Decommissioned US Routes/State highways(your state) you wish we're brought back?

[ColossalBlocks]

First thread after being inactive for a while.

So, what US Routes, and state highways (in your state) you wish were recommissioned?

[Darkchylde]

US 66.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

<------------------------

[Max Rockatansky]

Swap CA 99 for US 99 since it is over 300 miles.  Co-sign it with CA 36 to I-5 and you got a complete loop from the Interstate system.  A little less obvious one would be bringing back US 89 to Wickenburg from Flagstaff in Arizona.  Truncating it to US 180 never made much sense to begin with since ADOT still maintains all the roadway between both cities still.

For state highways I thought that I would give this some extra thought for places I've lived....


Arizona:

AZ 279:  Essentially this would be a more logical replacement for AZ 260 from AZ 89A to AZ 87 which would eliminate the huge multiplex for AZ 260/87.

Florida:

FL 4a:  Having an A1A segment from Sugarloaf Key to Stock Island would have been handy to have while the right-of-way was still available before all the red tape made it impossible.

California:

CA 180:  Essentially I'm talking about the planned extension over County Route J1 west to CA 25.  There is a ton of evidence to suggest that this was actually signed despite being not state maintained prior to 1940.  It would be handy to have an alternate to CA 152 available over the Diablos to state standards.

Michigan:

US 10:  Really the terminus ought to be downtown Detroit...come on...

US 27:  This should have been swapped with US 127 north of Cincinnati once US 27 was decomissioned north of Fort Wayne.  I lived on this route in Lansing and people called it 27 for years north of St. Johns.

[Takumi]

VA 44 in Chesterfield and Powhatan.

[Avalanchez71]

US 17-1

[epzik8]

I.S. 213

[MNHighwayMan]

As TheHighwayMan394 said, US-61, but also US-16. I don't care if it's mostly parallel to I-90, I think it's nice to have an alternate parallel route to an Interstate, if one wants to travel more leisurely. (Relocating US-52 off I-94 would also be another change I'd like, but I'm not sure this fits the thread's question.)

Also, I want MN-101 brought back in its entirety. I just find something fascinating about having a long surface road carry one state designation through several suburbs. (I know that goes against MnDOT's policy about "ewww, maintaining city surface streets," but I don't care.)

Edit: MN-242 as well, except extend it east over CR-14 all the way to I-35E (or perhaps even US-61, since that would only be another ~two miles). I always thought that made sense as a state route, but apparently MnDOT/the legislature disagreed.

[jp the roadgeek]

US 5 re-extended in New Haven to end at US 1 as it once did.

This one I've said ad nauseum: return US 6 to its pre-Interstate alignments except for the Newtown-Southbury stretch.

Either bring back US 6A from Woodbury to Willimantic, or re-extend CT 14 west of Willimantic to Woodbury (and even beyond to Brookfield via CT 317 and CT 133)

[TheHighwayMan3561]

MN 49 would be cool to bring back I think.

[thenetwork]

US-21 in Ohio and WV and US-25 North of Cincinnati to at least Toledo.

And US-66.

[froggie]

I think it's nice to have an alternate parallel route to an Interstate, if one wants to travel more leisurely.

Nothing necessarily wrong with that, but there's also no reason why such a route has to be a U.S. route.  It could be any type of route as long as it's signed consistently.

Edit: MN-242 as well, except extend it east over CR-14 all the way to I-35E (or perhaps even US-61, since that would only be another ~two miles). I always thought that made sense as a state route, but apparently MnDOT/the legislature disagreed.

Not quite the case here.  It's functionally classified as a Principal Arterial, so MnDOT would have liked to keep control of it.  But it was so far down on their improvement priority list that Coon Rapids, Blaine, and Anoka County balked.  Anoka County took it over from MnDOT because they were able to 4 lane it faster than if it had stayed under MnDOT control.

[thefraze_1020]

Washington state routes 251 and 603.

[Bickendan]

US 99, 99W, 99E

[Eth]

Restore GA 260 to its full length out to US 278. Truthfully, I'm not sure why the remaining part is still in the system, as it's mostly just a residential street.

Also GA 351, as the closest decommissioned (and not merely relocated) highway to where I grew up (not that I remember it, as it was turned back a year or two before I was born). Its former route is still the most direct connection between Jonesboro and McDonough, county seats of neighboring counties.

[MNHighwayMan]

MN 49 would be cool to bring back I think.

Only if it were reunited with MN-149. A similar, albeit much weaker, case could be made for reuniting MN-156 with MN-56.

I think it's nice to have an alternate parallel route to an Interstate, if one wants to travel more leisurely.

Nothing necessarily wrong with that, but there's also no reason why such a route has to be a U.S. route.  It could be any type of route as long as it's signed consistently.

Edit: MN-242 as well, except extend it east over CR-14 all the way to I-35E (or perhaps even US-61, since that would only be another ~two miles). I always thought that made sense as a state route, but apparently MnDOT/the legislature disagreed.

Not quite the case here.  It's functionally classified as a Principal Arterial, so MnDOT would have liked to keep control of it.  But it was so far down on their improvement priority list that Coon Rapids, Blaine, and Anoka County balked.  Anoka County took it over from MnDOT because they were able to 4 lane it faster than if it had stayed under MnDOT control.

Extend the MN-16 designation west then, whatever. Although, I had it in mind that the US-16 designation would be restored through South Dakota and Wisconsin as well, which seems worthy enough of the US Highway designation to me.

And as far as 242 goes, I didn't know that. One would think MnDOT would pony up if they didn't want to let it go, but then again I'm sure they probably didn't have the funds and/or the proper politics to keep MN-242 a reality.

[TEG24601]

US 99, as WA 99 and OR 99-99W/99E.  Simply being an alternate to I-5 would be nice, especially in Washington.  Plus, ODOT never should restore 99W through Portland, and sign it correctly, again, as an alternate to I-5, but that would really only be useful if there was another way over the Columbia River.

[Lyon Wonder]

re-extend US 54 from it's current western terminus at I-72 near Pittsfield to US 45 in Onarga.  Illinois truncated US 54 from Chicago to near its current western terminus in 1972 with the alignment from Springfield to US 54 in Onarga becoming IL-54.  US 54 can be cosigned with I-72 and US 36 from near Pittsfield to the current IL-54 in Springfield.

[kurumi]

Old CA 9, from Saratoga to CA 237 in Sunnyvale.
Old CT 130
IA 982, so I could have taken a photo

[cjk374]

This recommissioning may make not much sense, but re-extending US 65 south back to Natchez, MS seems to me would be helpful in bringing a major US highway route to the forefront of many drivers eyes (big town with a MS River crossing vs its current rural terminus in a speed-trap small town).

US 425 is there now, but was brought in a few years ago. IMO, US 65 is much more important for the truck driving public than US 425 ever will be. (65 is even built better from AR north. Also, US 425's northern terminus is...that's right: US 65 on the southern edge of Pine Bluff, AR.)

[MNHighwayMan]

IA 982, so I could have taken a photo

If we're going to go down that route, I'd like all of Minnesota's decommissioned state highways to return, at least briefly, so I can take pictures and maybe steal a few signs politely ask whoever takes them down if I can have one.

[SD Mapman]

Extend the MN-16 designation west then, whatever. Although, I had it in mind that the US-16 designation would be restored through South Dakota and Wisconsin as well, which seems worthy enough of the US Highway designation to me.

I think both SD and WI still maintain a lot of old US 16 (WI as WI 16 and SD as part of SD 11, part of 42, 262, part of 38, part of 45, multiple Business 90 loops, and 248). US 16 could also be routed through the Badlands to hit as many national parks as possible (old Alt 16, now SD 240). However, unlike WI, SD does not like parallel US routes to its interstates...

[MNHighwayMan]

Extend the MN-16 designation west then, whatever. Although, I had it in mind that the US-16 designation would be restored through South Dakota and Wisconsin as well, which seems worthy enough of the US Highway designation to me.

I think both SD and WI still maintain a lot of old US 16 (WI as WI 16 and SD as part of SD 11, part of 42, 262, part of 38, part of 45, multiple Business 90 loops, and 248). US 16 could also be routed through the Badlands to hit as many national parks as possible (old Alt 16, now SD 240). However, unlike WI, SD does not like parallel US routes to its interstates...

Neither does Minnesota, which is most likely why it was seriously amputated after I-90 was built.

[renegade]

US-25 North of Cincinnati to at least Toledo.

They could recommission US-25 all the way to Port Austin and it would be okay with me.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

Extend the MN-16 designation west then, whatever. Although, I had it in mind that the US-16 designation would be restored through South Dakota and Wisconsin as well, which seems worthy enough of the US Highway designation to me.

I think both SD and WI still maintain a lot of old US 16 (WI as WI 16 and SD as part of SD 11, part of 42, 262, part of 38, part of 45, multiple Business 90 loops, and 248). US 16 could also be routed through the Badlands to hit as many national parks as possible (old Alt 16, now SD 240). However, unlike WI, SD does not like parallel US routes to its interstates...

Neither does Minnesota, which is most likely why it was seriously amputated after I-90 was built.

SD and MN pressured WI to decommission their part of 16 in order to be able to decommission theirs.