Unpopular Route Opinions

[Flint1979]

How is it US-40's fault that an Interstate parallels it? I-70 was built after US-40 as well. US-40 is also a major US highway, US-49 is not.

[Roadgeekteen]

How is it US-40's fault that an Interstate parallels it? I-70 was built after US-40 as well. US-40 is also a major US highway, US-49 is not.

US 40 didn't do anything wrong, interstates are main corridors now, US highways are kind of redundant now and should be left for major corridors that are not interstates. Doesn't need to be super major, like US 4 can stay, but if it's within 10 miles of an interstate for the whole time, it's just a glorified state highway at that point.

No US route should be decommissioned just because it parallels an Interstate. It provides a valid alternate route in cases of congestion or road closures, and it's a major route for the cities it serves. For example, US 5 (which parallels I-91 throughout almost its entire length) is a major corridor in the Springfield, MA area and Hartford, CT areas locally. The US route system is already a secondary system.

I would say that MA 2 is a more major corridor in Massachusetts. And MA 146, MA 9, MA 24...

[froggie]

No US route should be decommissioned just because it parallels an Interstate. It provides a valid alternate route in cases of congestion or road closures, and it's a major route for the cities it serves.

As has been demonstrated in a number of states, such "parallel alternative routes" do not necessarily need to be a U.S. route.  Furthermore, those states that retain closely parallel U.S. routes are technically breaking AASHTO policy on U.S. routes, where the very first line states:

The purpose of the U.S. road numbering and marking system is to facilitate travel on the main interstate lines, over the shortest routes and the best roads.

(emphasis mine)

[Flint1979]

How is it US-40's fault that an Interstate parallels it? I-70 was built after US-40 as well. US-40 is also a major US highway, US-49 is not.

US 40 didn't do anything wrong, interstates are main corridors now, US highways are kind of redundant now and should be left for major corridors that are not interstates. Doesn't need to be super major, like US 4 can stay, but if it's within 10 miles of an interstate for the whole time, it's just a glorified state highway at that point.

No US route should be decommissioned just because it parallels an Interstate. It provides a valid alternate route in cases of congestion or road closures, and it's a major route for the cities it serves. For example, US 5 (which parallels I-91 throughout almost its entire length) is a major corridor in the Springfield, MA area and Hartford, CT areas locally. The US route system is already a secondary system.

I would say that MA 2 is a more major corridor in Massachusetts. And MA 146, MA 9, MA 24...

I disagree. The US highway system is fine the way it is and no US highway should be deleted just because an Interstate highway follows it. US-40 should stay the way it is, US-41 should stay the way it is. As far as 1's example he was giving one example not a statewide example.

[Roadgeekteen]

How is it US-40's fault that an Interstate parallels it? I-70 was built after US-40 as well. US-40 is also a major US highway, US-49 is not.

US 40 didn't do anything wrong, interstates are main corridors now, US highways are kind of redundant now and should be left for major corridors that are not interstates. Doesn't need to be super major, like US 4 can stay, but if it's within 10 miles of an interstate for the whole time, it's just a glorified state highway at that point.

No US route should be decommissioned just because it parallels an Interstate. It provides a valid alternate route in cases of congestion or road closures, and it's a major route for the cities it serves. For example, US 5 (which parallels I-91 throughout almost its entire length) is a major corridor in the Springfield, MA area and Hartford, CT areas locally. The US route system is already a secondary system.

I would say that MA 2 is a more major corridor in Massachusetts. And MA 146, MA 9, MA 24...

I disagree. The US highway system is fine the way it is and no US highway should be deleted just because an Interstate highway follows it. US-40 should stay the way it is, US-41 should stay the way it is. As far as 1's example he was giving one example not a statewide example.

Maybe keep US 5, but move it to the CT/MA 8 corridor.

[Flint1979]

How is it US-40's fault that an Interstate parallels it? I-70 was built after US-40 as well. US-40 is also a major US highway, US-49 is not.

US 40 didn't do anything wrong, interstates are main corridors now, US highways are kind of redundant now and should be left for major corridors that are not interstates. Doesn't need to be super major, like US 4 can stay, but if it's within 10 miles of an interstate for the whole time, it's just a glorified state highway at that point.

No US route should be decommissioned just because it parallels an Interstate. It provides a valid alternate route in cases of congestion or road closures, and it's a major route for the cities it serves. For example, US 5 (which parallels I-91 throughout almost its entire length) is a major corridor in the Springfield, MA area and Hartford, CT areas locally. The US route system is already a secondary system.

I would say that MA 2 is a more major corridor in Massachusetts. And MA 146, MA 9, MA 24...

I disagree. The US highway system is fine the way it is and no US highway should be deleted just because an Interstate highway follows it. US-40 should stay the way it is, US-41 should stay the way it is. As far as 1's example he was giving one example not a statewide example.

Maybe keep US 5, but move it to the CT/MA 8 corridor.

No highway needs to be moved. US-5 is a local business and alternate route to I-91 moving it isn't going to change anything. If something happened on I-91 then you'd know you could follow US-5 and still be going in the same direction. There isn't a need to confuse people.

[kenarmy]

How is it US-40's fault that an Interstate parallels it? I-70 was built after US-40 as well. US-40 is also a major US highway, US-49 is not.

Besides those two independent sections discussed above, 49 is more important than US 40! 40 serves as a local alternate for a faster interstate for most of its route. Like Froggie quoted above, The purpose of the U.S. road numbering and marking system is to facilitate travel on the main interstate lines, over the shortest routes and the best roads. 49 does this (connecting the coastal cities to Jackson for example, using interstates makes this trip wayyy longer). 40 doesn't. No, I don't want a mass decommissioning but I think most of 40 could be gotten rid of. Routes like 99 that deviate from the Interstate and serve other important cities should be the ones kept around.

[Roadgeekteen]

How is it US-40's fault that an Interstate parallels it? I-70 was built after US-40 as well. US-40 is also a major US highway, US-49 is not.

US 40 didn't do anything wrong, interstates are main corridors now, US highways are kind of redundant now and should be left for major corridors that are not interstates. Doesn't need to be super major, like US 4 can stay, but if it's within 10 miles of an interstate for the whole time, it's just a glorified state highway at that point.

No US route should be decommissioned just because it parallels an Interstate. It provides a valid alternate route in cases of congestion or road closures, and it's a major route for the cities it serves. For example, US 5 (which parallels I-91 throughout almost its entire length) is a major corridor in the Springfield, MA area and Hartford, CT areas locally. The US route system is already a secondary system.

I would say that MA 2 is a more major corridor in Massachusetts. And MA 146, MA 9, MA 24...

I disagree. The US highway system is fine the way it is and no US highway should be deleted just because an Interstate highway follows it. US-40 should stay the way it is, US-41 should stay the way it is. As far as 1's example he was giving one example not a statewide example.

Maybe keep US 5, but move it to the CT/MA 8 corridor.

No highway needs to be moved. US-5 is a local business and alternate route to I-91 moving it isn't going to change anything. If something happened on I-91 then you'd know you could follow US-5 and still be going in the same direction. There isn't a need to confuse people.

Then it could be MA 5 and have the same function. It's not 1980, people don't use route numbers to know what road to follow, they just use their GPS.

[dkblake]

I would say that MA 2 is a more major corridor in Massachusetts. And MA 146, MA 9, MA 24...

Which is why MA 2 has a prominent state route number. But it's hard to argue that it or any of those other roads serve a major, lengthy (even by New England standards) interstate corridor the same way that the other MA US routes do.

My unpopular opinion is that 1) it's fine that US routes that are separate roads on major interstate corridors that now have Interstates still exist as US routes and 2) it's ok that the system is somewhat arbitrary and weird.

[SkyPesos]

I would say that MA 2 is a more major corridor in Massachusetts. And MA 146, MA 9, MA 24...

Which is why MA 2 has a prominent state route number. But it's hard to argue that it or any of those other roads serve a major, lengthy (even by New England standards) interstate corridor the same way that the other MA US routes do.

My unpopular opinion is that 1) it's fine that US routes that are separate roads on major interstate corridors that now have Interstates still exist as US routes and 2) it's ok that the system is somewhat arbitrary and weird.

I think state route freeways are fine the way they are, especially if it's an intrastate corridor. Similar to MA, it seems like that OH also uses the lowest numbers for the longest and most important state route corridors. Like OH 2, despite being parallel with 2 US routes, and 2 interstates between Toledo and Cleveland, it's still a freeway for a good chunk of that portion.

[Roadgeekteen]

I would say that MA 2 is a more major corridor in Massachusetts. And MA 146, MA 9, MA 24...

Which is why MA 2 has a prominent state route number. But it's hard to argue that it or any of those other roads serve a major, lengthy (even by New England standards) interstate corridor the same way that the other MA US routes do.

My unpopular opinion is that 1) it's fine that US routes that are separate roads on major interstate corridors that now have Interstates still exist as US routes and 2) it's ok that the system is somewhat arbitrary and weird.

US 5 doesn't serve an important corridor. Local Springfield street doesn't count.

[Flint1979]

How is it US-40's fault that an Interstate parallels it? I-70 was built after US-40 as well. US-40 is also a major US highway, US-49 is not.

Besides those two independent sections discussed above, 49 is more important than US 40! 40 serves as a local alternate for a faster interstate for most of its route. Like Froggie quoted above, The purpose of the U.S. road numbering and marking system is to facilitate travel on the main interstate lines, over the shortest routes and the best roads. 49 does this (connecting the coastal cities to Jackson for example, using interstates makes this trip wayyy longer). 40 doesn't. No, I don't want a mass decommissioning but I think most of 40 could be gotten rid of. Routes like 99 that deviate from the Interstate and serve other important cities should be the ones kept around.

It doesn't make much sense to get rid of them when they are multi state routes it's like a multi state highway but with one shield and you know that if it's a US highway that it's a bit more important than a state route. The US highway system goes places that the Interstate does not and in some places can not due to the terrain involved like putting an Interstate along switchbacks in the mountains where a US highway serves that purpose fine. I get what you are saying but a major highway like US-40 should remain in tact the way it is.

Now US-40 and I-70 come into play for an example I can make. I spent the night in Cloverdale, Indiana back last summer one night. After checking into my hotel I proceeded to go to a Petro truck stop at the corner of IN-59 and IN-42. As I was traveling westbound on I-70 I noticed a significant traffic jam on the eastbound side. I did GPS it back or anything I just asked at the truck stop I'm trying to get back to Cloverdale and there is a traffic jam on EB I-70 what is I-70's alternate route in this area I can't remember? She said US-40. I didn't take US-40 though, I took IN-42 instead but that's a good example of a time where you need an alternate route vs. getting caught up in a significant traffic jam.

[kphoger]

US 52 should be decommissioned west of St Paul. The part between Jamestown and Minot could be an extension of US 10. The rest of it could be downgraded to state routes.

Imo US 52 can be decommissioned west of US 41. The section in Illinois can be downgraded to various state routes. US 61 can be rerouted onto the Rochester-St Paul freeway segment with a reroute in IA onto US 218 and US 63 (this will decommission US 218). This will keep the AotS in a single US highway number. US 67 rerouted onto the US 61 freeway north of Quad Cities, and a possible combination with US 53 into a single route.

I disagree.  Cross-posting from another forum...

But to get from Fargo to Edmonton, Alaska-bound traffic exits I-94 at Jamestown and takes US-52 from there to the Canadian border.

This means that traffic traveling between Alaska and a huge chunk of the lower 48 uses the entirety of US-52 in North Dakota (with the exception of Jamestown itself, which has a bypass).

Then too, for a sizeable portion of the nation farther west (such as here in Wichita), the shortest/fastest route to Alberta and Alaska includes all of US-52 northwest of I-94–even if it doesn't include the part multiplexed with I-94, having entered ND from the south instead.


Edit:  tl;dr – From the Twin Cities to Alberta and Alaska, just follow US-52 all the way to Canada (unless you want to bypass Jamestown, ND).  It's a single route number the whole way, using the shortest route.  Decommissioning US-52 or changing part of its number would break that continuity.

[SkyPesos]

I disagree.  Cross-posting from another forum...

But to get from Fargo to Edmonton, Alaska-bound traffic exits I-94 at Jamestown and takes US-52 from there to the Canadian border.

This means that traffic traveling between Alaska and a huge chunk of the lower 48 uses the entirety of US-52 in North Dakota (with the exception of Jamestown itself, which has a bypass).

Then too, for a sizeable portion of the nation farther west (such as here in Wichita), the shortest/fastest route to Alberta and Alaska includes all of US-52 northwest of I-94—even if it doesn't include the part multiplexed with I-94, having entered ND from the south instead.


Edit:  tl;dr — From the Twin Cities to Alberta and Alaska, just follow US-52 all the way to Canada (unless you want to bypass Jamestown, ND).  It's a single route number the whole way, using the shortest route.  Decommissioning US-52 or changing part of its number would break that continuity.

US 52 in ND can be an extension of US 10 then. There's the numbering continuity for the Twin Cities-Alberta route. But like with almost every other decommissioning idea in this thread, it's most likely not going to happen in reality, and that this thread is really a fictional thread.

But if a state route instead of an US route on a long distance corridor is an issue, going to point out that NE 2/IA 2 between I-80 and I-29 is part of the fastest route between the Bay Area, SLC, Portland and cities on the I-64 and I-70 corridors in the Midwest like St. Louis, Louisville, Columbus.

[kphoger]

US 52 in ND can be an extension of US 10 then. There's the numbering continuity for the Twin Cities-Alberta route.

How?  US-10 all the way would then be neither the shortest nor the fastest route.

[SkyPesos]

US 52 in ND can be an extension of US 10 then. There's the numbering continuity for the Twin Cities-Alberta route.

How?  US-10 all the way would then be neither the shortest nor the fastest route.

Paired with I-94 east of Fargo. I'm not sure if Minnesota even signs the US 52 concurrency with I-94, but I'm going with a no from a few searches in GSV.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

US 52 in ND can be an extension of US 10 then. There's the numbering continuity for the Twin Cities-Alberta route.

How?  US-10 all the way would then be neither the shortest nor the fastest route.

Paired with I-94 east of Fargo. I'm not sure if Minnesota even signs the US 52 concurrency with I-94, but I'm going with a no from a few searches in GSV.

They don't.

[kenarmy]

- I think US 10 should've been rerouted to follow US 12 from Minneapolis to the Billings area when it became extremely redundant, and 12 should've followed 212. But instead of dipping south in Billings like 212, the new 12 would go north and reconnect with its former route and that's where the new 10 would end. Or we could have a wrong-way concurrency and have it go to Billings.

And what about the orphaned section of 10 from Fargo to Minnie? Name it 212. *Drops Mic*

- I know some people think 12 should just be renamed 10 altogether, but this is a solution where it wouldn't have to be decommissioned

Why does everyone want to axe 52? I think this proposal makes more sense ^. 10 is already short so extending it NW on a rural route wouldn't give it much justice. That would make it a mini- 52. But if you're hooked on changing 52, then put it on current 10.

[kphoger]

US 52 in ND can be an extension of US 10 then. There's the numbering continuity for the Twin Cities-Alberta route.

How?  US-10 all the way would then be neither the shortest nor the fastest route.

Paired with I-94 east of Fargo. I'm not sure if Minnesota even signs the US 52 concurrency with I-94, but I'm going with a no from a few searches in GSV.

They don't.

Well, then, there's a different fix I have in mind...

[SEWIGuy]

How is it US-40's fault that an Interstate parallels it? I-70 was built after US-40 as well. US-40 is also a major US highway, US-49 is not.

US 40 didn't do anything wrong, interstates are main corridors now, US highways are kind of redundant now and should be left for major corridors that are not interstates. Doesn't need to be super major, like US 4 can stay, but if it's within 10 miles of an interstate for the whole time, it's just a glorified state highway at that point.

Why are we talking about highways like they would be upset if they were decommissioned?  Do people realize they are simply inanimate objects?

I think the answer is simple.  If they are worthy of state highway designation, then just keep the US highway designation.  (And I think US-40 meets that standard.)  Why bother changing the US shield to some state shield and/or changing the number?

[TheHighwayMan3561]

I think the answer is simple.  If they are worthy of state highway designation, then just keep the US highway designation.  (And I think US-40 meets that standard.)  Why bother changing the US shield to some state shield and/or changing the number?

Because not every state is Minnesota who thinks it's worth spending tax dollars to do this.

[PHLBOS]

No US route should be decommissioned just because it parallels an Interstate. It provides a valid alternate route in cases of congestion or road closures, and it's a major route for the cities it serves.

As has been demonstrated in a number of states, such "parallel alternative routes" do not necessarily need to be a U.S. route.  Furthermore, those states that retain closely parallel U.S. routes are technically breaking AASHTO policy on U.S. routes, where the very first line states:

The purpose of the U.S. road numbering and marking system is to facilitate travel on the main interstate lines, over the shortest routes and the best roads.

(emphasis mine)

FWIW, 6 paragraphs down in AASHTO policy on U.S. routes (bold emphasis added):

The routes comprising the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways will be marked with its own distinctive route marker shield and will have a numbering system that is separate and apart from the U.S. numbered system.  The Interstate system marking and numbering is not to replace that of the U.S. system but is, in reality, a separate system of a limited mileage of modern expressways to accommodate major streams of traffic between the Nation's major traffic generating areas; and the two numbered systems will complement each other.  A large extent of the Interstate system is developed on new location. Those sections where the Interstate system is developed over an existing U.S. numbered route, both the U.S. and the Interstate system shields and route numbers shall be used to mark those sections which are coincident. Otherwise, it is assumed that in the majority of instances the U.S. markers and numbers will remain on the routes as now established or as determined by subsequent Standing Committee on Highways action, as new construction makes available new and better routes.

Long story short, just because an Interstate is constructed near and parallel to an existing US route doesn't automatically warrant said-US route to be rerouted onto said-Interstate.  Otherwise, there would be a lot more Interstate/US concurrencies than there currently are. 

Based on the above, initial Interstate/US concurrencies occurred where an Interstate was constructed over an existing US route.  Later concurrencies occurred when a US freeway was upgraded and received an Interstate number (examples: I-68 along US 40 & I-99 along US 220).

And if one is going to treat the AASHTO Transportation Policy Book as gospel, so to speak; then explain the below:

No new divided numbered (such as U.S. 96W and U.S. 96E, etc.) shall be adopted. Existing divided U.S. numbers shall be eliminated as rapidly as the State Highway Department and the Standing Committee on Highways can reach agreement with reference thereto.

I don't believe that all existing divided US routes (examples: US 9W in NY, US 31W & US 31E in TN) have been eliminated yet.

Any toll highway facility may be included in the U.S. Numbered System when it meets all the criteria for inclusion, and when the request for the marking originates with the official authority having jurisdiction over the toll facility and the request is directed to AASHTO and supported by the appropriate Member Department. The word "Toll" shall appear over the official U.S. Route Marker and a toll-free routing between the same termini shall continue to be retained and marked as a part of the U.S. Numbered System.

Such certainly didn't happen when the US 301 tollway in DE to the MD State Line opened 2 years ago.  As a matter of fact, the toll road at the State Line completely eliminated the old free US 301 roadway.  Note: commercial through-truck traffic are prohibited from using the surrounding 2-lane roads to bypass the mainline US 301 AET gantry.

[Flint1979]

How is it US-40's fault that an Interstate parallels it? I-70 was built after US-40 as well. US-40 is also a major US highway, US-49 is not.

US 40 didn't do anything wrong, interstates are main corridors now, US highways are kind of redundant now and should be left for major corridors that are not interstates. Doesn't need to be super major, like US 4 can stay, but if it's within 10 miles of an interstate for the whole time, it's just a glorified state highway at that point.

Why are we talking about highways like they would be upset if they were decommissioned?  Do people realize they are simply inanimate objects?

I think the answer is simple.  If they are worthy of state highway designation, then just keep the US highway designation.  (And I think US-40 meets that standard.)  Why bother changing the US shield to some state shield and/or changing the number?

Exactly that's what I'm trying to say. What point is there to change it to a state route if it's a US highway already? It's a through route that has the same route number along the route so it eases confusion for people that don't use GPS system's. And I'm not acting like the highway would be upset or anything I'm just saying anything to ease confusion is a good thing.

[SEWIGuy]

How is it US-40's fault that an Interstate parallels it? I-70 was built after US-40 as well. US-40 is also a major US highway, US-49 is not.

US 40 didn't do anything wrong, interstates are main corridors now, US highways are kind of redundant now and should be left for major corridors that are not interstates. Doesn't need to be super major, like US 4 can stay, but if it's within 10 miles of an interstate for the whole time, it's just a glorified state highway at that point.

Why are we talking about highways like they would be upset if they were decommissioned?  Do people realize they are simply inanimate objects?

I think the answer is simple.  If they are worthy of state highway designation, then just keep the US highway designation.  (And I think US-40 meets that standard.)  Why bother changing the US shield to some state shield and/or changing the number?

Exactly that's what I'm trying to say. What point is there to change it to a state route if it's a US highway already? It's a through route that has the same route number along the route so it eases confusion for people that don't use GPS system's. And I'm not acting like the highway would be upset or anything I'm just saying anything to ease confusion is a good thing.

And IMO most drivers don't really know the difference between state and US highways anyway. They are a highway with a number.

[kenarmy]

How is it US-40's fault that an Interstate parallels it? I-70 was built after US-40 as well. US-40 is also a major US highway, US-49 is not.

US 40 didn't do anything wrong, interstates are main corridors now, US highways are kind of redundant now and should be left for major corridors that are not interstates. Doesn't need to be super major, like US 4 can stay, but if it's within 10 miles of an interstate for the whole time, it's just a glorified state highway at that point.

Why are we talking about highways like they would be upset if they were decommissioned?  Do people realize they are simply inanimate objects?

I think the answer is simple.  If they are worthy of state highway designation, then just keep the US highway designation.  (And I think US-40 meets that standard.)  Why bother changing the US shield to some state shield and/or changing the number?

Exactly that's what I'm trying to say. What point is there to change it to a state route if it's a US highway already? It's a through route that has the same route number along the route so it eases confusion for people that don't use GPS system's. And I'm not acting like the highway would be upset or anything I'm just saying anything to ease confusion is a good thing.

But that's the thing, no one is using 40 for long-term travel for nearly all of its route.  Literally who is completely following a much slower route when there is a much faster route next to it unless there is an occasional traffic jam or if it's for local use? Having a US route number isn't necessary for that. A state route isn't necessarily needed either. Isn't this why Interstate business routes and reassurance markers in cities are a thing? Like flint said, if US routes serve major corridors that Interstates don't, then that is when you should keep the route. And let's be honest, the average driver doesn't care or even know about a continuous number even if they don't have a gps.