News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

Alaska US-97

Started by Tom, November 13, 2010, 03:20:51 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

corco

#25
Heh, would you look at that. That sign makes a lot more sense now- before trucks had to get off at BC-15 and then it was like "What now?" Now it says to take 8th to get back to 99, which is a good thing. Plus the BC shields now have "BC" on them

I wish I would have gotten shots when I was last up there in late 08, but there was construction near the border and the temporary contractor signs in the city of Blaine didn't call I-5 North "I-5 North" but "TO BC-99." Unfortunately I had gone up to Vancouver with some friends to exploit their lesser drinking age and didn't even bring my camera with me.


Tarkus

If I'm not mistaken, isn't the reason US-97 wasn't officially signed in AK because Yukon didn't number their segment 97?  If that's the case, given that those sorts of number mismatches across territories occur all the time and are a fact of life, I think that it would still make sense to have 97 up in AK.  In fact, I'd like to see it.  Of course, I'm biased, though. :sombrero:

-Alex (Tarkus)

oscar

Quote from: Tarkus on November 16, 2010, 03:54:22 PM
If I'm not mistaken, isn't the reason US-97 wasn't officially signed in AK because Yukon didn't number their segment 97?  If that's the case, given that those sorts of number mismatches across territories occur all the time and are a fact of life, I think that it would still make sense to have 97 up in AK.  In fact, I'd like to see it.  Of course, I'm biased, though. :sombrero:

Yeah, AASHTO (I think it was just AASHO at the time) gave Alaska DOT&PF conditional permission in 1964 to renumber as US 97, so long as Yukon changed its route number too.  Of course, that permission is a little stale more than four decades later, so even if Yukon belatedly fell in line, Alaska DOT&PF would want to at least check back with AASHTO to confirm or renew the old approval.
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

dmuzika

Quote from: agentsteel53 on November 15, 2010, 09:14:44 PM
91 may have been plausible, given that the Alaska Highway "starts" in Edmonton...
there is actually a control destination of "Alaska" in Edmonton to this day.  Jim Teresco has a photo, I believe.

91 through Lethbridge, Calgary, and Edmonton kinda makes sense.

Historically the Alaska Highway has more ties to Edmonton than to central and southern BC.  In fact the current route from Dawson Creek to Alaska was constructed to connect the Northwest Staging Route, a series of airports and airstrips that connect the Lower 48 to Alaska and the Soviet Union during World War II.  The route ran from Edmonton to Alaska, the two southern legs extending to Great Falls, MT and Minneapolis.  If you look at the list of airport & airstrips that were included along the Great Falls route (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Staging_Route), it essentially includes towns along present day I-15, AB 4, AB 2, AB 43, BC 2, BC 97, and YK 1 between Great Falls and Alaska.  I have argued that the entire CANAMEX section should be designated as TCH 2 because of the sections of BC 2 and AB 2 that the route follows, coincodently it would link to AK 2.

As a correction, Edmonton does not have a control city to Alaska, the picture you are referring to was taken in Grande Prairie, http://g.co/maps/u3pzf.


Quote from: corcoI have looked at a map. They could have, theoretically, picked 101 over 99 or 97. After all, Highway 99 follows the Sea-to-Sky Highway and moves considerably inward northeast en route to Highway 97. That could have been Highway 101, which could have then turned back to the northwest into the Yukon and later Alaska.

Of course that's not what happened, but I just think either 101 or 99 would have made much more sense than 97.

Today's map indicates that BC 99 is the shortest option north, however BC 99 only went as far north as Squamish in 1959, extended north to Whistler when it was developed in the 1960's and linked up with BC 97 in 1992.  Even today, the preferred route from Vancouver to northern BC is along TCH 1 & BC 97 - and argument could be made about that route being BC 99 along with Alaska Hwy.

Quote from: corcoRight, but BC-97 was designated and the route established in 1953. In 1958, America came forward and said "Rah! US Highway to Alaska!" So BC-97 already existed when Alaska US-97 was proposed.  If we would have said we wanted that to be US-99 and asked BC to renumber 97 north of 99 to 99 and the Yukon to renumber to 99, they'd have looked at us funny. When BC established their highway numbering, they went to fit the existing US grid which was nice of them, but they didn't further modify to serve US interests- BC-99 didn't become BC-5 when we built I-5, for instance/

Even that was an accomidation of US highways.  Prior to 1953, the Cariboo and John Hart Highways (BC 97 between Cache Creek and Dawson Creek) were designated as BC 2 and cosigned as BC 2/97 until 1962 while the Okanagan Hwy was designated as BC 5.

sp_redelectric

How can we expect the U.S. and Canada to agree on consistent highway numbering, when Oregon, Idaho and Washington can't agree?

Oregon 11/Washington 125 between Milton-Freewater and College Place

Oregon 3/Washington 129 between Enterprise and Lewiston

Idaho 8/Washington 270 between Moscow and Pullman

Idaho 6/Washington 272 between Potlatch and Palouse

Idaho 60/Washington 274 near Tekoa

Idaho 58/Washington 278 near Rockford

Idaho 53/Washington 290 near Otis Orchards

xonhulu

Quote from: sp_redelectric on January 31, 2012, 11:13:22 PM
How can we expect the U.S. and Canada to agree on consistent highway numbering, when Oregon, Idaho and Washington can't agree?

They agree sometimes:

WA/ID 128 Lewiston/Clarkston
OR/ID 52 Payette

And there was almost a WA/OR 35 between White Salmon and Hood River

But in general, these things are hard to pull off as the states generally have completely different numbering systems.

I've always been impressed by the fact that British Columbia carries some of the US highway numbers into their province; there's certainly no reason they had to.  Brings up a good question: is there any pattern to BC's highway numbering scheme?  It seems like there is some tendency for the numbers to cluster, but overall it's hard to see any pattern.

NE2

Quote from: xonhulu on January 31, 2012, 11:39:39 PM
Brings up a good question: is there any pattern to BC's highway numbering scheme?  It seems like there is some tendency for the numbers to cluster, but overall it's hard to see any pattern.

In the 1950s, the following highways existed: http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/TrafficData/historic-1951-1994.asp
*1 Trans-Canada Highway
*2 Cariboo Highway/Hart Highway
*3 Southern Trans-Provincial Highway
*4 Canadian Highway
*5 Princeton-Kamloops-North Thompson Highway
*6 Nelway-Vernon Highway
*7 Lougheed Highway
*8 Merritt-Spences Bridge Highway
*10 New McLellan-Beaubien-Ladner Trunk Roads
*11 Mission-Huntingdon Highway
*12 Lillooet Road
*14 Sooke Highway
*15 Pacific Highway
*16 Northern Trans-Provincial Highway
*17 Patricia Bay Highway
*18 Cowichan Lake Road
*19 Island Highway
*95 Kootenay-Columbia Highway
*97 Okanagan Highway
*99 King George-Upper Levels Highway
*101 Sunshine Coast Highway

http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/archives/3rdedition/economic/transportationandcommunications/085 shows that 93 was already around in 1955 (perhaps it's not included in the counts because it's gravel).

A 1947 US map shows only 99 matching the US. It otherwise has 1 and 3-5 in southern BC (presumably 2 was already in the north). The following routes were soon renumbered:
*4: 93 and 95 from US to Golden (93 north of Radium Hot Springs was 1B)
*5: 97 from US to Salmon Arm

Even ignoring 16 (which was probably numbered to match Alberta), I'm not seeing any pattern in the 1950s routes. Presumably 20 and up were numbered in order of creation.
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

agentsteel53

did BC at one point have lettered routes?  someone I know claims to have seen an early 1940s BC map that had that; but it may have been something specialized.
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

NE2

http://webspace.webring.com/people/hr/rvdroz/us38nw.jpg
I see A along the Southern Trans-Provincial Highway, and several other illegible routes.


I also found http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/publications/Circulars/All/G_Circ/1960/g6-60.pdf which has 9, 13, 22, and 93.
There's some other interesting stuff in http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/publications/Circulars/lister.asp?set=All&circ=G&year=1960 and other years.
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

agentsteel53

Quote from: NE2 on February 01, 2012, 02:34:05 AM
http://webspace.webring.com/people/hr/rvdroz/us38nw.jpg
I see A along the Southern Trans-Provincial Highway, and several other illegible routes.

neato!  that is indeed a general-purpose road atlas, so that confirms that. 
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

dmuzika

Quote from: sp_redelectric on January 31, 2012, 11:13:22 PM
How can we expect the U.S. and Canada to agree on consistent highway numbering, when Oregon, Idaho and Washington can't agree?

BC is probably the best out of all the Canadian provinces for accomidating other provincial or state highway numbers.  As already mentioned, all the US highways are numbered the same in BC plus until the mid-90's, ALL the highways that crossed into Alberta had the same number in BC (north to south, BC/AB 64, 49, 2, 16, 1, 93, and 3), it was Alberta that changed AB 2 to AB 43 while BC retained BC 2.

As for BC highway numbering, there really isn't any sort of obveous system other than as a general rule, odd numbers go N-S while even numbers go E-W - there are exceptions to the rule (the big ones being TCH 1, BC 3, and BC 7) but it is a generalization.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.