Gaps in US Highways. For or against?

[texaskdog]

I'm thinking specifically of roads such as US 52 between Saint Paul and North Dakota.  As much as I'd rather have part take a new number altogether, rather than have duplexes of hundreds of miles, why not just a road that ends and starts up again?  Why do 62 and 180 need to be duplexed?  I'm not talking short duplexes or roads that hop on and off a lot, but the more meaningless ones.

[Duke87]

With regards to US highways sticking to interstates for long stretches, my take on it is "find another road to put the US highway on". For example, have US 52 eat most of MN 55, and then have it take MN 9 and US 75 into Fargo.

Or just put it on the old alignment wherever it's still open and decently maintained.

[Pete from Boston]

Why have a highway number if it isn't a through-routed number?  I realize we're in the third-largest country on Earth and there are only 100 one- and two-digit numbers, but if coming up with a national numbering system that can't identify roads uniquely is beyond us, we should just sell our national debt to China and stop making things we invented like televisions altogether.

Oh, wait...

[SD Mapman]

With regards to US highways sticking to interstates for long stretches, my take on it is "find another road to put the US highway on". For example, have US 52 eat most of MN 55, and then have it take MN 9 and US 75 into Fargo.

Or just put it on the old alignment wherever it's still open and decently maintained.

That would work if the state still maintains it. If it doesn't... you got problems.

[vdeane]

NY at least has MANY US route segments that aren't state maintained.  US 11 through Binghamton, Syracuse, and Watertown, for example, or really any numbered route in NYC (even the interstates have routine maintenance done by NYCDOT).

[Rover_0]

With regards to US highways sticking to interstates for long stretches, my take on it is "find another road to put the US highway on". For example, have US 52 eat most of MN 55, and then have it take MN 9 and US 75 into Fargo.

Or just put it on the old alignment wherever it's still open and decently maintained.

My feelings exactly, on long-haul concurrencies in general and I-94/US-52. I've proposed routing US-50 along UT-260 and UT-24 from around Salina to Green River in Utah. This avoids such a long concurrency with I-70 while creating a "scenic alternative" to it -not that I-70 isn't scenic-US-50 would be a more direct connector to Fish Lake, UT-12 (Bryce Canyon/Grand-Staircase), UT-95 (SE Utah/Lake Powell), and Goblin Valley.

That said, sometimes there is no reasonable alternative (mainly out west), like I-84/US-30 or I-70/US-6. The US Route should be kept on a different alignment where reasonably possible, being an unofficial "Alt./Bus. I-x." Where no alternative alignment is available, US Routes should be, at the very least, referred to (i.e., "US-6 or US-50 East Traffic Use I-70 to [next city]") though ideally it should be signed (like US-30 is along I-15/I-86/I-84).

[briantroutman]

In general–for.

I'm of the opinion that obsolete or unnecessary routes of any kind should be decommissioned–whether those be closely parallel routes like US 11 or routes that are co-signed for over 100 miles like US 220. If this leaves discontinuous segments, that's fine.

[roadman65]

In Indy US 52 is sort of split up.  As none of the US and SR highways are signed along the I-465, you could say that it is discontinuous for the time being.

You are right with the topic, as I always felt that US 202 in New Jersey north of Somerville should be decommissioned where in the shadow of I-287 and turned over to state and complete county control. True the counties do maintain it north of NJ 53, but it still is officially US 202.  Having the gap from Somerville to Suffern would be warranted if the southern portion is not to be US 122 as it should from Somerville to Wilmington, DE.

Texas should allow US 77 to be discontinuous as it is not signed from Waco to Oklahoma.  It would be better if there were two segments for US 77 instead of the silent duplex.

[dgolub]

I don't have any problem with long multiplexes.  When I first saw the title of this thread, I thought you were talking about having two routes with the same number that don't connect at all, like what happens with NY 24.

[hbelkins]

US 422 says hey!

[Urban Prairie Schooner]

I can live with them as long as the gaps are reasonably large, so that there would be no implied concurrency altogether - something akin to having I-86 in both ID and NY/PA. In places where gaps are shorter such as within a single state, best to assign a new number to one of the two segments.

[agentsteel53]

against, except for the two US-2s.  I'm okay with that.

the two US-20s is just stupid.  sign them through the park.

the two I-10s.  even stupider.  but don't touch the old signs.

[texaskdog]

Well, it wouldn't cause any confusion and there are multiple uses of interstate numbers.  I'd rather they had new routings or new numbers as well, but if they aren't going to do that, just split them.  If El Paso really has to have 62 & 85, end the stupid duplex.

[kkt]

I agree with gaps for very long duplexes where the route is generally not followed between segments.  Where there's a route already, leaving a gap is better than a numbering change of one segment of the route.

I generally oppose signing a US route which now has a bypass route.  The US route should generally be the fastest way from point to point along its route.  It's a route, not a particular piece of pavement.  I'm all for signing old routes as "historic routes".

I'm also generally opposed to "finding" another route for a US route to take in order to avoid a gap or duplex, for the same reason.  Route numbers should be primarily to help the uneducated motorist get around, not to identify a particular piece of pavement or historical routes or which government paid for the road.

[Alps]

I'm generally against numbers in the I- and US systems being reused. Same with state highways (Arkansas...) Numbering in any given system should be unique for each road in that system, in order to identify it. If you look at VA secondaries, the numbers repeat across county lines, so it's clear that it's a county-wide system. In Ocean County, NJ, County Road numbers repeat across town lines, so it's clear that it's a town-wide system. This breaks when you have multiple roads with the same number. How do you treat Monmouth County, where CR 6 intersects itself? Yes, we're talking about the opposite scenario, gaps between road segments, but it's the same as having two different roads that happen to line up. Just have the multiplex. Throw up some extra shields. I hate decommissioning routes.