Talk:State highway

Original research?

Please comment on SPUI's continual removal of "original research". --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization is a stylistic thing, not nearly as cut-and-dried as your text claims. Such a statement is true about anything. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather that paragraph wasn't in the article, but I don't care enough to do the deleting myself. It's pretty much devoid of information - it's a kind of truisism, could be said about any phrase. "Some people write 'Flying Spaghetti Monster' others write 'Flying spaghetti monster'... " Toiyabe 15:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, drop the paragraph per Toiyabe. FWIW, I prefer to think of it as "you and I are people (general), but your name is John (specific)." —Rob (talk) 19:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

State

This article doesn't distinguish enough what is meant by state. Countries *are* states (independant ones, often nation-states), so the whole "The usage of the terms "state highway", "state route", etc. may vary from country to country or even from state to state." sentence is rather nonsensical.

Generally a poor introduction to the concept of state highways. A more general term may be useful, that includes all sub-national (or regional) route numbering schemes.

zoney ♣ talk 17:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ive added a bit on it becuase "state"="country" is the definition used for state highways in New Zealand. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 23:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with such a split and merge - numbered highways designated by sub-national governments? --SPUI (T - C) 14:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alternately it could just be merged into numbered highway. --SPUI (T - C) 14:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Worldwide scope

Worldwild scope could be achieved if this article were split into State highway (U.S.) and a more general state highway article with appropriate disambiguation. Rlquall 21:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of U.S. Highways and Interstates being state highways

California: [1]
Texas: [2]
Washington: "The Washington State highway system is a network of 763 miles of interstate highways, 820 miles of non-interstate urban highways, and 5,453 miles of non-interstate rural highways." — Preceding unsigned comment added by NE2 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We may be mixing some definitions here. In some people's minds, state highways are highways maintained by a state government agency regardless of numbering system or whether it's numbered or not, while in other people's views, a state highway is a road (may or may not be maintained by the state) that is assigned a number in a state-wide numbering system (a state route, or more specifically, a state-numbered road). In states where there is overlap between numbers for U.S., Interstate, and state-numbered roads (i.e. separate numbering systems), this can be confusing. This is especially true in states that call their numbered roads "highways" instead of "routes" since there is no way of distinguishing between a "state highway" (state-maintained) and a "state route" (numbered by the state). Is there a nationwide definition of state highway or does each state have different definitions? --Polaron | Talk 14:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if there really is a term that means state highways minus U.S. Highways and Interstate Highways. I'm not sure if there is a nationwide definition. It looks like the FHWA uses "state highway agency-owned public roads", but that may be because they don't include other state agencies. The closest I can find that is unambiguous is in [3]: "Secretary Jardine's recommendation to the States reflected the fact that the U.S. numbered system did not - and still does not - include federally-owned roads. The roads were then, and are now, State highways." --NE2 15:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually simple to see why the "U.S. numbered" highway system does not technically have federally-owned roads. That system was originally built and always has been built with 50% Federal funds (mostly from gasoline and diesel fuel taxes); and with 50% State funds from whatever tax sources. Thus, from this point-of-view, they are 1/2 federally-owned and 1/2 state-owned. (As for their maintenance costs, I don't know.) Also, all of these "U.S. Highways" were designed and built by the state highway departments, departments of transportation, and whatever you call them. Furthermore, I think that in many cases, nobody paid for the land on which these highways rest. It wasn't bought from the landowners when the highway was built. Instead, the governments got "easements" on the land, which is the right to use that land for the highway for as long as the road exists.

If you and I own the lots across the road from each other, I own the land up through the middle of my side of the road, and you own the other side.

Then, whenever the governments decide to close the road permanently, and to dig it up (or maybe sooner than that), full control of that land returns to the actual owners.

On the other hand, when the Interstate Highway System was built, Congress decided to pay for 90% of the cost with Federal funds, and the states were required to pay the other 10%. (I haven't heard of anyone objecting.) Also, the decision was made to completely purchase all of the land that Interstate Highways sit on, plus the median strips, plus the shoulders, plus a wide strip on both sides of the road (up to the fence), plus all of the land that the interchanges sit on. I don't think that that land is owned by the Federal government, but rather, all titles to it were given to the states involved. In reality, if the Interstate Highway ever becomes obsolete and vanishes for any reason, the strip of land that composed all of the above (all of the land between the two fences), belongs to the state to do with as it decides: to sell it, to build intercity express railroads on, to build prisons on, to build airplane runways on, whatever.

I don't know if a stretch of Interstate Highway has even been done away with. I do know that back in the 1980s, there was a stretch if Interstate-495 in Montgomery County, Maryland, that had been built with several awkward bends in it. It was tortuous to drive on during rush hour. The highway dept. proposed as part of an I-495 widening project to move the whole highway northwestwardly onto a lot more uniform bend - as you would expect from a Beltway. However, a large group of homeowners where the new stretch was going to fall objected to selling their land and houses, and took legal action. It was finally decided not to move the highway, but rather to leave it where it was, squeeze in some more lanes on both sides, and to put up a lot of noise barriers.

Anyway, you can argue that the Interstate Highways are owned by the Federal Government, since that paid 90% for them, but on the other hand, the legal title to the highways might have been turned over to the states, along with the responsibility for maintaining them. Then again, Federal money from fuel taxes goes to the states for maintenance and improvement of the highways. I know this to be true, and in fact, there are lots of stretches of Interstate Highway where far more money has been spent on widening and improving them than for building them to begin with. In fact, in and around places like Atlanta, what they did was to did up the highway, demolish the bridges, and build a new highway twice as wide in its place.

Oh, I almost forgot. There is a stretch of Interstate 85 in Atlanta and just to the northeast that is now a Georgia highway. They bought more land and built a completely new I - 85 to the northwest and parallel to where the old one was for many years. 98.67.174.183 (talk) 04:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]