Highways you're surprised it hasn't gotten truncated/decommissioned

[SEWIGuy]

US-41 should have been swapped with IN-63 north of Terre Haute when the latter was upgraded.  US-41 from I-94 to Evansville is about 275 miles, only a quarter of which is on IN-63.

[Flint1979]

No point at all in switching highway numbers around. All that does is confuses people.

[NWI_Irish96]

No point at all in switching highway numbers around. All that does is confuses people.

Now that GPS is the primary form of navigation, switching routes is pointless, but back when 63 first got upgraded, it would have made sense.

[Flint1979]

No point at all in switching highway numbers around. All that does is confuses people.

Now that GPS is the primary form of navigation, switching routes is pointless, but back when 63 first got upgraded, it would have made sense.

True today it is pointless. Back then maybe IN-63 should have been US-41 and US-41 be IN-63 or whatever but today it's pointless. I know what kind of roadway IN-63 is and can tell you that it wouldn't make any difference if I was on IN-63 or US-41 meaning the roadway that IN-63 is on not that I would take US-41 over IN-63 as they currently are right now because I would indeed use IN-63 going north of Terre Haute if my destination was on US-41 north of IN-63's northern terminus.

[tdindy88]

There's also road signs that sign Chicago for SR 63 going north and Terre Haute going south at the two junctions with US 41. There's a reason control cities are a thing.

[Flint1979]

There's also road signs that sign Chicago for SR 63 going north and Terre Haute going south at the two junctions with US 41. There's a reason control cities are a thing.

Yeah US-36 being one I noticed it last year. I wondered why Chicago was mentioned on an Indiana State Road that doesn't go anywhere near Chicago but I figured it out.

[Flint1979]

When I saw it I thought to myself IN-63 doesn't go to Chicago but then after discussing it on here a little bit it made sense as it ends into US-41 north.

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.7936658,-87.4091543,3a,75y,102.58h,110.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLaU3UjkwUefz03Vnh1OgGg!2e0!7i3328!8i1664

[SEWIGuy]

No point at all in switching highway numbers around. All that does is confuses people.

Now that GPS is the primary form of navigation, switching routes is pointless, but back when 63 first got upgraded, it would have made sense.

True today it is pointless. Back then maybe IN-63 should have been US-41 and US-41 be IN-63 or whatever but today it's pointless.

Then its a good thing I wasn't suggesting that they do it today.  I specifically said at the time of IN-63's upgrades.

There's also road signs that sign Chicago for SR 63 going north and Terre Haute going south at the two junctions with US 41. There's a reason control cities are a thing.

I used to live in Terre Haute.  The first time I drove there from Milwaukee was in a driving rainstorm at night.  When I got to that interchange I was massively confused because I thought I was going to be on US-41 the entire way.  (Did not look at the map closely enough and this was 1994 - pre GPS.)  The control city signage saved me.

[Flint1979]

I agree with making the switch when IN-63 was upgraded as it being an important corridor it should have a US highway shield along it. What is US-41 between Terre Haute and IN-63's northern terminus that should have become a state road.

[SkyPesos]

True today it is pointless. Back then maybe IN-63 should have been US-41 and US-41 be IN-63 or whatever but today it's pointless. I know what kind of roadway IN-63 is and can tell you that it wouldn't make any difference if I was on IN-63 or US-41 meaning the roadway that IN-63 is on not that I would take US-41 over IN-63 as they currently are right now because I would indeed use IN-63 going north of Terre Haute if my destination was on US-41 north of IN-63's northern terminus.

US 50 and OH 32 between Cincinnati and Athens seems to be a similar case as US 41 and IN 63, with the former route as a 2 lane and the latter as an expressway. OH 32 wasn't upgraded to expressway status until it got added as an ADHS corridor.

[brad2971]

US 14 in Wyoming. It really should be truncated at Greybull where it splits off US 20; west of there, it embarks on a pointless duplex with US 20 through Cody to the east entrance of Yellowstone, whereupon it simply vanishes into thin air.

On the other side of the park, at the west entrance, US 20 resumes its westward journey - all by itself - as it goes through West Yellowstone, MT and into Idaho.

Or perhaps even better yet: truncate US 14 at I-90 near Sheridan, and then turn the road from Greybull to Ranchester into a state route. (According to Wikipedia [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_state_highways_in_Wyoming], that road used to be called WY 520 - maybe change it back to that? Just a thought.)

I would have to actually say US 16 could be eliminated entirely. US 14 could take over the entirety of US 16's route between Moorcroft, WY and Rapid City, SD. US 14 could follow its current route west of Moorcroft and east of Rapid City. The section of current US 14 between Moorcroft and Sundance and the section of current US 16 between Worland and its intersection NE of Buffalo with US 14 can be Wyoming state highways. The Alternate US 14 in South Dakota can be South Dakota state highways. The rest already is something else and yes, US 14 should end in Greybull.

Again, South Dakota DOT would go ballistic at such a suggestion. If you want just one number on the road to Yellowstone from I-90, have US 16 take the place of US 14 through there, and move US 20 onto current US 26.

[Flint1979]

True today it is pointless. Back then maybe IN-63 should have been US-41 and US-41 be IN-63 or whatever but today it's pointless. I know what kind of roadway IN-63 is and can tell you that it wouldn't make any difference if I was on IN-63 or US-41 meaning the roadway that IN-63 is on not that I would take US-41 over IN-63 as they currently are right now because I would indeed use IN-63 going north of Terre Haute if my destination was on US-41 north of IN-63's northern terminus.

US 50 and OH 32 between Cincinnati and Athens seems to be a similar case as US 41 and IN 63, with the former route as a 2 lane and the latter as an expressway. OH 32 wasn't upgraded to expressway status until it got added as an ADHS corridor.

Pretty much. I've also used OH-32 and like IN-63 I know how that highway is as well. In this case though US-50 and OH-32 are roughly the same distance it's just quicker to take OH-32.

[andy3175]

US 14 in Wyoming. It really should be truncated at Greybull where it splits off US 20; west of there, it embarks on a pointless duplex with US 20 through Cody to the east entrance of Yellowstone, whereupon it simply vanishes into thin air.

On the other side of the park, at the west entrance, US 20 resumes its westward journey - all by itself - as it goes through West Yellowstone, MT and into Idaho.

Or perhaps even better yet: truncate US 14 at I-90 near Sheridan, and then turn the road from Greybull to Ranchester into a state route. (According to Wikipedia [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_state_highways_in_Wyoming], that road used to be called WY 520 - maybe change it back to that? Just a thought.)

I would have to actually say US 16 could be eliminated entirely. US 14 could take over the entirety of US 16's route between Moorcroft, WY and Rapid City, SD. US 14 could follow its current route west of Moorcroft and east of Rapid City. The section of current US 14 between Moorcroft and Sundance and the section of current US 16 between Worland and its intersection NE of Buffalo with US 14 can be Wyoming state highways. The Alternate US 14 in South Dakota can be South Dakota state highways. The rest already is something else and yes, US 14 should end in Greybull.

Again, South Dakota DOT would go ballistic at such a suggestion. If you want just one number on the road to Yellowstone from I-90, have US 16 take the place of US 14 through there, and move US 20 onto current US 26.

Wyoming takes great care to connect its towns and cities with Yellowstone National Park.  They have the set the corridors so that those towns and cities sit on one of the routes so travelers can choose whichever route makes the most sense to them and ensures those cities are kept on one of the preferred routes.

Those US routes are:

14 - Sundance, Devils Tower, Moorcroft, Gillette, Sheridan, Greybull, Cody, Yellowstone

16 - Newcastle, Upton, Moorcroft, Gillette, Buffalo, Worland, Greybull, Cody, Yellowstone

20 - Douglas, Glenrock, Casper, Shoshoni, Thermopolis, Worland, Greybull, Cody, Yellowstone (parts are on the "Yellowstone Highway ")

This means the chambers of commerce for those cities and towns help sell the visitor experience by placing them on the road to Yellowstone, the most popular tourist attraction in Wyoming. Therefore, I don't see imminent interest in eliminating 14 or 16 since they each serve unique places along their routes and they both go to Yellowstone.

With that in mind, there are ways to rationalize numbering of highways while keeping these cities on the road to Yellowstone. I would suggest using WYO 120 as a realigned US 20 and signing a single odd-numbered US designation to the corridor following WYO 789 and US 310 (could be US 187, or a US 789 as proposed in the 1950s .... US 310 could work in theory, and while even-numbered routes could travel north-south, it seems like a separate designation may make better sense considering how far south the corridor goes ... and yes, I'm aware of US 220).

[tolbs17]

Truncate I-74 near Randleman, NC.

Or just remove the I-74 designation totally and make it an I-x77 or I-x73. Other states (Virginia, West Virginia) said they are NOT building their part!

[HighwayStar]

No point at all in switching highway numbers around. All that does is confuses people.

Now that GPS is the primary form of navigation, switching routes is pointless, but back when 63 first got upgraded, it would have made sense.

People should not be forced to depend on GPS to navigate, the system should be navigable on its own terms, so it is hardly "pointless."
On the contrary, the argument that "GPS is the primary form of navigation" actually minimizes whatever negative impact there would be of changing numbers, since those who don't pay attention to them in the first place are not going to know they changed, while those who do would have a more consistent system to work with.

[MATraveler128]

MA 225 in Bedford and Lexington. I don't really understand why it needs to follow MA 4 all the way to MA 2.

I don't see why MA 150 hasn't been decommissioned south of I-495. The road it ends at isn't even numbered.

[Sapphuby]

Missouri Route 16. It's a 16-mile-long old alignment of MO 6 which no county wanted and serves no purpose, which, to add insult to injury, terminates (eastern) at a business route.

[DJ Particle]

Frankly, the northern portion of MA-6A in Truro and P-town, MA.

TOTAL:  9 miles
LOCALLY-CONTROLLED:  7 miles
STATE-CONTROLLED:  1 mile (Commerical St. to the town line)
FEDERALLY-CONTROLLED:  1 mile (on Nat'l Seashore land)

[cockroachking]

Here are just a few from NY: 

US-62 (NY segment): runs N-S for the most part, and E-W in Niagara Falls (opposite to the rest of the route), one must make 19 turns in 103 miles to make the entire southbound trip in NY, as well as long chunks of local maintenance and poor signage
US-202 (entirety): State maintained and non-concurrent for a measly 36.6% or so of its 629 total miles, most of which can be easily replace by extending pre-existing State routes
NY-5B: I struggle to see a purpose for this to be signed, especially as a child route. Reference routes exist for a reason.
NY-9N: A collection of 3 different loops connected by a concurrency with its parent and a wrong-way concurrency with its parent 
NY-9R: A collection of 3 residential roads that are state maintained and happen to be connected and form a loop off of US-9
NY-55: Effectively 4 separate routes (one of which is county maintained) connected by concurrencies of varying lengths
NY-118: With the concurrency in the middle being longer than either of the two bookend segments, it's kinda stupid now, but will come in handy if US-202 is decommissioned 
NY-171: Disconnected from the rest of the State highway system, not a high quality road, part village maintained, and the state maintained section serves 168 cars per day
NY-213: Westernmost segment is county maintained as CR-4
NY-279: Only 1.91 miles out of 8.76 are NYSDOT maintained, the rest is concurrent with County routes
NY-314: A formerly useful designation, but when they upgraded the corridor, they relinquished maintenance and left a 0.76 mile segment that should be a reference route
NY-324: Effectively two separate segments connected by a concurrency with I-190 over the South Grand Island Bridges, also has a useless concurrency with I-190 over the North Grand Island Bridges (relic from before I-190/Niagara Thruway was built)
NY-344: Short spur from Copake Falls into a Massachusetts State Park, AADT of 84, took NYSDPW a year and a half to repair the road after a landslide in the 50s and no one really cared (some people thought it was a waste of money to make it passable)
NY-412: 0.75 mile long village street that happens to be maintained by NYSDOT
NY-419: A driveway for Watkins Glen SP
NY-421: Spur into Adirondack SP, with an AADT of 126. If NYSDOT needs to maintain it, it could just be a reference route.
NY-470: Less than 3 miles long, entirely locally maintained
NY-309, 320, and 331: Effectively sections of County routes that happen to be state maintained
NY-990V: Same as above, has a reference route number, but is signed 
NY-329 and 409: Old sections of the Watkins Glen road course that are glorified town roads with AADT's under 500
NY-961F, 962J, and 990L: Signed reference routes that have no need to be signed

[LilianaUwU]

NY-5B: I struggle to see a purpose for this to be signed, especially as a child route. Reference routes exist for a reason.

If they really want it signed, then why isn't it more of NY 5A? 5A's western end is the next intersection east of 5B's eastern end, after all.

[formulanone]

Me, whenever someone mentions a minor-ish route in this thread that I've already driven/clinched:

[Declan127]

I-878- I suppose this is more of "why is this still an even number?", but also given that it's a one-way interstate that's unsigned and is simply the remenant of bigger plans and only connects an interstate to an airport it already connects to, really suprised it hasn't been decommissioned.

I-295 (NY)- Really should be truncated back to 495 and then the rest could be a state route (even though NY 295 is taken) or in all honesty given that 295 and 278 somewhat end at each other, maybe absorb 278 into 295? (i.e. 95 and 278 would switch highways at the Bruckner) On that note...

I-278- The road ends at or near I-95 at both termini, and with 895 a possibility once again (along with the reverse of the 295 scenario above), a number change would make sense...

[MATraveler128]

How about I-587 in New York. Why does that one still exist? Even I-87 doesn't acknowledge its existence.

[Ted$8roadFan]

I-391 in Massachusetts - basically the Chicopee expressway.

I-195 in Maine: road to OOB.

I-189 in Vermont: (not even) Burlington bypass.

I-790 in NY: basically an overlay to NY-12

[Rothman]

I-391 in Massachusetts - basically the Chicopee expressway.

I-195 in Maine: road to OOB.

I-189 in Vermont: (not even) Burlington bypass.

I-790 in NY: basically an overlay to NY-12

The only reason to keep I-790 around is so NYSDOT can use 90% NHP on its length.  And, I don't think anyone agrees on the exact begin and end of it...which works to NYSDOT's advantage.

Not sure why you think the others should be changed, though.