US route decommissioning

[texaskdog]

Was this something that was planned when the interstates began?  Was it just something they realized was redundant after many years (why spend money making unnecessary signs, etc)?  Anyone familiar with the history?

[TheHighwayMan3561]

I think this has been something going on long before the interstates were built. It's been policy on the AASHTO books since the 1930s to decommission intrastate US routes of fewer than 300 miles in length, although obviously that hasn't been enforced in a number of cases.

[US 41]

I'm not a big fan of AASHTO's policies on US Highways and here's why.

1) US highways are so much easier to follow than state highways because they don't change numbers at state lines and throughout the state. Look at US 85 in New Mexico (now decommissioned). It changes numbers at least 8 times now from Albuquerque to El Paso.

2) The thing that really bugs me is when they build a new interstate quality highway and route the US highway onto it and rename the old 2 lane highway Business Route XX, 1XX, or pull a New Mexico and name it something totally different. Then 5 years later that interstate quality highway actually becomes an interstate. It is so stupid that they don't allow you to route that US highway back onto its old route (that is still state maintained). Then we end up decommissioning US Highways instead of doing the logical thing and just simply putting them back onto their old routes. Then we're also stuck with that new designation that really made no sense. For example I'd rather see US 78 rerouted onto MS 178 (Old US 78) rather than decommissioned. In fact I'd like to see US 78 rerouted onto its old route regardless.

[texaskdog]

Yes it's funny.  Out west they love to decommission everything.  Out east you frequently have roads that will cross the interstate dozens of times (US 11, US 78....)

Sometimes it's nice to keep the old road.  US 12 in Wisconsin was a nice alternate when I-94 was under construction.  If you take the signs down it's near impossible to use the alternate route anymore.

[RoadWarrior56]

I don't think US route decommissioning was ever planned at the national level.  I think it depends on the particular state and the part of the country involved, as well as issues with geography, population density and how close to the ocean or the Canada/Mexican border states are.  Also, do particular state DOT's have mileage caps?  For example California decommissioned most of their US routes decades ago.  In other states like Tennessee, Georgia or Kentucky, few if any have been decommissioned.

[froggie]

The thing that really bugs me is when they build a new interstate quality highway and route the US highway onto it and rename the old 2 lane highway Business Route XX, 1XX, or pull a New Mexico and name it something totally different. Then 5 years later that interstate quality highway actually becomes an interstate. It is so stupid that they don't allow you to route that US highway back onto its old route (that is still state maintained). Then we end up decommissioning US Highways instead of doing the logical thing and just simply putting them back onto their old routes. Then we're also stuck with that new designation that really made no sense. For example I'd rather see US 78 rerouted onto MS 178 (Old US 78) rather than decommissioned. In fact I'd like to see US 78 rerouted onto its old route regardless.

I disagree with this premise.  The US route system was intended both as a uniform marking system and "to facilitate travel on the main interstate lines, over the shortest routes and the best roads."  You don't get the latter by rerouting a U.S. route from a freeway back to its old road.  Obviously, the route purists don't like that, but it's quite logical from a hierarchy and operational standpoint.  Your more important routes follow the more important road types.

And as RoadWarrior noted, it's up to the states whether they want to decommission/reroute or not.  All AASHTO does is evaluate the decommissioning/reroute and approve/disapprove.

And yes, some states doe have mileage caps (Minnesota is one), which would also explain some decommissionings.

[dgolub]

I think this has been something going on long before the interstates were built. It's been policy on the AASHTO books since the 1930s to decommission intrastate US routes of fewer than 300 miles in length, although obviously that hasn't been enforced in a number of cases.

Yeah, New Jersey clearly hasn't gotten the message, as evidenced by US 46, US 130, and US 206.

[Max Rockatansky]

I think this has been something going on long before the interstates were built. It's been policy on the AASHTO books since the 1930s to decommission intrastate US routes of fewer than 300 miles in length, although obviously that hasn't been enforced in a number of cases.

Some aren't really can't or rather should be enforced because they serve viable corridors.  US 92 and US 192 are prime examples of that down in Florida.  If I recall correct FDOT wanted another sub-300 miler along FL 50 that got rejected by the AASHTO.

Yes it's funny.  Out west they love to decommission everything.  Out east you frequently have roads that will cross the interstate dozens of times (US 11, US 78....)

Sometimes it's nice to keep the old road.  US 12 in Wisconsin was a nice alternate when I-94 was under construction.  If you take the signs down it's near impossible to use the alternate route anymore.

Actually more like....California loved to decomission everything.  Sometimes there was no logic in what they got rid of like with US 60 not being realigned on CA 62 so it still could serve downtown L.A. and at least US 99 from Sacramento to Wheeler Ridge...which ironically wouldn't have violated the 300 mile intrastate AASHTO policy.  US 466 is iffy because of how important of a trucking route it is but at least the logical route beginning at Barstow would have left it well short of 300 miles.  US 70 should have never been extended to California in the first place along US 60 and US 80 really had nowhere to go with I-8 being built.  US 299 is another iffy one and was close to 300 miles between US 395 and US 101, especially when you consider US 199 probably only survived because it goes into Oregon.

I think this has been something going on long before the interstates were built. It's been policy on the AASHTO books since the 1930s to decommission intrastate US routes of fewer than 300 miles in length, although obviously that hasn't been enforced in a number of cases.

Yeah, New Jersey clearly hasn't gotten the message, as evidenced by US 46, US 130, and US 206.

With US 46 and 130 yes....but they still serve a corridor much like US 92/US 192 do in Florida.  206 actually crosses into PA.

[PHLBOS]

The thing that really bugs me is when they build a new interstate quality highway and route the US highway onto it and rename the old 2 lane highway Business Route XX, 1XX, or pull a New Mexico and name it something totally different.

Some states will redesignate the old road as either US or SR XXA or ALT US XX.  The above-rerouting scenario you're describing alone and of itself, I have no problem with such.

Then 5 years later that interstate quality highway actually becomes an interstate. It is so stupid that they don't allow you to route that US highway back onto its old route (that is still state maintained). Then we end up decommissioning US Highways instead of doing the logical thing and just simply putting them back onto their old routes. Then we're also stuck with that new designation that really made no sense.

I do agree with you in principle there.  Although I personally don't know of a new US highway being built and then receiving an Interstate designation within a 5-year period unless such was the initial intent the moment the highway construction was approved.

An example of where such designation/redesignation was done properly IMHO was when an older part of what would later become I-95 was built in the North Shore part of MA during the early-to-mid 1950s.  Construction of this stretch of highway, from Topsfield northward, predated the establishment of the Interstate Highway system; and was initially designated & signed as (the new/relocated) US 1.  The old, non-freeway US 1 in the area was redesignated as MA 17; MA 1A already existed (& still exists) several miles east of these corridors so a redesignation of the old US 1 to MA 1A was not an option at this location.

Once the Interstate Highway Act took hold; the then-new highway became I-95 and the old road (MA 17) reverted back to its previous US 1 designation and remains to this day nearly 6 decades later.

Today, there seems to be 2 scenarios (that I'm aware of anyway) where a US highway is multiplexed with an Interstate highway:

1.  Whenever an existing freeway that's part of a US route gets designated as an Interstate (regardless of whether its a 2 or 3-digit route); examples include I-68 vs. US 40 in MD and I-99 vs. US 220 in PA.  Segments of the old roads are either marked as Business US XX, Scenic US XX or have no route number at all.

2.  An existing US route is rerouted onto and multiplexed with an existing highway that's an Interstate; examples include US 1 in the Boston area being rerouted on much of I-93 (and a piece of I-95) circa 1989 or portions of US 6 in CT being rerouted onto I-84.  The old, pre-highway corridors remain but have no route numbers on them.

IMHO, if a US route has to be redesignated as an Interstate or has to be rerouted onto an existing Interstate but has places where the US route leaves the freeway(s) and becomes its own route on both ends of the Interstate; I would use/erect the US shields for the reassurance markers only... similar to how ConnDOT does with its longish I-84/US 6 multiplexes.  Another option would be to erect a ground-mounted BGS just outside of the multiplexes that reads:

XX NSEW* (US route)
FOLLOW
YY NSEW* (Interstate route)

* Appropriate NORTH, SOUTH, EAST, WEST direction cardinal

... and not place US shields in the multiplexed portions at all.

OTOH, if a US route is multiplexed through its terminus w/an Interstate; IMHO, the US route should either be rerouted back to its pre-freeway corridor if possible or simply be truncated at Interstate merge.

[bzakharin]

I think this has been something going on long before the interstates were built. It's been policy on the AASHTO books since the 1930s to decommission intrastate US routes of fewer than 300 miles in length, although obviously that hasn't been enforced in a number of cases.

Yeah, New Jersey clearly hasn't gotten the message, as evidenced by US 46, US 130, and US 206.

I would say 206 is very much still functional (and quite well traveled especially up north). First, in the absence of the Somerset Freeway, it's an essential link between I-295 and I-287 (aka Trenton to Somerville and onward to NYC). Second, it's the best way in NJ from I-80 to I-84 (and an important crossing from NJ to PA and indirectly NY). Third, it actually leaves the state and is a vital link in the US (6, 209, 202, 22, 30) and Interstate (295, 287, 80, 84) systems.

As for 130 and especially 46, I agree that they should have been decommissioned and/or downgraded to state routes.

[PHLBOS]

I think this has been something going on long before the interstates were built. It's been policy on the AASHTO books since the 1930s to decommission intrastate US routes of fewer than 300 miles in length, although obviously that hasn't been enforced in a number of cases.

Yeah, New Jersey clearly hasn't gotten the message, as evidenced by US 46, US 130, and US 206.

One could argue similar for the Hershey to King of Prussia, PA stretch of US 422; although, in that case, PennDOT considers US 422 to be continuous via a silent/unsigned concurrency with portions of US 22 & 322 between the two 422s but AASHTO does not.

As for 130 and especially 46, I agree that they should have been decommissioned and/or downgraded to state routes.

On the Fiction boards, a few have suggested that US 301 be extended northward in NJ (via US 40, 13  & I-295) and have it replace all of US 130 (where it would end on US 1).

[WashuOtaku]

AASHTO doesn't push anyone to decommission U.S. Routes, its up to the states if they see value in them or not.  California, prime example, did not, thus tried to remove most out of the state.

[Max Rockatansky]

AASHTO doesn't push anyone to decommission U.S. Routes, its up to the states if they see value in them or not.  California, prime example, did not, thus tried to remove most out of the state.

Yeah but California led the whole charge on thinking the US Route system was obsolete and it didn't turn out to be.  Now there is a hacked up grid out west because of the actions they took in the 1960s and 1970s. 

[texaskdog]

And now there is "historic 101" on the coast

[Max Rockatansky]

And now there is "historic 101" on the coast

Yes but you'll find most of those signs near San Diego where I-5 took over.  For the most part northern California US 101 sticks to the coastal mountains before emerging to the coast near Fortuna.

[CobaltYoshi27]

The one US route I don't get is 46. It's only in New Jersey, and it's not even 80 miles long. Plus, it doesn't fit in the grid, being way north of US Route 30.

[english si]

And now there is "historic 101" on the coast

Yes but you'll find most of those signs near San Diego where I-5 took over.

And Historic US6 signs where CA14 took over. Historic US91 signs where it's state routes. Sure there's places (US395/I-15, US40/I-80, US66/I-10/15/40, US99/I-5) where the interstates replaced them, but there's places where it's just state routes. There's no reason why CA14 can't be US6

[RoadWarrior56]

"There's no reason why CA14 can't be US6"
I had read on a website years ago that the primary reason that most of US 6 was decommissioned in California was due to its long concurrency with US 395 south of Bishop.  They were trying to eliminate as many route concurrencies as possible back at that time.

[Max Rockatansky]

"There's no reason why CA14 can't be US6"
I had read on a website years ago that the primary reason that most of US 6 was decommissioned in California was due to its long concurrency with US 395 south of Bishop.  They were trying to eliminate as many route concurrencies as possible back at that time.

Still an active policy in California, multiplexes are supposed to be minimal in length.  I'm surprised that 99 actually is concurrent with US 50 and I-5 for as long as it is in Sacramento.

[D-Dey65]

Yeah, New Jersey clearly hasn't gotten the message, as evidenced by US 46, US 130, and US 206.

Aren't three-digit routes usually an exception to these rules anyhow, since they're mostly auxiliary routes of two-digit ones (US 101 being the exception to that)? As for US 46, I'd still like to see that multiplexed with I-80 and brought back into Pennsylvania.

[WashuOtaku]

If you want an example of states not California removing US Routes, then how about Ohio and West Virginia, which both removed US 21 in favor of I-77.  US 21 now truncates in Wytheville, VA.  This is the typical reason why a US Routes are decommissioned, they were completely replaced by an interstate; main reason why all of US 66 was removed in favor of I-40/I-44/I-55 back in the 1980s.

[Mapmikey]

A better example would be Pennsylvania which has removed several US routes with and without an interstate:  111, 120, 122, 230, 309, 611

[PHLBOS]

A better example would be Pennsylvania which has removed several US routes with and without an interstate:  111, 120, 122, 230, 309, 611

I'm surprised that PennDOT didn't consider decommissioning the eastern portion of US 422 when it decommissioned those other US routes.

Don't forget US 140; such was removed in PA (and replaced w/PA 97) as well.

[Max Rockatansky]

If you want an example of states not California removing US Routes, then how about Ohio and West Virginia, which both removed US 21 in favor of I-77.  US 21 now truncates in Wytheville, VA.  This is the typical reason why a US Routes are decommissioned, they were completely replaced by an interstate; main reason why all of US 66 was removed in favor of I-40/I-44/I-55 back in the 1980s.

Another recent example would be US 27 from Fort Wayne all the way into mid-Michigan.  Although that truncation was back in 2001 and it existed multiplexed with I-69 largely north of Fort Wayne.  Most of the eastern routes that still exist near Interstate corridors run on separate roadways....at least the multiplexes tend to be more minimal.  Hypothetically a Route like 66 could have stayed on enough surface streets to justify exists...but unlike the east coast there wasn't any populace on said roads to justify it... 

[hbelkins]

Speaking of California, why exactly did it do away with so many of its US routes? US 60, specifically? I was asked this question and wasn't really sure of the answer. Is there a definitive link to which I can refer my friend?