Talk:United States Numbered Highway System/Archive 1

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. . older &ne; 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 &ne; 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)

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 :
 * 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)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.238.175 (talk) 23:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.238.175 (talk) 23:29, 16 January 2010 (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)

Merge proposal

 * 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. 

Closing old discussion.  Imzadi 1979  →   22:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC) 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)
 * 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.

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. –  T M F 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)

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. --BenFranske (talk) 06:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Rules of the road
I removed the following addition to the article because it isn't completely true:

Some rules of the road differ between U.S. and Interstate Highways:
 * Motorized bicycles are allowed on U.S. Highways;
 * Agricultural machinery is allowed to operate on its own power on U.S. Highways;
 * Drivers on Interstates stay in the right lane unless passing;
 * Stopping on the shoulder of interstates is not allowed except for emergencies;
 * U-turns and are prohibited on interstates; and
 * On Interstates, certain size and weight limits and axle weight distribution rules apply for commercial vehicles.

In Michigan, if a US Highway is classified as an expressway or freeway, pedestrians, bicycles and motorcycles under 150 cc, and farm implements are prohibited in addition to some of the above restrictions. Interstates in the western US allow bicycles, and Michigan enforces a "keep right except to pass" requirement on any four-lane divided highway. Some of the above changes may be very specific to Missouri in the US 71 → I-49 conversion, but by no means are these universal.  Imzadi 1979  →   04:20, 13 December 2012 (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)
 * These are still present. It might be time to reassess this article if replacements are not found. AIR corn (talk) 11:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Two have been replaced through simple consultation of maps. The others may take a little more effort, but they should be doable.  Imzadi 1979  →   20:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Intrastate U.S. Highway table transfer
The following is copied from List of intrastate Interstate Highways (edit which added it). It would be more appropriate on this article, though I'm not sure where. Mapsax (talk) 05:10, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

[Section header name: ==Other types of intrastate national highways==]

In addition to the Interstate Highways listed above, there are also several U.S. Highways that exist entirely within one state.


 * Done. 134.114.108.115 (talk) 21:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Reverted. No other such tables are in this article, so including this is very much undue weight on this aspect of the system.  Imzadi 1979  →   02:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * But why? A more full list is available through the see also link to List of United States Numbered Highways at the top of the System details section.  I don't see why the US Highways 'that exist entirely within one state' part should repeated in this article instead of some other part of the full list. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

48 only?
Are there any US numbered highways in Alaska and Hawaii? Because at present the map doesn't show those states, nor Puerto Rico, and the text doesn't say anything either. Abductive (reasoning) 00:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * There was a plan to number US 97 in Alaska, but sourcing for it is currently spotty. I removed the addition from the lead because it was information not present from the body, and even then, the way it was worded was a minor detail that didn't fit in well.  Imzadi 1979  →   04:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What about Puerto Rico? Abductive  (reasoning) 04:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

U.S. = Uniform System?
I always thought that the "U.S." in the U.S. highway designation meant "Uniform System" not "United States". Anyone care to elaborate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.249.47.211 (talk) 22:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 25 October 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved. WP:SILENCE sort of applies here. (non-admin closure).  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   09:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

United States Numbered Highways → United States Numbered Highway System – The current title doesn't convey that this is a system of highways instead of a hodge-podge collection of roadways. The proposed title is in use, and it would be consistent with other systems such as the Interstate Highway System and the Michigan State Trunkline Highway System.  Imzadi 1979  →  11:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Support. Cards84664 (talk) 12:19, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


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

Citation issue
-- Follow the citation in question. The sentence in the article is, As with other guidelines, exceptions exist across the U.S. The citation is to a 60 year old map of the entire US. In what useful way does this support the statement? Actually, the map isn't a good source for anything in this article. "Look at the map, there are exceptions to the rule." Or is this sort of sourcing typical in US highway articles? --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 19:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * We typically use maps as sources for highway articles. I see nothing wrong with using a map for the general proposition that highways shown on it are exceptions to the numbering guidelines.  Imzadi 1979  →   05:27, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Tell me then, how do you verify the assertion that there are exceptions by pointing to the map without providing any examples of the exception? That's like pointing to a dictionary as the source for an assertion that a language has irregular verbs. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 14:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

New additions requirements?
When the article says ‘New additions to the system must serve more than one state and "substantially meet the current AASHTO design standards". ‘ does that include the non-contiguous states Hawaii and Alaska? The cited source doesn’t seem to reference anything about the requirement to serve more than 1 state. EliotWL (talk) 02:21, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

First in world
Mention if first in world. Jidanni (talk) 14:03, 17 November 2022 (UTC)


 * @Jidanni: I'm not sure what the question or request here is. Can you clarify for us?  Imzadi 1979  →   02:15, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Wisconsin was the first state in the U.S.
 * Perhaps also mention "first place in the world" too. Jidanni (talk) 18:24, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Numbering
Generally, most north-to-south highways are odd-numbered, with the  lowest numbers in the east and the highest in the west,  while east-to-west highways are typically even-numbered,  with the lowest numbers in the north, and the highest in the south, 

I think these are switched. I5 is on the west coast and is a low number. Highway 10 is in Texas and is a low number, in the south. 73.96.214.65 (talk) 00:56, 20 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I-5 and I-10 are part of the Interstate Highway System. This is the United States Numbered Highway System, and the passage is correct: US 2 is near the Canadian border, and US 1 is along the East Coast.  Imzadi 1979  →   01:15, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Something is not right. Need editing.
Tha following paragraph need editing. I have travelled a lot and studied the map.

"Generally, most north-to-south highways are odd-numbered, with the lowest numbers in the east and the highest in the west, while east-to-west highways are typically even-numbered, with the lowest numbers in the north, and the highest in the south."

The correction should be: North to South highways are odd-numbered, with the lowest numbers in the west (not in the east). East to West highways are even-numbered, the lowest numbers in the south (not in the north). GM24 (talk) 17:10, 30 January 2023 (UTC)


 * @GM24: you may be thinking about the Interstates, which, yes, their numbering runs as you describe, so I-5 is in the west and runs north–south while I-10 is in the south and runs east–west, as explained at Interstate Highway System. This is not that system. US 1 runs along the East Coast, US 101 is along the West Coast, US 2 is near the Canadian border, and US 98 runs along the Gulf Coast, which fits the text of the article.
 * Note c also makes this distinction:
 * "The Interstate Highway System also assigns even numbers to east–west highways and odd numbers to north–south highways. It uses different origins, with the lowest numbers in the south and west. That system also skips some numbers so that generally speaking, a state would not have highways in both systems with the same number."
 * Do you have any suggestions to clarify this further in the article?  Imzadi 1979  →   18:13, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to merge with Auto Trail
Auto Trails and U.S. Highways should be merged. The defunct auto trail system could easily be placed in a section of this page. The merger would also allow convenience to readers by having the U.S. Highway system’s preceding system in the same page. Moore1MVP (talk) 00:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose for several reasons. First, there wasn't a formal auto trails system, per se. Second, several of the auto trails continued to exist after November 1926, so it's not exactly accurate to call them a predecessor either.  Imzadi 1979  →   05:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose We've lumped the auto trails together here for convenience, but by and large, it was very different from the coordination of the U.S. Highway System. Every trail was administered by its own standing committee separate from the next route.  These associations oftentimes relied on the people who lived along the route for building and maintaining the road.  Each route had their own methods route marking and advertising, which was confusing to drivers.  The creation of the U.S. Highway System was a paradigm shift that resulted in standard and uniform route marking that made cross-country travel much easier.  Even government ownership and maintenance of the roads was a novel idea.  So while I understand how the auto trails could be seen as a predecessor to the U.S. Highway System, it's a false equivalency. –Fredddie™ 00:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose These are two separate unrelated systems, describing quite different things. : 3 F4U (they/it) 17:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose The auto trails were organized by different people with different goals than the U.S. Numbered Highway System has. (That is, the auto trails were organized by private entities, often with a profit motive, while the U.S. routes were government-organized and with the goal of providing the best route between two points.) Given the very different approach that the two systems had, and the very different results, they overlap so little that merging the articles would provide confusion, rather than convenience, to readers. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:12, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Apples and oranges. Both of these topics deserve their own page as they are different, though interrelated.  At their peak there were more than 250 named auto trails in the U.S. Many of these were consequential and unique.  While they were often later incorporated into numbered highways the auto trails had their own history distinct from later iterations of road networks.  You might as well combine the page on the Wright Brothers with the page on modern air traffic control systems.   Nattygeo (talk) 14:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Change example.
I don’t like the current example in the three-digit route section. Can I change it? 2601:C6:D281:6710:69B4:E8FE:BAB6:6BCC (talk) 04:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)


 * There is no good reason to change. Not liking the current example is an insufficient reason to change it.  Imzadi 1979  →   04:36, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * But I’d like to change the example anyway. 2601:C6:D281:6710:9931:CBDC:6B42:55E3 (talk) 23:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That is still not a reason. The current example is sufficient to illustrate the concept, and that's all that matters. If you let you arbitrarily change it, then in six months, do we have to let someone else make a similar arbitrary change, and then six more months still.... Hopefully you can see my point.  Imzadi 1979  →   23:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)