US Highways that AASHTO probably want to murder

[TheStranger]

Looking at Robert Droz's site, AASHO attempted to create alternative designations for the suffixed-directional routes in 1934, but it appears no state DOT ever went along:

Not true.  Plenty of states went along with it (for example, what used to be US 10S becoming part of US 52 in Minnesota).  It's just that the more egrarious examples remain.

Yeah, it seems that after the 1934 directive, a handful of states immediately renumbered their split routes (i.e. Texas, Georgia, Minnesota) but others aggressively maintained the status quo designations.

[Fredddie]

Add US 275 to that list.  In Missouri, it's only 16 miles and easily replaced by an extended MO 111.  In Iowa, north of US 34, it's overlapping another route (US 34, I-29, and Iowa 92).  Create Iowa 111 and have it run from the new MO 111 to US 34.  That leaves Nebraska, which puts it in the under 300 miles category.

Now, if the Avenue of the Saints were to ever become I-37, or whatever number, US 218 would be significantly neutered and could be replaced easily by state highways.

[Alex]

US Highways that AASHTO probably want to murder

All of them...

[TheStranger]

Now, if the Avenue of the Saints were to ever become I-37, or whatever number, US 218 would be significantly neutered and could be replaced easily by state highways.

I still don't get why the state route 27 designation needed to be created instead of simply giving 218 the whole AOTS corridor (except for that east-west segment along US 20) and making the older, indirect local routings 218A.

[ctsignguy]

Most of US 11 could be eliminated - essentially serving as various local access roads for paralleling interstates.

I would also eliminate US 18 east of Dodgeville, WI.

Mike

Just because you can doesnt mean you should....

If you want to look at it this way, the Interstates represent through traffic....the parallel US routes would serve local traffic of an interstate nature such as shipments to and from businesses on the highway...

Maybe i am a traditionalist, but i prefer Interstates paired with US routes....if nothing else, if i need to duck off the freeway for any reason, the US route assures I will eventually find my way back to the Interstate again....

of course, technically US highways ARE state highways anyway....so there really is no need to change shields

[usends]

Now, if the Avenue of the Saints were to ever become I-37, or whatever number, US 218 would be significantly neutered and could be replaced easily by state highways.

I still don't get why the state route 27 designation needed to be created instead of simply giving 218 the whole AOTS corridor (except for that east-west segment along US 20) and making the older, indirect local routings 218A.

I don't know, I kind of disagree with the premise that AOTS is just an "improved US 218".  There are segments where the AOTS corridor significantly deviates from US 218, such as Owatonna MN to Charles City IA; Waterloo to Cedar Rapids; and fairly importantly, US 218 directly serves downtown Keokuk, while AOTS bypasses that city.

Suppose you did move the US 218 designation over to the AOTS corridor - then you'd have to renumber significant segments, change thousands of signs, and deal with the Keokuk issue.  That solution would not have been without its own awkwardness, expense, and inconvenience to people along US 218.  And for what purpose?  Really, what would have been accomplished?  So I think Iowa chose the lesser of two evils by leaving US 218 as-is, and assigning AOTS its own number.

Apparently they were pleased enough with that solution that they've used it again: they've extended the IA 163 designation south and east from Oskaloosa, along US 63 and US 34.  The idea is that the entire 4-lane route from Des Moines to Burlington is unified under a single number.  (Of course the corridor still retains its old numbers as well, and as a result there's a segment of the Mt. Pleasant bypass that carries four designations.)

I actually don't think AASHTO wants to murder anything.  I don't see that organization as particularly proactive.  Rather, they're reactive to whatever the individual state DOTs want to do.  Seems to me they rubber-stamp probably 95% of whatever proposals the states put before them.

[Stephane Dumas]

I think US-201 could remain, it's a link to connect Maine with PQ-173 and A-73 to Quebec City.

[TheStranger]

I don't know, I kind of disagree with the premise that AOTS is just an "improved US 218".  There are segments where the AOTS corridor significantly deviates from US 218, such as Owatonna MN to Charles City IA; Waterloo to Cedar Rapids; and fairly importantly, US 218 directly serves downtown Keokuk, while AOTS bypasses that city.

Suppose you did move the US 218 designation over to the AOTS corridor - then you'd have to renumber significant segments, change thousands of signs, and deal with the Keokuk issue.  That solution would not have been without its own awkwardness, expense, and inconvenience to people along US 218.  And for what purpose? 

This goes more with the AASHTO concept of "moving the US route to the best possible/most direct corridor", i.e. when US 40 was moved in some states to almost entirely concur with I-70.

In a case like this, wouldn't simply tagging a few Alternate banners serve as the cheapest way to a reroute?  Certainly that's not too much more expensive than Iowa 27 signs.

I'm not disagreeing with you so much as feeling ike 218 represents an existing designation for part of the St. Louis-Twin Cities corridor and could be given more emphasis - but at the same time completely understanding why a new number was used instead.  Iowa 27, Illinois 110 (and years ago, Wymong 789) represent a numbering approach that isn't particularly common on the West Coast.

I actually don't think AASHTO wants to murder anything.  I don't see that organization as particularly proactive.  Rather, they're reactive to whatever the individual state DOTs want to do.  Seems to me they rubber-stamp probably 95% of whatever proposals the states put before them.

That then makes me wonder why Oklahoma basically had to defy AASHTO in order to get US 377 extended...

[usends]

I actually don't think AASHTO wants to murder anything.  I don't see that organization as particularly proactive.  Rather, they're reactive to whatever the individual state DOTs want to do.  Seems to me they rubber-stamp probably 95% of whatever proposals the states put before them.

That then makes me wonder why Oklahoma basically had to defy AASHTO in order to get US 377 extended...

That's a good counterpoint, but I was referring more to AASHTO's modern-day decisions.  I've never really understood the rationale behind the negative stance AASHTO took on OKDOT's past attempts to get a US route through Ada, but since OKDOT signed US 377 north to Stroud about 20 years ago, I assume AASHTO's most recent rejection of OKDOT's proposal dates back at least that far.  If OKDOT were to try and get AASHTO's US 377 route log synched with theirs today, I'd be really surprised if AASHTO were to reject them.

[TheStranger]

I actually don't think AASHTO wants to murder anything.  I don't see that organization as particularly proactive.  Rather, they're reactive to whatever the individual state DOTs want to do.  Seems to me they rubber-stamp probably 95% of whatever proposals the states put before them.

That then makes me wonder why Oklahoma basically had to defy AASHTO in order to get US 377 extended...

That's a good counterpoint, but I was referring more to AASHTO's modern-day decisions.  I've never really understood the rationale behind the negative stance AASHTO took on OKDOT's past attempts to get a US route through Ada, but since OKDOT signed US 377 north to Stroud about 20 years ago, I assume AASHTO's most recent rejection of OKDOT's proposal dates back at least that far.  If OKDOT were to try and get AASHTO's US 377 route log synched with theirs today, I'd be really surprised if AASHTO were to reject them.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=2425.msg55002#msg55002

The most recent rejection was in 1980 (along with 9 other attempts to gain AASHTO approval), with the extension being signed by Oklahoma's DOT in 1991 unilaterally.

While that was 19 years ago, it was well after the 400-series US routes were already in existence, as one example of designations that didn't fit past AASHTO standards but were already signed.

[agentsteel53]

so wait, why can't Oklahoma route US-377 within its boundaries as it sees fit?  I thought AASHO only coordinated how the US routes cross state lines.

[froggie]

AASHTO coordinates US route numbering, period, not just across state lines.  And part of the agreement with the state DOTs is that they'll take AASHTO route numbering decisions in good faith, which ODOT obviously hasn't done with the US 377 example (and more recently Mississippi and US 49W).

[TheStranger]

(and more recently Mississippi and US 49W).

What happened in that instance?

[froggie]

When MDOT built a 4-lane north of Yazoo City, they put it on new alignment between Yazoo City and Silver City.  AASHTO has thus far denied MDOT's requests to reroute US 49W onto the new alignment on the grounds that it's a split route.

[FLRoads]

So does that mean that U.S. 49W simply does not exist in AASHTO's eyes between the two towns since MS 149 is currently signed along the original alignment? Or does AASHTO still consider that routing part of U.S. 49W? 

[hbelkins]

Yes.  US 62S in northern Arkansas for example.

For some reason, I'm also wanting to think there's a US 67S somewhere north of Corning, along the US 67/US 62 concurrency.

[bugo]

Yes.  US 62S in northern Arkansas for example.

For some reason, I'm also wanting to think there's a US 67S somewhere north of Corning, along the US 67/US 62 concurrency.

There are two roads labeled US 67 BUS on the AHTD county maps, but both roads are spurs and they could very well be signed as 67S instead of 67B.

[Scott5114]

If you're interested in the pathology of US 377, the Wikipedia article on OK-99 has all my research. Reference 20 in that document, which is an ODOT highway designation file, gives the exact dates each of those applications were rejected by AASHTO, so if you have access to some AASHTO document repository you might be able to track down the meeting minutes and other documentation.

When MDOT built a 4-lane north of Yazoo City, they put it on new alignment between Yazoo City and Silver City.  AASHTO has thus far denied MDOT's requests to reroute US 49W onto the new alignment on the grounds that it's a split route.

That's idiotic. I'm all for eliminating split routes but you shouldn't deny a reroute for one just because of its number. You shouldn't grandfather it into the system and then lock it into its current state for all eternity.

[TheStranger]

When MDOT built a 4-lane north of Yazoo City, they put it on new alignment between Yazoo City and Silver City.  AASHTO has thus far denied MDOT's requests to reroute US 49W onto the new alignment on the grounds that it's a split route.

Was the new alignment always signed as US 49W?  It looks to be that way on Google Street View, so confirming that it would be the second notable recent instance (after Oklahoma and 377) of a direct defiance to AASHTO directives.

[flowmotion]

AASHTO seems to be more interested in the letter of the law rather than the spirit. While they are denying random changes to the US route system, are they doing anything to make the system as a whole more useful?

Seems to me that if you have an improved highway going from major cities A to B, that should qualify for US signs regardless of actual mileage or whatever.

If you want to look at it this way, the Interstates represent through traffic....the parallel US routes would serve local traffic of an interstate nature such as shipments to and from businesses on the highway...

Maybe i am a traditionalist, but i prefer Interstates paired with US routes....if nothing else, if i need to duck off the freeway for any reason, the US route assures I will eventually find my way back to the Interstate again....

The problem is that US routes then become "Don't exit here unless you know exactly where you are going" or "This is really a business route" or even "Drive this only if you are a roadgeek". All of which devalues the other US routes that actually go places.

In certain states the US routes system has almost become the tertiary system of "old roads", which not at all useful to the average traveler and not what the system is intended to be.

[Scott5114]

What the system is intended to be is what the Interstate system now is, scaled up for modern roadbuilding concepts.

[froggie]

Concur with the last two bits, except for this:

AASHTO seems to be more interested in the letter of the law rather than the spirit. While they are denying random changes to the US route system, are they doing anything to make the system as a whole more useful?

It's not law, per se.  More like policy.  Meanwhile, as was mentioned before, AASHTO can't go about proposing these changes.  The changes have to come from the respective state DOTs.  Thus, when it comes to the US routes, AASHTO is reactionary not by choice but by requirement.

So does that mean that U.S. 49W simply does not exist in AASHTO's eyes between the two towns since MS 149 is currently signed along the original alignment? Or does AASHTO still consider that routing part of U.S. 49W? 

AASHTO still considers the original alignment as US 49W.

Was the new alignment always signed as US 49W?  It looks to be that way on Google Street View, so confirming that it would be the second notable recent instance (after Oklahoma and 377) of a direct defiance to AASHTO directives.

Yes, the new alignment is signed as US 49W.  Hence why I brought it up as a point of reference.

[US71]

For some reason, I'm also wanting to think there's a US 67S somewhere north of Corning, along the US 67/US 62 concurrency.

I think there is a 67S at Walnut Ridge. It's part of old 67 IIRC. I need to take a trip up that way sometime soon.

[SEWIGuy]

AASHTO seems to be more interested in the letter of the law rather than the spirit. While they are denying random changes to the US route system, are they doing anything to make the system as a whole more useful?

Seems to me that if you have an improved highway going from major cities A to B, that should qualify for US signs regardless of actual mileage or whatever.

If you want to look at it this way, the Interstates represent through traffic....the parallel US routes would serve local traffic of an interstate nature such as shipments to and from businesses on the highway...

Maybe i am a traditionalist, but i prefer Interstates paired with US routes....if nothing else, if i need to duck off the freeway for any reason, the US route assures I will eventually find my way back to the Interstate again....

The problem is that US routes then become "Don't exit here unless you know exactly where you are going" or "This is really a business route" or even "Drive this only if you are a roadgeek". All of which devalues the other US routes that actually go places.

In certain states the US routes system has almost become the tertiary system of "old roads", which not at all useful to the average traveler and not what the system is intended to be.

I pretty much agree with this.  If the USH system is really going to be anything beyond a relic of the past, it really should be used on routes that are secondary routes that are significant, but do not wholly require interstate status. 

[froggie]

Which, IMO, fits the non-Interstate part of the National Highway System (NHS) to a T.  I've mentioned as much on my website...