Should U.S. Routes and Interstates run concurrent?

[algorerhythms]

One thing I've noticed in western MD (and this probably occurs in other areas where a US route is routed along an interstate) is that the locals often refer to the old US highway routing (regardless of its current designation) as the original route. So in the case of western MD, the freeway is always referred to as I-68, but people refer to the old routing of US 40 as "Route 40," even though it's actually Alt US 40, Scenic US 40 or MD 144 depending on where you are.

[agentsteel53]

One thing I've noticed in western MD (and this probably occurs in other areas where a US route is routed along an interstate) is that the locals often refer to the old US highway routing (regardless of its current designation) as the original route. So in the case of western MD, the freeway is always referred to as I-68, but people refer to the old routing of US 40 as "Route 40," even though it's actually Alt US 40, Scenic US 40 or MD 144 depending on where you are.

all the much better reason to put US-40 back on that alignment!

[Rover_0]

As a Wyoming resident, I take offense to that.   US-87 A) deviates from I-25 from Casper to Glenrock and B) is incredibly well signed throughout the whole state 

Sorry; I've never really been to that part of Wyoming.  The thing with me, though, is that a US Route should be moved to another, somewhat parallel alignment to the Interstate.

[leifvanderwall]

One thing I've noticed in western MD (and this probably occurs in other areas where a US route is routed along an interstate) is that the locals often refer to the old US highway routing (regardless of its current designation) as the original route. So in the case of western MD, the freeway is always referred to as I-68, but people refer to the old routing of US 40 as "Route 40," even though it's actually Alt US 40, Scenic US 40 or MD 144 depending on where you are.

I've been on I-68 myself and ALTs and Scenics are for the locals living along the freeway; I think the main US 40 should still be multiplexed with 68. I really take the Scenic and Alt. 40 as counterparts to the Emergency I-94 in Michigan. In case of a snow storm or a bad accident on 68, drivers have a route to take.

[shoptb1]

Personally, I feel that ALL routes should be signed along a multiplex.  I do agree that the importance and recognition value of the Interstate route will supercede that of the US- or State-route, however, there are circumstances where individuals are following the US- or State-route and knowing that it is multiplexed with the Interstate route is very important.  

An example of this would be as follows --

Driving Springfield, MO to Vicksburg, MS.  One drives along US-65 south the entire route (except for a few miles from Tallulah to Vicksburg).  However, once you get to Conway, AR, US-65 multiplexes with I-40 and Arkansas does not sign US-65 on this multiplex.  US-65 then follows I-30 west across the Arkansas River to Little Rock and then I-530 south to Pine Bluff, where it begins being signed as US-65 again.  If you don't inherantly know this, it's pretty hard to follow US-65.  I realize that this would require distribution of more signs for AHTD, but in my opinion, all of the I-40 assemblies between Conway and North Little Rock should include US-65 trailblazers, and the same for I-30 and I-530.  

There are some states that are better about this than others...a good example would be North Carolina.  They seem to be pretty good about signing all routes along a multiplex (sometimes to the point of overkill), but more information is always better than no information.

[corco]

I have mostly always thought that the US route should be signed. Wyoming does an exceptional job of this, really to the point of overkill. Trying to follow any US Highway through Colorado is frustrating, to say the least.

That said, a couple months ago I was going from Phoenix to Vegas with some friends, and it was the rare instance where I had nothing to do with the navigation. We were going to take 10 to 95 to Vegas, but the directions my friend gave to the other car were "Take the 10 west to the 95, then take the 95 north to the 40, then take the 40 west for a few miles and get back on the 95"

A little later I said "Couldn't you have just said take the 10 to the 95 and the 95 to Vegas?" and he seemed quite surprised to know that 95 would even be signed along I-40. I get the impression the general public generally operates that way, so maybe it doesn't matter. The higher class route is (with a few notable exceptions in certain cities) ALWAYS the one used in directions, even when it may not need to be. If I were giving directions from Thermpolis WY to Lusk WY, I'd probably say "Follow US-20 East to I-25 in Casper, then take I-25 South to the US-18 split at Orin Junction, and follow 18 to Lusk." If it were a Wyomingite I were giving directions to, I'd say "Take 789 South to 20 East in Shoshoni, then take I-25 South to the US-18 split at Orin Junction, and follow 18 to Lusk." even though the whole time you're on US-20.** 789 is the overriding route number for the Billings-Rawlins corridor for people within Wyoming (although sometimes you'll hear 287 for the stretch from Lander to Rawlins)- no idea why.

People who don't look at signs at all, which is an unfortunately high percentage, aren't benefited by extra signage. They're largely going to pay attention to the highest class of route and ignore the rest.

Especially in this age of GPSes and Mapquest, where the GPS/Mapquest would say "take the 10 to 95 and then I-40/US-95 to US-95" etc, with the primary class route listed first.

It sucks, but I totally understand why DOTs don't bother to sign lower class routes on concurrencies

**I'm an idiot as that's not US-20 the whole time- 20 parallels 25 from Casper to Glenrock- but pretend it is for purposes of this argument

[Bickendan]

This reminds me of when I was driving around the Twin Cities a few years back. I was driving around, and followed US 52 out of St Paul for a ways; when I turned around, I took up US 10 to MN 610.

Clean, clearcut: US 52, US10, MN 610
Had I consulted anyone for directions, or relied on online maps, that would have translated to:
US 52, I-94, I-35E, I-694, US 10, I-35W, US 10, MN 610.
or
US 52, I-94/US10/US52/US61, I-35E/US10, I-694/US10, US10, I-35W/US10, US10, MN610

MNDOT does a decent job of signing concurrent US routes if they're not following an interstate indefinitely. Otherwise, they'll put up a sign at the beginning of the multiplex saying: US 52 follow I-94 or US 12 follow I-394 and I-94.

[froggie]

Those are the only three I/US multiplexes that are like that, though I'd like to point out that US 12 is signed at the I-94/I-394 interchange.

[Bickendan]

I can't recall: Is US 12 signed as Follow I-394 at I-494/Follow I-94 at the WI/MN line?

[froggie]

Look at the first westbound photo and the first "other photo".

[Rover_0]

Look at the first westbound photo and the first "other photo".

They have something similar on US-89 NB with its concurrency with I-70 through Utah's Sevier Valley, which says when NB US-89 meets with I-70:

"US-89 Traffic/Follow I-70 to Salina"

(The "/" means line break)

Of course, this is likely the best-signed Interstate/US concurrency in the state (I-15/US-6 is probably second, but the US-6 shields are noticeably smaller than the I-15 shields), probably because of US-89's prominence and duration (I would say that US-89 is Utah's Main State Street, next to Historic US-91, and will never be completely replaced), but still.

I don't know if there is one SB, but I like the idea;  all Interstate/US concurrencies should have this, whether the US Route is signed or not (I'd prefer that the US is signed, though).