Talk:United States Numbered Highway System

Untitled

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)

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)

First paragraph has this, "Similarly, west to east highways are even-numbered, with the lowest numbers in the north and highest numbers in the south." So 10 is in Montana and 90 is in Arizona?

Agreed, this sentence IS WRONG. It should be "Similarly, west to east highways are even-numbered, with the lowest numbers in the south and highest numbers in the north." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.225.134.218 (talk) 21:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, US 10 doesn't reach Montana-- it ends in North Dakota. And US 90 doesn't reach Arizona-- in ends in Texas. But yeah, if those routes had reached that far west, they probably would. 209.236.250.213 (talk) 01:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I just changed that text. Any national highway map shows that the interstate pattern is not what was described. 13:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.181.195.29 (talk)

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)

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)

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)

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)

1925 plan

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

Main routes

According to U.S. System of Highways, Davis County Clipper, 1927-03-25, "main cross country routes" were 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 1, 11, 21, 31, 41, 45, 51, 61, 71, 75, 81, 91, 99, and 101. --NE2 19:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:United States Numbered Highways/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This review is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps, a project devoted to re-reviewing Good Articles listed before August 26, 2007.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Unreviewed

   B. MoS compliance:

   Introduction is too short. See WP:LEAD for more info.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Large portions of the article are uncited.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I only skimmed through the article, so citations might not be the only problem. Prose issues are generally minor, however, missing citations is a major problem and if this is not resolved the article will definitely be de-listed. Article will be placed on hold until issues can be addressed. If an editor does not express interest in addressing these issues within seven days, the article will be delisted. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 17:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I will get around to fixing the article. Dough4872 (talk) 01:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I actually forgot that I reviewed this one, so I didn't really notify anyone about it. I'll extend the hold time another week. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 01:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I have finished making the requested improvements to the article. Dough4872 (talk) 21:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm impressed. Article kept. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 22:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Defense

I'd be interested in learning more about how US Highways were used for national defense prior to creation of the Interstate Highway System. The photo has a story behind it which could explain why the Interstate Highway System was created and how US Highways were used during WWII.

A comment more about the highways themselves instead of the article. This fact "New additions to the system must serve more than one state and 'substantially meet the current AASHTO design standards'." They should also make roads vital to national defense part of the US Highways system. Texas Route 36 (part of the primary route between the US Army's Fort Hood and the port at Houston) would be a US Highway since it would meet this second standard.

Politics

It seems some Intersate-quality roads remain designated as US Highways because of politics. The section of Route 50 near Annapolis, MD was originally supposed to be part of Interstate 66. However, during the civil rights struggles in the 1960s this portion retained the US 50 designation to avoid the appearance that I-66 was incomplete and prevent the appearance that an Interstate highway should be built along DC's New York Avenue in the Northeast neighborhoods.

Merge proposal

I strongly oppose merging National Highway System (United States) into this article. It is a totally separate system from the U.S. Highway system, and does not even comprise all the U.S. highways, instead consisting of the Interstate Highway System, select U.S. highways, as well as state and even county routes. The NHS system article can be improved as it describes an important topic. Dough4872 (talk) 18:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Shield merge?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was merge proposal withdrawn by nominator. – TMF 16:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Shall we merge U.S. Route shield into this article? Currently the shield article is a mess, with random photos thrown all about and not much content. I propose we drop most of the photos in favor of a short section in this article. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, we can have a section of this article simply describing the shields. ---Dough4872 18:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure someone could produce an FA quality article on the US Highway shield. I imagine it could be an interesting read too, showing the designers, the proposals, and evolution of the shield. However, the article in it's current state is pretty sad, and I'm leaning towards a merge for the reasons you state. If someone could at least expand the article to help explain why the 50's version of the shields has been somewhat romanticized as kind of a "golden era of automobile transport" and why it evolved into the butt-ugly simplified version of today, I would probably vote to keep. Unfortunately, I'm not in a position to help develop this article.Dave (talk) 18:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Confusion

The Route 60 recorded here points to Route 66, but there is an active Route 60 today. I will fix it... let me know if I messed up. 70.171.224.249 (talk) 20:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Route number error

Article states that 'the odd numbers run north to south with the lowest number in the east, and even numbers run east to west with the lowest in the north.' I didn't think that was correct, because I thought I-5 is in California, and I know I-95 runs almost the entire east coast. Also, I just looked at a map and saw I-10 and I-20 in the southern states. So I checked with FHWA, and they say "Routes running north and south are assigned odd numbers, while east-west routes are assigned even numbers. For north-south routes, the lowest numbers begin in the west, while the lowest numbered east-west routes are in the south. Thus, Interstate Route 5 (I-5) runs along the West Coast, while I-10 lies along the southern border." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Learning03 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

That's the Interstate Highway System, not the United States Numbered Highways. Imzadi 1979 → 16:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Self-published sources

I tagged them. They need to be replaced. For as high of esteem as Robert V. Droz is held in the roadgeek community, his website is still self-published. Imzadi 1979 → 09:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

America's Highways Reference

It may be of interest to the maintainers of this page to know that I recently posted a PDF copy of the 1977 Federal Highway Administration book "America's Highways 1776-1976" at the Internet Archive. This is a primary source used by most of the historical accounts of the US highway system.