainly not minor unneeded routes - even though 131 is a single-state US route.

Nope.  US 131 barely, and I mean BARELY goes into Indiana to end at I-80/90.

[tidecat]

Some US routes are certainly important as they serve corridors which Interstates do not traverse. Other US routes are essentially obsolete, as their functions have been usurped by parallel Interstates. A third subset of US routes are not paralleled by Interstates, but have nonsensical or otherwise indirect routings which call into question their use as long-haul routes.

US highways serve a role "in between" Interstate and state routes and should not disappear. Potentially a different sort of route could fill that role, but for tradition's sake the US route should fill the role, however imperfectly. In any case, the US highway system needs reform, not elimination. Removing less useful and obsolete routes, combining other routes where logical corridors exist, or splitting routes where a logical continuous corridor does not exist are reasonable changes that could be made.

As for US routes serving as "detour" or parallel routings to Interstates, I still hold out hope that a DETOUR or ALTERNATE Interstate banner could be adopted to fill that need.

A lot of that could be solved by appropriate numbering of county or state roads.  For example, Louisville could sign a Jefferson County 265A to serve that purpose - or just  extend KY 1065 to follow more of I-265.

[roadman65]

For nostalgic purposes the US routes should be kept, however in a perfect sense routes like US 3, and US 5 should be eliminated as for the former it is totally in the shadow of I-91 and the latter has it mostly near I-93 with only some miles independent north of Franconia Notch not long enough to be one corridor.

Of course you have US 22 in New Jersey that even though close to I-78, it still is a major road above the rest around the area and should be raised higher than the typical state route as the same for US 1 there. 

If a route is in the shadow of an interstate, but generates a lot of regional traffic a US route is useful.  Even though Caltrans would decommission US 41, US 1, US 90, and US 23 (which really serves no purpose in FL anymore) in Florida, it still, I think, makes sense in this case to keep.

Most of this is if a need was to arise and the renumbering of the current system were to be implemented only.  Right now I see no more need to remove routes from the list and like I said for nostalgia it is nice to see it still, especially east of the Mississippi.

[hotdogPi]

5 is definitely obsolete, but there is no point in changing its number.

And you may have mixed up 3 and 5. 3 parallels 93, and 5 parallels 91.

[bugo]

They're not obsolete.  They are both regional and local corridors and alternatives to the parallel freeways.  The only US routes that are obsolete are old alignments that are now frontage roads (like old US 71 and old US 40 in Missouri).  I wouldn't use "obsolete" as it is not an accurate word.

[roadman65]

5 is definitely obsolete, but there is no point in changing its number.

And you may have mixed up 3 and 5. 3 parallels 93, and 5 parallels 91.

No you are right which is why I said only if the case did arrive at where a major renumbering would occur.
So I did mess up the two routes LOL!  Oh well, I guess we all do funny things at times.  I am aware, though, that US 5 is for I-91 and US 3 is for I-93.  I just used former and latter wrong.

[roadman65]

They're not obsolete.  They are both regional and local corridors and alternatives to the parallel freeways.  The only US routes that are obsolete are old alignments that are now frontage roads (like old US 71 and old US 40 in Missouri).  I wouldn't use "obsolete" as it is not an accurate word.

Also US 301 in Southern Virginia where it runs right next to I-95 for several miles and VDOT signs it as such.  It would be better to be concurrent with I-95 and have the counties maintain the US 301 that is a frontage road to I-95 like Jasper County, SC did with US 17.

[hbelkins]

A lot of that could be solved by appropriate numbering of county or state roads.  For example, Louisville could sign a Jefferson County 265A to serve that purpose - or just  extend KY 1065 to follow more of I-265.

They've sorta done that with KY 1747. It took over the numbering of KY 1631.

Also US 301 in Southern Virginia where it runs right next to I-95 for several miles and VDOT signs it as such.  It would be better to be concurrent with I-95 and have the counties maintain the US 301 that is a frontage road to I-95 like Jasper County, SC did with US 17.

Wasn't 301 a four-lane road, and the northbound lanes of it became the southbound lanes of 95?

[MikeTheActuary]

They're not obsolete.  They are both regional and local corridors and alternatives to the parallel freeways.

I would argue that a good rule of thumb as to whether a highway deserves a federal designation (Interstate or US Highway) is whether it's actually officially part of the National Highway System.

The only stretch of US 5 that's part of the NHS is the section running from East Hartford, CT to East Windsor, CT

The rest of US 5 is arguably obsolete, at least within the context of it being a thoroughfare used to mapping together areas/destinations of national significance.

That isn't to say that the balance of US 5 isn't an important thoroughfare -- a significant artery for local or inter-town traffic -- but isn't that role better served with a state highway designation?

[Mapmikey]

Also US 301 in Southern Virginia where it runs right next to I-95 for several miles and VDOT signs it as such.  It would be better to be concurrent with I-95 and have the counties maintain the US 301 that is a frontage road to I-95 like Jasper County, SC did with US 17.

Wasn't 301 a four-lane road, and the northbound lanes of it became the southbound lanes of 95?

Yes...

301 also used to have a stoplight at VA 40.

I *think* they built I-77/81 the same way but elected to put US 11-52 on the completed freeway.

When they built I-77 NB on top of two-way US 21-52 south of Rocky Gap, they built a new frontage road on the opposite side of I-77 SB and put US 21-52 on it.

Mapmikey

[Bitmapped]

Other than change for the sake of having change, I don't see any real benefit to mass decommissioning of US routes.  The system is in place, signed, and mapped.  There would be a lot of logistical challenges and expense to change things.

Even if they are on old alignments, there is a benefit to having the US route shield because you know it is a long distance (and presumably through) route.  If I'm navigating in an unfamiliar city or a case where I'm on a freeway and there is a traffic jam and I need to exit, I'm going to try looking for a US route because I can expect it's not going to randomly end on me somewhere like a state route might.

As far as multiplexing routes onto Interstates, my thought is that if the old route is going to continue being state-maintained and isn't a horrible alignment that you should leave the US route on it to serve as a backup routing.  If the old route is going to be turned back to locals, move the US route onto the Interstate alignment.  If there is a really long section where the route would be multiplexed and the remaining part is just a stub, then I would start to think about decommissioning but those would be fairly unusual cases.

If you are going to have a route on an alignment, I do think it should be signed so people can navigate by it.  Where there are parallel Interstates, if the old route is going to continue as a state route anyway I think they should just leave the US route on the old alignment unless it is terrible.  If the old route was going to be

[roadman65]

Should AZ 66 be US 66 then? 

You are right, you have plenty of places where the US routes were that are still part of the state route system, but like old US 66 you have big gaps between each state route 66 that would either make many different US 66's if that took place or have the long concurrencies that the whole decommissioning idea was to prevent originally.

[bugo]

US 66 should be recommissioned from El Reno, OK to either Joplin or Springfield, MO.  That section is a living, breathing highway and goes through 3 states.  The rest of the road can remain as "historic" 66.

[Pete from Boston]

Having lived along 5, I think there's a good case for it.  First of all, exits can be sparse along 91, and though it may seem like there's "nothing there" between exits, there's plenty of "there" there.  5 ties those places together.  It's 91 Local, so to speak.  And if you are off 91 at any point in that corridor and hope to return to it, it is a solid bet that 5 will get you back to 91 without a lot of complication. Having one designation for the parallel route along this corridor is useful and should remain.

[Urban Prairie Schooner]

Having lived along 5, I think there's a good case for it.  First of all, exits can be sparse along 91, and though it may seem like there's "nothing there" between exits, there's plenty of "there" there.  5 ties those places together.  It's 91 Local, so to speak.  And if you are off 91 at any point in that corridor and hope to return to it, it is a solid bet that 5 will get you back to 91 without a lot of complication. Having one designation for the parallel route along this corridor is useful and should remain.

All true. Though 5 (at least in VT) is pretty lightly traveled compared to 91, and I would hardly consider it suitable for through truck traffic as it passes through every little town, and is constructed to typical New England two-lane standards. I don't see why it couldn't just as well be VT 5 or some such. Nothing wrong with it keeping a continuous designation, just not a US shield.