OLD US-66 routing through NM madness

[The High Plains Traveler]

Interesting map.  It must be before the 1937 "Straightening" which rerouted US - 66 to run more E-W thus bypassing Santa Fe.   And Los Lunas.  Central Avenue in Albuquerque in the map appears as US - 366.  Directly overlaying the minor route that passed through Barton, Venus, and Otto.  Don't believe any of those places even exist anymore.   Clines Corners' on I-40 is roughly where "Tapia" appears on the map.   

U.S. 366 was originally U.S. 470, running from Willard to Albuquerque. U.S. 70 originally followed the route of U.S. 60 in New Mexico; when U.S. 70 was re-routed southwest from Clovis, U.S. 60 took over its original route and U.S. 470 was renumbered 366. On this 1932 map, there is a road roughly along the alignment of post-1937 U.S. 66, called NM-6 west of Albuquerque and east of NM-41 where U.S. 366 turned south. And, no, Clines Corners isn't at Tapia; it probably didn't exist at that time because the junction of NM-2 (later U.S. 285) and NM-6 (later 66) wasn't yet a significant junction.

[texaskdog]

So wondering why they would change 470 to 366.  Or why they built 66 down that hill to begin with if there was an easier route to be had.

[Max Rockatansky]

So wondering why they would change 470 to 366.  Or why they built 66 down that hill to begin with if there was an easier route to be had.

That's because they had to build it up first.  US 60 is another highway that had a really weird history out west, especially in Arizona.  The whole US 60T route followed most of what was AZ 73 through a bunch of dirt reservation roads east of Salt River Canyon in the Fort Apache and San Carlos.  US 70 basically jumped all over the place with it originally ending at US 66 in Holbrook AZ along what is now US 180....which is the second US 180 in Arizona and New Mexico.  Even US 80 had a weird alignment that looped down to Douglas, back north to Tucson and for some reason north to Phoenix.  Basically I-10 and I-8 took the shortcuts that US 80 should have along what were parts of AZ 86 and AZ 84...but then again those routes had to be built but and US 80 just took what was easiest.

Edit:  Attached some map links from US 60, 66, 70 and 80 for reference off of USends.com:

[The High Plains Traveler]

So wondering why they would change 470 to 366.  Or why they built 66 down that hill to begin with if there was an easier route to be had.

Shorter answer is that 470 was a branch of original U.S. 70, which wasn't there any more. When 70 was rerouted, 470 was changed to be a branch, not of 60, but of 66 (its other end). Interesting to note that this was the second U.S. 366 in New Mexico; the first one ran from Clovis to Tularosa El Paso, in other words the route that 70 took over in 1932.

[NE2]

Clines Corners' on I-40 is roughly where "Tapia" appears on the map.   

Nowhere close. Clines Corners is off the map to the south.

[billtm]

So wondering why they would change 470 to 366.  Or why they built 66 down that hill to begin with if there was an easier route to be had.

That's because they had to build it up first.  US 60 is another highway that had a really weird history out west, especially in Arizona.  The whole US 60T route followed most of what was AZ 73 through a bunch of dirt reservation roads east of Salt River Canyon in the Fort Apache and San Carlos.  US 70 basically jumped all over the place with it originally ending at US 66 in Holbrook AZ along what is now US 180....which is the second US 180 in Arizona and New Mexico.  Even US 80 had a weird alignment that looped down to Douglas, back north to Tucson and for some reason north to Phoenix.  Basically I-10 and I-8 took the shortcuts that US 80 should have along what were parts of AZ 86 and AZ 84...but then again those routes had to be built but and US 80 just took what was easiest.

Edit:  Attached some map links from US 60, 66, 70 and 80 for reference off of USends.com:

And now I realize that the US Highway system is a clusterfuck...
I remember when I was little following US highways on my Rand McNally... at that time I thought the US highway system was brilliant, and every route I followed took me on an adventure. 

[Max Rockatansky]

I'd say by the heyday of the US Route system in the late 50s and early 60s it was actually pretty good.  The original 1926 grid had some really weird routes that were short.  There was a crap ton of renumbering and extensions through to the 1950s when you saw all the x0 routes except 90 reach the coast and more simple routes like US 6 extended over while others were removed.  The main problem with the system now is that there are too many truncations on routes that didn't need them largely thanks to the Interstates and California.  There is also crap like US 163, US 400, US 412 and US 425 which has popped up in recent years.  For some reason there seems to be no more movement for route extensions or renumbering anymore post Interstate era as well...hell the Interstates could use some renumberings also.

[billtm]

I'd say by the heyday of the US Route system in the late 50s and early 60s it was actually pretty good.  The original 1926 grid had some really weird routes that were short.  There was a crap ton of renumbering and extensions through to the 1950s when you saw all the x0 routes except 90 reach the coast and more simple routes like US 6 extended over while others were removed.  The main problem with the system now is that there are too many truncations on routes that didn't need them largely thanks to the Interstates and California.  There is also crap like US 163, US 400, US 412 and US 425 which has popped up in recent years.  For some reason there seems to be no more movement for route extensions or renumbering anymore post Interstate era as well...hell the Interstates could use some renumberings also.

Yeah, I see the same type of numbering crap happening to the Interstate system. Examples that have already happened are I-82, I-41, I-99, and I-97 off the top of my head. And I-69 is about to become the worst offender in the world (akin to US-62). While I agree California made unnecessary truncations, I believe that if a legit-Interstate replaces a US route without splitting it in half, the replaced segment of the US route should be truncated. The only US highway I can think of off the top of my head that should be truncated is US-85.

[Max Rockatansky]

I'd say by the heyday of the US Route system in the late 50s and early 60s it was actually pretty good.  The original 1926 grid had some really weird routes that were short.  There was a crap ton of renumbering and extensions through to the 1950s when you saw all the x0 routes except 90 reach the coast and more simple routes like US 6 extended over while others were removed.  The main problem with the system now is that there are too many truncations on routes that didn't need them largely thanks to the Interstates and California.  There is also crap like US 163, US 400, US 412 and US 425 which has popped up in recent years.  For some reason there seems to be no more movement for route extensions or renumbering anymore post Interstate era as well...hell the Interstates could use some renumberings also.

Yeah, I see the same type of numbering crap happening to the Interstate system. Examples that have already happened are I-82, I-41, I-99, and I-97 off the top of my head. And I-69 is about to become the worst offender in the world (akin to US-62). While I agree California made unnecessary truncations, I believe that if a legit-Interstate replaces a US route without splitting it in half, the replaced segment of the US route should be truncated. The only US highway I can think of off the top of my head that should be truncated is US-85.

When you look at how the Interstate grid was laid out in 1957 it made a lot of sense.  The problem is that there has been a lot of odd numbering additons in the six decades since.  The worst for me at the duplicate numbers simply because there wasn't an I-50 or 60.  Now I think the issue is more so people don't want chance hence why a grid numbering update doesn't get traction.  I'm with you on US 85, it's silly to not even see the number once in New Mexico.  A couple of were talking about routing US 85 down US 285 and US 385 to Big Bend National Park as a better alignment.

[texaskdog]

Make US Highways great again!

[billtm]

I'd say by the heyday of the US Route system in the late 50s and early 60s it was actually pretty good.  The original 1926 grid had some really weird routes that were short.  There was a crap ton of renumbering and extensions through to the 1950s when you saw all the x0 routes except 90 reach the coast and more simple routes like US 6 extended over while others were removed.  The main problem with the system now is that there are too many truncations on routes that didn't need them largely thanks to the Interstates and California.  There is also crap like US 163, US 400, US 412 and US 425 which has popped up in recent years.  For some reason there seems to be no more movement for route extensions or renumbering anymore post Interstate era as well...hell the Interstates could use some renumberings also.

Yeah, I see the same type of numbering crap happening to the Interstate system. Examples that have already happened are I-82, I-41, I-99, and I-97 off the top of my head. And I-69 is about to become the worst offender in the world (akin to US-62). While I agree California made unnecessary truncations, I believe that if a legit-Interstate replaces a US route without splitting it in half, the replaced segment of the US route should be truncated. The only US highway I can think of off the top of my head that should be truncated is US-85.

When you look at how the Interstate grid was laid out in 1957 it made a lot of sense.  The problem is that there has been a lot of odd numbering additons in the six decades since.  The worst for me at the duplicate numbers simply because there wasn't an I-50 or 60.  Now I think the issue is more so people don't want chance hence why a grid numbering update doesn't get traction.  I'm with you on US 85, it's silly to not even see the number once in New Mexico.  A couple of were talking about routing US 85 down US 285 and US 385 to Big Bend National Park as a better alignment.

I like the 285/385 idea, because it makes the US highways seem more like a supplement to the Interstates. But the nonsensical routing of US-285 in southern Colorado would have to be fixed too. My original idea was to give it the US-91 treatment north of Denver.

[Max Rockatansky]

I'd say by the heyday of the US Route system in the late 50s and early 60s it was actually pretty good.  The original 1926 grid had some really weird routes that were short.  There was a crap ton of renumbering and extensions through to the 1950s when you saw all the x0 routes except 90 reach the coast and more simple routes like US 6 extended over while others were removed.  The main problem with the system now is that there are too many truncations on routes that didn't need them largely thanks to the Interstates and California.  There is also crap like US 163, US 400, US 412 and US 425 which has popped up in recent years.  For some reason there seems to be no more movement for route extensions or renumbering anymore post Interstate era as well...hell the Interstates could use some renumberings also.

Yeah, I see the same type of numbering crap happening to the Interstate system. Examples that have already happened are I-82, I-41, I-99, and I-97 off the top of my head. And I-69 is about to become the worst offender in the world (akin to US-62). While I agree California made unnecessary truncations, I believe that if a legit-Interstate replaces a US route without splitting it in half, the replaced segment of the US route should be truncated. The only US highway I can think of off the top of my head that should be truncated is US-85.

When you look at how the Interstate grid was laid out in 1957 it made a lot of sense.  The problem is that there has been a lot of odd numbering additons in the six decades since.  The worst for me at the duplicate numbers simply because there wasn't an I-50 or 60.  Now I think the issue is more so people don't want chance hence why a grid numbering update doesn't get traction.  I'm with you on US 85, it's silly to not even see the number once in New Mexico.  A couple of were talking about routing US 85 down US 285 and US 385 to Big Bend National Park as a better alignment.

I like the 285/385 idea, because it makes the US highways seem more like a supplement to the Interstates. But the nonsensical routing of US-285 in southern Colorado would have to be fixed too. My original idea was to give it the US-91 treatment north of Denver.

Probably better to use 91 as a renumber of US 191 from south of Yellowstone and swap with US 89 north if you want it to slot into the grid properly.  I'll never understand what this whole "status quo" deal is these days with route renumbering becoming stagnant.

[kphoger]

I'll never understand what this whole "status quo" deal is these days with route renumbering becoming stagnant.

It's because nobody but us cares what number any given highway actually is. All that the other 99% of the motoring population cares about is that whatever number a road happens to be is actually signed well.

[Max Rockatansky]

I'll never understand what this whole "status quo" deal is these days with route renumbering becoming stagnant.

It's because nobody but us cares what number any given highway actually is. All that the other 99% of the motoring population cares about is that whatever number a road happens to be is actually signed well.

Yes the lowest common denominator, the GPS crowd spoiling all the fun possibilities. 

[billtm]

I'm not so sure about the US-91 rerouting that was proposed, because both US-191 and US-89 seem awfully switchbacky and disjointed.

[N9JIG]

When the US system was built out it went from town to town, if the route bypassed your town there were lost business opportunities. lost prestige and for some towns it could have meant a death sentence. At the time I suspect they thought routing 66 up to the state capitol (Santa Fe) was more important than a quicker route to/from the larger city (Albuquerque). Politics and pride win out over strict interpretation of the "shortest and best route" rules.

The whole US system as it is right now has no meaning, no consistency and should be replaced with a more meaningful system. Since the Interstates are for all intents and purposes built out the US system could be abandoned and replaced by a new system revolving around the Interstate system, with the new route system extending and feeding the Interstate System. I proposed a "Star Route" system a couple times in various forums as a way to make a meaningful secondary highway system. In areas like the Great Plains and the West "Star Routes" would replace those US and State routes that fill in the blanks between Interstates, much like some of the remaining US routes do. Others would extend Interstates, using the same number but a markedly different sign. For example, US-51 in WI and IL would become some sort of xx-39 route extending I-39.

While NM doesn't have any logical Interstate Extension candidates, I-27 in Texas does. US-87 south of Lubbock could become Extension Route 27.

Of course we all know this would never happen and this really is in the realm of fantasy renumbering. People grow accustomed to the existing numbers and some states replace decommissioned US routes with state routes of the same number (US-89 and US-89A in Arizona for example) to help maintain this but it is a jolt when the number itself is changed. Imagine the upheaval when an entire system disappears and is replaced overnight. At least the Interstate system replaced US routes one by one and many even remained when they should have been replaced (US-150 in IL)

[Max Rockatansky]

I'm not so sure about the US-91 rerouting that was proposed, because both US-191 and US-89 seem awfully switchbacky and disjointed.

Basically it's popped up in the fictional threads a couple times.  If you look at north of Yellowstone on both routes it makes sense to swap them if US 191 had a full conversion to US 91 since it would terminate west of US 89 at the Canadian border....but then again that's just all fantasy.

When the US system was built out it went from town to town, if the route bypassed your town there were lost business opportunities. lost prestige and for some towns it could have meant a death sentence. At the time I suspect they thought routing 66 up to the state capitol (Santa Fe) was more important than a quicker route to/from the larger city (Albuquerque). Politics and pride win out over strict interpretation of the "shortest and best route" rules.

The whole US system as it is right now has no meaning, no consistency and should be replaced with a more meaningful system. Since the Interstates are for all intents and purposes built out the US system could be abandoned and replaced by a new system revolving around the Interstate system, with the new route system extending and feeding the Interstate System. I proposed a "Star Route" system a couple times in various forums as a way to make a meaningful secondary highway system. In areas like the Great Plains and the West "Star Routes" would replace those US and State routes that fill in the blanks between Interstates, much like some of the remaining US routes do. Others would extend Interstates, using the same number but a markedly different sign. For example, US-51 in WI and IL would become some sort of xx-39 route extending I-39.

While NM doesn't have any logical Interstate Extension candidates, I-27 in Texas does. US-87 south of Lubbock could become Extension Route 27.

Of course we all know this would never happen and this really is in the realm of fantasy renumbering. People grow accustomed to the existing numbers and some states replace decommissioned US routes with state routes of the same number (US-89 and US-89A in Arizona for example) to help maintain this but it is a jolt when the number itself is changed. Imagine the upheaval when an entire system disappears and is replaced overnight. At least the Interstate system replaced US routes one by one and many even remained when they should have been replaced (US-150 in IL)

Don't forget that there wasn't a ton of straight lined highways when the Auto Trails were replaced by US Routes.  Look at good old US 80 making that huge dip down to Douglas and Tucson then all the way up to Phoenix just to go back down to Yuma then Gila Bend.  Personally I think the current system could be salvaged with a numbering overhaul rather than a completely new system.  There is still a ton of routes that are aligned in correct ways like US 41, US 70, US 2 and US 1 just to name a few of many.  I like the idea that a couple people have thrown out about tossing Interstate numbers and giving them US Route designations instead.  The main difference would be basically the Interstate colored shield to designated a road as part of the Interstate system.  You could probably make a lot of trims down to State Routes or Alternates in that situation.

[kphoger]

I'll never understand what this whole "status quo" deal is these days with route renumbering becoming stagnant.

It's because nobody but us cares what number any given highway actually is. All that the other 99% of the motoring population cares about is that whatever number a road happens to be is actually signed well.

Yes the lowest common denominator, the GPS crowd spoiling all the fun possibilities. 

No, it's just that the current system works perfectly well for getting people from A to B.  It's only us OCD roadgeeks that are bothered by out-of-place numbers and stuff like that.

In fact, if anything, I'd say the spur and loop numbering of many highway networks makes things even harder for the general populace than random numbers would.  For example, I can never seem to keep MO-165, MO-265, and MO-465 straight in my mind when I'm in Branson;  if they were, say, MO-73, MO-122, and MO-581, then I'd have an easier time of it.

[Max Rockatansky]

I'll never understand what this whole "status quo" deal is these days with route renumbering becoming stagnant.

It's because nobody but us cares what number any given highway actually is. All that the other 99% of the motoring population cares about is that whatever number a road happens to be is actually signed well.

Yes the lowest common denominator, the GPS crowd spoiling all the fun possibilities. 

No, it's just that the current system works perfectly well for getting people from A to B.  It's only us OCD roadgeeks that are bothered by out-of-place numbers and stuff like that.

In fact, if anything, I'd say the spur and loop numbering of many highway networks makes things even harder for the general populace than random numbers would.  For example, I can never seem to keep MO-165, MO-265, and MO-465 straight in my mind when I'm in Branson;  if they were, say, MO-73, MO-122, and MO-581, then I'd have an easier time of it.

Right....but the reason those numberings don't happen is because of a widespread assumption that the motoring public doesn't give a crap...and yes that may be true but that didn't used to stop ambition but it sure does now.  Hell by the time the Interstates came along there was an assumption that everyday folk couldn't handle a US 50/60 existing along with an I-50/60...even though some examples in modern times exist like US 41/I-41 and US 74/I-74.  In general...at least to me it seems like modern times are more about the status quo rather than changing things for the better with public works projects. 

The one that I always thought lost a lot of it's meaning were spur Interstate Routes.  I always felt like those numberings were handed out like they were candy when the Interstate designation was considered to be a big deal.  Things would be a lot more simple if a good chunk of those routes were given state route status or just signed as a US Route if they are already co-signed.

[english si]

Hell by the time the Interstates came along there was an assumption that everyday folk couldn't handle a US 50/60 existing along with an I-50/60...even though some examples in modern times exist like US 41/I-41 and US 74/I-74.

I do wish people would stop dragging 41 into this - the two routes are entirely concurrent: there's no US41 turning off I-41 (unlike 74), or the interstate running on a different corridor, which was the problem that led rise to the US/I- with same numbers not being 'allowed' in the same state.

[Max Rockatansky]

Hell by the time the Interstates came along there was an assumption that everyday folk couldn't handle a US 50/60 existing along with an I-50/60...even though some examples in modern times exist like US 41/I-41 and US 74/I-74.

I do wish people would stop dragging 41 into this - the two routes are entirely concurrent: there's no US41 turning off I-41 (unlike 74), or the interstate running on a different corridor, which was the problem that led rise to the US/I- with same numbers not being 'allowed' in the same state.

Right but is it a problem?  Basically that's what the assumption was when the Interstate numbering plan was being laid out way back in the 50s.  That was the concern...that people literally would not be able to tell to the difference between an Interstate and US Route if they ran in the same plan then branched off.  If one thing can be said about the Interstate signage it's this; they made one hell of a distinctive sign that's hard to miss.  Basically the red/white/blue with the "Interstate" in the crest completely stands out to the standard black on white especially when the Interstate is 36x36 compared to a 24x24 US Route or State Highway shield.  That basically showed a total lack of faith or intelligence in the general motoring public not to have a 50 or 60 back in the original plan.  Granted looking at a map and trying to find your own path was a much bigger deal back before GPS units and the likelihood of someone getting confused was way higher. 

[texaskdog]

Funny the 470/366 thing would never happen now.  They stopped caring long ago.

[GaryV]

If one thing can be said about the Interstate signage it's this; they made one hell of a distinctive sign that's hard to miss.  Basically the red/white/blue with the "Interstate" in the crest completely stands out to the standard black on white especially when the Interstate is 36x36 compared to a 24x24 US Route or State Highway shield.  That basically showed a total lack of faith or intelligence in the general motoring public not to have a 50 or 60 back in the original plan.

The decision on numbering was probably made before the decision on the shields.  If they didn't know for sure there was going to be such a distinctive shield, keeping the numbers separate in a state made sense.

When the US system came about, states renumbered their already existing state highways to avoid duplicates.

[Max Rockatansky]

If one thing can be said about the Interstate signage it's this; they made one hell of a distinctive sign that's hard to miss.  Basically the red/white/blue with the "Interstate" in the crest completely stands out to the standard black on white especially when the Interstate is 36x36 compared to a 24x24 US Route or State Highway shield.  That basically showed a total lack of faith or intelligence in the general motoring public not to have a 50 or 60 back in the original plan.

The decision on numbering was probably made before the decision on the shields.  If they didn't know for sure there was going to be such a distinctive shield, keeping the numbers separate in a state made sense.

When the US system came about, states renumbered their already existing state highways to avoid duplicates.

Very few had substantial state route systems before the US Routes came to fruition.  About the only substantial one that comes to mind off the top of my head was Michigan with the state trunklines.

Funny the 470/366 thing would never happen now.  They stopped caring long ago.

I don't know about that, things always change in the future.  We're just living in a time when public works projects in the U.S. are going through a great decline.  There will come a time when the U.S. will have to catch up to the infrastructure that's being built in some other places in the world like the Middle East and China.  The problem with the transportation side of that coin is that nobody wants to spend money on roads until something breaks completely.  It's kind of amazing see how far the attitude has shifted in my own lifetime let alone all the way back to my Grand Parents. 

[Sykotyk]

The other issue is that the interstates were 'new'. I'm sure maps hadn't even standardized how to show their numbers. I'm also not sure whether it was common to call it "Interstate Ten" or "I-Ten" back then. Calling it "Route Ten", might have been what was expected. Not realizing how we'd switch to the I- prefix or the 'long name'.

I grew up not far from US 19, and even as a kid it was called Route 19. And yet all the state routes were also called by their names "Route 18", "Route 58", "Route 11", "Route 82", "Route 322", "Route 19". Didn't matter the designation. I don't even really recall my parents ever calling I-79 or I-80 that. Though they would say, such as a trip to North Dakota as "We're getting on the interstate", as if it were it's own entity, but even then I recall them just calling it Route 80, Route 90, Route 94, Route 29, etc.

All roads with numbered signs are technically "Routes". The route may jump from road to road, but it's always a 'route'. Regardless which classification.

My guess is, as with my parents, and many before them, it was just simpler to make sure there was as least confusion and duplication as possible. Same reason the rule on 3dis not being reused in the same state. Yet 264 and 265 can exist in one metro area, 275 in Cincinnati and 275 in Toledo would be considered a Rubik's Cube for travelers. (As for Louisville, even I have taken the wrong one forgetting which one was the inner and outer bypass around Louisville) when I'm not hawk-eyeing the road signs.

But, going back to U.S. routes, the ability to realign the routes, sometimes drastically, was probably because the roads hadn't yet been solidifed mentally. Once "Route 19" was "Route 19" for twenty years, it's hard to go back and try to change it.  Which is the problem with rerouting a road today. They can truncate it or decommission it entirely, but putting it on a new alignment seems to be wizardry to the general public.

Businesses not wanting to 'change what road they're on' is not the reason for Business Routes. They still have to change their directions, signage, legal addresses, etc, to the new route. People still have to know that the hardware store didn't relocate to the shoulder of the new freeway bypass.

It's mostly to make sure idiots that are driving through town that forget to follow the new route can navigate their way through the town back to the primary road they were already on. My dad did this a few months ago with US 422 in New Castle. He didn't realize he needed to exit heading west to follow the freeway and called me from town asking where he was. He still followed the US 422 Business signs faithfully, until one intersection downtown where the signage is a bit confusing (you turn right to then turn left, jogging one main road up, essentially). Well, he missed it and called again. This time even further lost. But, managed to find US 224, and knew that road would take him toward I-376.

So, there is a round-about way why realigning roads isn't a great idea and labeling things "Bypass" might be better. But, it definitely makes me realize why some of the things are done they way they are when I see my 60+ year old parents try to navigate just by memory and road signs with no maps or GPS.