Talk:United States Numbered Highways

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of the U.S. Highway WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to U.S. Highways in the US. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. (add assessment comments)
Top	This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.

United States Numbered Highways has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

United States Numbered Highways has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

The intro says the federal government coordinates the highways, but later in the article it says that all coordination is done by state transportation officials. Which is it? -- Beland 23:45, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The federal government (specifically, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials) coordinates numbering. I'm not sure of the exact organization or history, but AASHTO (originally AASHO, the American Association of State Highway Officials) worked with the Department of Agriculture's Bureau of Public Roads (later part of the Federal Highway Administration) to number the routes. So it really isn't the feds, but an association of state highway officials (and DC and Puerto Rico), with a non-voting seat for the U.S. Department of Transportation. Everything other than numbering is and always has been done by the states, except for funding. I'm not familiar with the specifics of which federal department funds them. I think at the beginning the feds may have given the U.S. Highways a higher priority, but now they are treated like other state highways, some of which are minor roads and some of which are on the National Highway System (a system of major roads that includes the Interstates, and has no numbering of its own). --SPUI 00:29, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Um...that sounds a lot like the contradictory answer the article gives. "It's the federal government...wait, no, it's AASHTO." Is there a reliable source we can turn to for a definitive answer? -- Beland 03:12, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, there currently isn't any Federal involvement in anything other than funding (except for their nonvoting seat on AASHTO). I know less about the early days. --SPUI 14:39, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say there "isn't any Federal involvement", but that it is complex. Federal dollars have a considerable influence over decisions about which projects get done and with what priority. A fair description comes from the FHWA site: Responsibility for administering the highway network of the United States, providing funds for its continued improvement and maintenance, and regulating its use is a complex affair involving Federal and State agencies, together with nearly 39,000 county, township, and municipal governments and, to a limited degree, the private sector. These agencies work in concert in many ways in the management of the Nation's highway plant. [1]. older≠wiser 15:02, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

US Highways are basically state highways with pretty shields that keep their numbers across state lines. A state doesn't go out and say "I want to build a new U.S. Highway so I can get federal funding"; a state says "I want to build a road, and why not make it a US Highway to fit it into the system". --SPUI 15:25, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I do not think a state can unilaterally decide to designate a road as a US Highway. older≠wiser 16:10, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Definitely not (although there have been cases of that, where AASHTO looked the other way). AASHTO coordinates the US Highway System. AASHTO is the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. The only federal involvement is a non-voting seat for USDOT on AASHTO. --SPUI 16:25, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Contradiction 2 AASHTO log now online 3 Old Names 4 Federal aid system? 5 GA status 6 1925 plan

[edit] Contradiction

The article currently states:

US numbered highways do not have a minimum design standard, unlike the later Interstate highway system. Roads on the United States highway system are not usually controlled-access (stoplight free) roads. Many are the main streets of the cities and towns they run through. The United States Highways are state highways, funded just like any other state highway. However, US highways have high standards on surface quality and smoothness along with extra-wide lanes.

If U.S. highways do not have a minimum design standard, then how can they have high standards on surface quality and smoothness and extra-wide lanes? This seems contradictory. I think the second sentence about the standards is bogus. Nohat 09:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems like a generalization, basically saying U.S. Routes are in general better than the average state highway. AASHTO does nowadays require certain standards (whatever the MUTCD recommends, I believe) for a realignment or new U.S. Route, but not for an existing route. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AASHTO log now online

U.S. Numbered Highways is now online at AASHTO's site. I have put a link under "External links" on the main page as well as on List of U.S. Routes. Mapsax 23:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Old Names

I think that the article's implication that the old names from the "National Trails" system are almost totally obsolete is a little too strong, lots of it remains, at least in the South. Also, Robert E. Lee had another really major highway named for him, the Lee Highway; he certainly wasn't ever President of the United States, so rather than two such highways named for non-Presidents it would seem that there were at least three. Lee Highway is largely coextensive with U.S. Route 11; where it intesects with the old Dixie Highway in western Knox County, Tennessee is still known as "Dixie Lee Junction"; it is still "Lee Highway" in Chattanooga, as well. Rlquall 18:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

They're certainly obsolete for navigational purposes, with very few exceptions. Ever tried to follow the Dixie Highway from Michigan to Florida without a map? --SPUI (T - C) 15:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Federal aid system?

According to [2]:

W. O. Hotchkiss (Wisconsin) wondered if the numbered system would be limited to the Federal-aid system, but Chief MacDonald said he thought that perhaps 90 percent of the designated routes would be on the system, "but where we find that an important route does not lie on the Federal aid system it can be taken just the same."

But from America's Highways 1776-1976 by the FHWA (page 110):

Early in its work the Joint Board decided to confine the numbered routes to actual existing roads in the Federal-aid system, but to disregard the state of improvement of any road as a factor of putting it on the system.

Obviously these contradict each other. I think the former is true, given that US 50 ran through western Utah, and the Lincoln Highway there was never added to the FA system (as Utah wanted Los Angeles-bound travelers to use the Arrowhead Highway), but the route wasn't exactly the Lincoln Highway, instead running east to Price, but still I doubt Utah had that in the FA system. This was not in the 1927 plan, so maybe the Joint Board decided not to confine itself to the FA system, but AASHO did? --SPUI (T - C) 07:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

And strangely, this 1927 map takes US 50 east from Ely, but also shows US 93, which was not in the 1925 plan, only the 1926 plan. This 1929 map fixes it. --SPUI (T - C) 07:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

A quick look at a 1980 FDOT map shows that US 90 was federal aid urban - not federal aid primary - east of the split with SR 10 in Jacksonville. I have no idea which the difference was, and if it has any historic significance. That part of US 90 was added later anyway. --SPUI (T - C) 08:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice speedy response from Richard Weingroff once I decided to ask him:

I no longer have access to the files I used to write "From Names to Numbers." However, I was looking at the minutes of the meeting when I wrote about the exchange between Hotchkiss and MacDonald. So I'm certain that what I wrote is accurate.

Although I don't have the same files, I do have a news release from the Office of Information, U.S. Department of Agrilcuture, dated January 2, 1927: COMPLETE U.S. HIGHWAY SYSTEM NOW DESIGNATED AND APPROVED. It ends:

"No special funds are to become available as the result of the designation of any road as a part of the system. The purpose has been to select a main system of highways for the nation, the unimproved section of which will be given priority in improvement, and to eliminate confusion as to route designation, marking and safety signs. Practically all of the system is on the system of Federal-aid highways and is eligible to receive Federal aid."

"Practically all" means that some parts of the U.S. system weren't on the Federal-aid system. That is consistent with the Hotchkiss-MacDonald exchange. Over time, I believe that any segment not on the Federal-aid system would have been added to it in any State that had mileage left within its 7-percent system under the Federal Highway Act of 1921.

--SPUI (T - C) 16:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA status

Progression of article :

• The history section should be the first section of the article after the lead section.
• Are there criticisms of the changes done in the USNH. Like removal of routes.
• Are there confusions that have caused problems. Lincher 01:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Why should history be first? I'd think it would be better to lay out the present system first, and then describe how it came about.

There are criticisms, though that's more related to the Interstate Highway System replacing the U.S. Routes.

I'm not aware of any, at least not without getting into original research.

A more serious problem is the issue above (federal aid system). --SPUI (T - C) 20:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1925 plan

This should be helpful in writing other articles. --SPUI (T - C) 06:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)