Unsigned U.S. Highway Segments: Intentional Policy?

[NE2]

Actually about two-thirds of US 85 in Texas is an overlap with I-10 (and US 180).
Personally I think it would be perfect as an extension of Loop 375; alternately US 180 could be rerouted to take over the independent piece of US 85 and then overlap US 62 from downtown El Paso rather than from I-10. But this is getting into fictional highways territory.

[J N Winkler]

Actually about two-thirds of US 85 in Texas is an overlap with I-10 (and US 180).

From AASHTO's point of view, yes.  TxDOT's certified mileage (which presumably includes only the independent length of US 85) is 5.630, all in El Paso County, while the US 85/Interstates concurrency begins at I-10 Exit 14.  I'm willing to bet US 85 is not even signed north of Exit 14 in Texas.

Personally I think it would be perfect as an extension of Loop 375; alternately US 180 could be rerouted to take over the independent piece of US 85 and then overlap US 62 from downtown El Paso rather than from I-10. But this is getting into fictional highways territory.

Those options are certainly feasible, but what would be gained from resorting to either of them?  It costs nothing to keep the status quo, while changing signs has resource implications not just for TxDOT but also for any businesses which reference US 85 in their advertising.

A small problem with both ideas is that US 85 actually begins at the Mexican border (Santa Fe Bridge), while both of the proposed replacements are notionally parallel to the border.  A new state highway would have to be created to avoid the need for a jurisdictional transfer of the length immediately north of the Mexican border.  This length is admittedly short (Loop 375 is almost at the border where US 85 crosses, for example), but bridges to Mexico are a big deal and involve not just TxDOT but also FHWA, SCT, and the IBWC.

[xonhulu]

From AASHTO's point of view, yes.  TxDOT's certified mileage (which presumably includes only the independent length of US 85) is 5.630, all in El Paso County, while the US 85/Interstates concurrency begins at I-10 Exit 14.  I'm willing to bet US 85 is not even signed north of Exit 14 in Texas.

You'd lose that bet.  Here's one of the last northbound US 85 shields near Anthony, TX:

[NE2]

A small problem with both ideas is that US 85 actually begins at the Mexican border (Santa Fe Bridge), while both of the proposed replacements are notionally parallel to the border.  A new state highway would have to be created to avoid the need for a jurisdictional transfer of the length immediately north of the Mexican border.  This length is admittedly short (Loop 375 is almost at the border where US 85 crosses, for example), but bridges to Mexico are a big deal and involve not just TxDOT but also FHWA, SCT, and the IBWC.

US 62 uses the same one-way pair to the border. The Loop 375 option would require a new designation for one block of Paisano between Santa Fe and El Paso, while the US 180 option would require no new numbers.

[texaskdog]

Just wish they'd redo the whole system on an updated grid   I'd love to draw my own map, but haven't found a good program yet.

[RoadWarrior56]

The easiest way to solve the whole issue brought up in this thread with the least amount of work and expense would be for AASHTO to officially allow discontinuous sections of US highways, as long as those discontinuous segments were connected by one or more Interstate highways.  That is de-facto what you already have with US 85, US 87, and numerous other "interrupted" US highways throughout the country.

[hbelkins]

The easiest way to solve the whole issue brought up in this thread with the least amount of work and expense would be for AASHTO to officially allow discontinuous sections of US highways, as long as those discontinuous segments were connected by one or more Interstate highways.  That is de-facto what you already have with US 85, US 87, and numerous other "interrupted" US highways throughout the country.

Well, there is US 422 already, and US 2 now that I think of it, so it's not like we're without precedent here.