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

Resurrecting US 99 in Oregon

Started by Bickendan, July 03, 2010, 04:23:55 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Bickendan

I've undertaken a project: Restoring US 99 in Oregon.

Following is an email exchange with the ODOT employee who works with US and OR route numbers:
QuoteI recall reading somewhere that Oregon was reluctant in decommissioning US 99 but did so following California and Washington decommissioning their portion of the route. With this reluctance in mind, and with the rules that AASHTO established for the routes, specifically that they should either cross state-lines or be in excess of 300 miles if they are intra-state routes, would it be feasible to petition AASHTO to reestablish US 99? A quick estimate shows that OR 99 meets the 300 mile requirement, following either 99E or 99W.

Their reply:
Quote from: ODOTI do not believe the AASHTO committee would approve a US99 for Oregon only.  Here is a link to the current AASHTO policy:
http://cms.transportation.org/sites/route/docs/HO1_Policy_Establ_Develop_USRN.pdf
Item #5 leads off with the unequivocal statement:  "No new U.S. route located wholly in one State shall be established."  I believe that applies to US99 because that would now be a new US route.  The 300-mile standard would only allow Oregon to argue for survival of the US route designation if it still existed.

My interpretation is that ODOT's warm to the idea, but AASHTO's policies are in the way. The whole of Item Five:
QuoteNo new U.S. route located wholly in one State shall be established.
U.S. routes, less than three hundred miles in length, heretofore
established and located wholly in one State, shall be eliminated either
by consolidation with other U.S. routes or by reverting to State routes,
as rapidly as the State Highway Department and the Standing Committee
on Highways of the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials can reach agreement with reference thereto.

Also, Item 7:
QuoteNo new divided numbered (such as U.S. 96W and U.S. 96E, etc.) shall
be adopted. Existing divided U.S. numbers shall be eliminated as
rapidly as the State Highway Department and the Standing Committee
on Highways can reach agreement with reference thereto.

I take this to mean that US 99 would be forced to 'choose' one of the two split alignments from Junction City on north and leave the other as a state highway. That's tricky, considering both OR 99W and 99E are viable choices and whichever doesn't get upgraded, someone's going to get upset.

There has to be exceptions that we can cite, otherwise it's going to be fun convincing WSDOT to re-extend WA 99 from Tacoma down to Vancouver and then coordinating the two states to apply for the upgrade (which is, annoyingly, still more plausible than getting CalTrans and the California legislature to sign CA 99 from Red Bluff up to the Oregon line).


froggie

One could make a better case for restoring US 99 in California than in either Oregon or Washington.  For starters, most of CA 99 is on the National Highway System (which marks it as a principal through route).  Second, most of it has independent utility, instead of being closely paralleled by I-5 like OR 99 and OR 99E.

corco

#2
QuoteThere has to be exceptions that we can cite, otherwise it's going to be fun convincing WSDOT to re-extend WA 99 from Tacoma down to Vancouver and then coordinating the two states to apply for the upgrade (which is, annoyingly, still more plausible than getting CalTrans and the California legislature to sign CA 99 from Red Bluff up to the Oregon line).

Would the California legislature have to approve the extension of 99 from Red Bluff to Oregon if it ran concurrent with I-5? Most states with legislatively defined state highways don't acknowledge concurrencies in the legislation even if they're signed in the field. I think it would be similar to Washington 200 in the 70s, where since it's just another number slapped over an already existing one (with the old one still being signed as the dominant route, which it would be), there's no legislation necessary.

If California would agree that it's a good idea, they could probably even do it without signing it- submit the petition to AASHTO as a California-Oregon US highway, then have it signed as US 99 in California and Oregon, but don't ever bother to put signs up between Red Bluff and Oregon along I-5. This would be slightly annoying, but it could work (there's plenty of more egregious precedent for that). Given that California has no money and probably doesn't want to pay to sign US-99 along I-5 just so Oregon gets continuity because signs cost money, this may be more appealing to them.

oscar

Quote from: froggie on July 03, 2010, 06:53:56 AM
One could make a better case for restoring US 99 in California than in either Oregon or Washington.  For starters, most of CA 99 is on the National Highway System (which marks it as a principal through route).  Second, most of it has independent utility, instead of being closely paralleled by I-5 like OR 99 and OR 99E.

But that would interfere with the ambitions of some in the Central Valley to turn most of CA 99 into an Interstate.  That in turn would complicate California's cooperation with restoration of US 99 in OR and WA.

I personally am not crazy about Interstate-izing CA 99, and prefer that CA 99 (at least south of Sacramento) be restored as US 99, as a palindromic counterpart to US 101 on the other side of I-5.
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

TheStranger

Quote from: oscar on July 03, 2010, 09:55:49 AM
Quote from: froggie on July 03, 2010, 06:53:56 AM
One could make a better case for restoring US 99 in California than in either Oregon or Washington.  For starters, most of CA 99 is on the National Highway System (which marks it as a principal through route).  Second, most of it has independent utility, instead of being closely paralleled by I-5 like OR 99 and OR 99E.

But that would interfere with the ambitions of some in the Central Valley to turn most of CA 99 into an Interstate. 

Actually, I could view it as an "intermediate" step - think of US 48 (#2)'s role before I-68 was officially signed.

Several other thoughts:

- As Corco noted, California legislatively defines routes, so any concurrency does not have to be defined per se.  (Interestingly, until the late 1960s, US 99 and I-5 WERE signed together north of Red Bluff, as can be seen in the AARoads Shield Gallery).

- Although not ideal, one could suggest having 99W or 99E become a "99A" and the other route become mainline 99.  I'd prefer for the historic E/W split to be retained - after all, if Tennessee can have five examples of this, why can't Oregon have one?  (And if anyone wants to suggest that AASHTO rules are cut-and-dried, US 311 in North Carolina and US 377 in Oklahoma show how far DOT assertiveness can go.)

- One thing Oregon currently does with OR 99, and Colorado currently uses US 85/87 for...that California actually already uses Route 1 to some extent in a similar vein - having the "secondary" route serve as a business loop along its old/parallel alignments.  Several existing state highways between Red Bluff and the Oregon line were once part of US 99, and would work great for this: Route 273, Route 265, Route 263.

- In another thread, I've theorized that the primary reason for 99 becoming a state route in California - which may or may not be the case, but seems to fit what the official CalTrans writeups of the day were saying - was to increase usage of the white-on-green state route shields, rather than 99 actually being superseded by I-5 entirely.  No reason therefore not to put it back on the US highway system if that was the only rationale to downgrade it in the first place.
Chris Sampang

TheStranger

And if anyone wants evidence that California is (sometimes) willing to sign US 99 again... ;)



(the sign has since been patched over with retroreflective greenout for the Route 99 shield though)
Chris Sampang

WillWeaverRVA

Quote from: TheStranger on July 03, 2010, 12:29:12 PM
- Although not ideal, one could suggest having 99W or 99E become a "99A" and the other route become mainline 99.  I'd prefer for the historic E/W split to be retained - after all, if Tennessee can have five examples of this, why can't Oregon have one?  (And if anyone wants to suggest that AASHTO rules are cut-and-dried, US 311 in North Carolina and US 377 in Oklahoma show how far DOT assertiveness can go.)

This wouldn't exactly work as there can't be any new suffixed US (or interstate, for that matter) routes. A banner would have to do, or perhaps make the other route a 3dus x99.
Will Weaver
WillWeaverRVA Photography | Twitter

"But how will the oxen know where to drown if we renumber the Oregon Trail?" - NE2

corco

I think 99A qualifies as a banner route- it'd be no different than Alternate 99 (and that's probably what it would be in the books), just signed as "99A"

A three digit route would have to meet the same qualifications as a two digit route, so that wouldn't work.

TheStranger

#8
Quote from: SyntheticDreamer on July 03, 2010, 04:37:02 PM

This wouldn't exactly work as there can't be any new suffixed US (or interstate, for that matter) routes. A banner would have to do, or perhaps make the other route a 3dus x99.

As Corco noted, 99A would be a "bannered" route (Alternate) rather than a suffixed route per se, so it would be okay.  (For that matter, even California has added a new Alternate route in the last ten years with US 50A!)

The question then would be, for Oregon, which 99 branch would serve as a good mainline?  Oregon Route 99E does coroute with I-5 for a while, so I would think 99W would work best as a standalone 99.

(In California, both incarnations of 99W - from Sacramento to Red Bluff via Davis, Woodland, and Corning, and from Stockton to Manteca via Lathrop - have been supplanted by I-5 for the most part.)

Interestingly, if US 99 were ever to be recommissioned along state Route 99 in California, a good 30 miles of it would actually have never been part of the original US 99 corridor: that being the segment from I Street in downtown Sacramento north to Route 113 south of Yuba City, which partly corresponds to a former segment of Route 24.

Chris Sampang

Rover_0

I like the idea of using a US-99A (Alternate) for one of the US-99W or US-99E alignments.  I think that using CA-99 down to Stockton and duplexing with I-5 north of Red Bluff into Oregon would work.  South of Stockton, it could end up becoming I-7 or I-9, right?

Right now, I'm holding my US-60 plan (but that's another story), but it's good to know that I'm not the only one to try restoring a US Route somewhere.
Fixing erroneous shields, one at a time...

TheStranger

Quote from: Rover_0 on July 03, 2010, 05:01:11 PM
I like the idea of using a US-99A (Alternate) for one of the US-99W or US-99E alignments.  I think that using CA-99 down to Stockton and duplexing with I-5 north of Red Bluff into Oregon would work.  South of Stockton, it could end up becoming I-7 or I-9, right?


South of Stockton, why not restore the US route designation all the way to Wheeler Ridge?  (It'd be similar in effect to the US 48/I-68 transition in West Virginia)
Chris Sampang

Revive 755

Quote from: Bickendan on July 03, 2010, 04:23:55 AM
There has to be exceptions that we can cite, otherwise it's going to be fun convincing WSDOT to re-extend WA 99 from Tacoma down to Vancouver and then coordinating the two states to apply for the upgrade (which is, annoyingly, still more plausible than getting CalTrans and the California legislature to sign CA 99 from Red Bluff up to the Oregon line).

Might be easier to see about a legislative override of AASHTO than either of those options.

TheStranger

Quote from: Revive 755 on July 03, 2010, 07:01:43 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on July 03, 2010, 04:23:55 AM
There has to be exceptions that we can cite, otherwise it's going to be fun convincing WSDOT to re-extend WA 99 from Tacoma down to Vancouver and then coordinating the two states to apply for the upgrade (which is, annoyingly, still more plausible than getting CalTrans and the California legislature to sign CA 99 from Red Bluff up to the Oregon line).

Might be easier to see about a legislative override of AASHTO than either of those options.

ODOT could copy Oklahoma and ignore AASHTO (US 377 being the exemplar example); the bigger issue would be California's insistence on legislatively defining any signed route.  At least there wouldn't be a need to create a new route definition for 99 in California, it simply would have to be extended to either cover any segments between Red Bluff and the stateline that were once part of US 99 (i.e. 273, 263) or even maintain the existing definition, with no signage from Red Bluff to the border.
Chris Sampang

xonhulu

Quote from: TheStranger on July 03, 2010, 04:50:15 PM
The question then would be, for Oregon, which 99 branch would serve as a good mainline?  Oregon Route 99E does coroute with I-5 for a while, so I would think 99W would work best as a standalone 99.

I'd agree; 99W is the better choice, being more independent of I-5.  Its biggest problem is its fairly indistinct northern endpoint.  You'd have to terminate it at I-5 in Tigard.

99E could either be:
  1)  left as OR 99E;
  2)  divided into 2 state routes separated by the I-5 multiplex.  Depending on which system you put them in, they could be 41/45 (old primary route system),
       209/215 (old secondary route system), or 81/558 (new system where route # matches highway #, but there's already an OR 58).
  3)  commissioned as US 99A (my favorite suggestion)

I applaud you for the effort, but I'd be very surprised if we saw US 99 again.

Bickendan

Quote from: TheStranger on July 03, 2010, 12:29:12 PM
Quote from: oscar on July 03, 2010, 09:55:49 AM
Quote from: froggie on July 03, 2010, 06:53:56 AM
One could make a better case for restoring US 99 in California than in either Oregon or Washington.  For starters, most of CA 99 is on the National Highway System (which marks it as a principal through route).  Second, most of it has independent utility, instead of being closely paralleled by I-5 like OR 99 and OR 99E.

But that would interfere with the ambitions of some in the Central Valley to turn most of CA 99 into an Interstate. 

Actually, I could view it as an "intermediate" step - think of US 48 (#2)'s role before I-68 was officially signed.

Several other thoughts:

- As Corco noted, California legislatively defines routes, so any concurrency does not have to be defined per se.  (Interestingly, until the late 1960s, US 99 and I-5 WERE signed together north of Red Bluff, as can be seen in the AARoads Shield Gallery).

- Although not ideal, one could suggest having 99W or 99E become a "99A" and the other route become mainline 99.  I'd prefer for the historic E/W split to be retained - after all, if Tennessee can have five examples of this, why can't Oregon have one?  (And if anyone wants to suggest that AASHTO rules are cut-and-dried, US 311 in North Carolina and US 377 in Oklahoma show how far DOT assertiveness can go.)
Quick background history on these two routes could be useful in giving ODOT some leverage.

Quote- One thing Oregon currently does with OR 99, and Colorado currently uses US 85/87 for...that California actually already uses Route 1 to some extent in a similar vein - having the "secondary" route serve as a business loop along its old/parallel alignments.  Several existing state highways between Red Bluff and the Oregon line were once part of US 99, and would work great for this: Route 273, Route 265, Route 263.
This could serve well for I-9 as well. Currently there are eight Bus CA 99 loops in the Central Valley, and there are still numerous communities along CA 99 that don't have a business loop on the original Golden State Boulevard alignment.

I imagine that as this is a route restoration and not a brand new route gives us a bit more to work with -- we can argue that the cultural and historical value of retaining the suffixed designation in the Willamette Valley overrides the provision that suffixed routes are Teh Bad.

TheStranger

Quote from: Bickendan on July 04, 2010, 12:38:00 AM
Quote from: TheStranger on July 03, 2010, 12:29:12 PM
[(And if anyone wants to suggest that AASHTO rules are cut-and-dried, US 311 in North Carolina and US 377 in Oklahoma show how far DOT assertiveness can go.)
Quick background history on these two routes could be useful in giving ODOT some leverage.

US 377: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=2425.msg55002#msg55002

US 311: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_311

to quote:
Quote from: WikipediaNow mostly serving as an alternate routing of U.S. 220, this highway mainly connects Rockingham County with Forsyth, Guilford, and Randolph Counties. This makes the route technically in violation of AASHTO U.S. highway standards which prefers all U.S. routes to be at least 200 miles (320 km) long and exist in more than one state. This would make U.S. 311 a prime candidate for decommissioning, however NCDOT recently received permission to extend the route's designation northward from U.S. 220 near Madison to Eden.
Chris Sampang

fredmcain

Quote from: Bickendan on July 03, 2010, 04:23:55 AM
I've undertaken a project: Restoring US 99 in Oregon.

I think it's a great idea and recommissioning U.S. 99 seems to have some general support.  I heard from a news writer in Southern California a couple of weeks ago who is in favor of it.
I can share some of my experience with my Route 66 initiatives.  The State DOT's are very unlikely to go along.  They will cite AASHTO standards and "U.S. 99 was decommissioned because blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...."

Getting the REAL reason they're opposed out of them is a little more tricky.  They would be against this 'cause - and they won't tell you this - they don't want to pay to change all those signs.  That's it, really.  $

When you stop and think about it,  those large "green guide" signs are not cheap.

But, there is another way.  Congress has the authority to designate both Interstate AND U.S. numbered routes.  If they were to pass some kind of a Congressional resolution bringing back U.S. 99 or 66 or the western end of U.S. 40 - whatever - AASHTO would probably go along. It'd be a plus, too, if Congress would appropriate funding for new signs.  But to get that far you need LOTS of grass roots support.  Is the support even there?  Maybe.  I guess we'll never know unless we try.

Regards,
Fred M. Cain
U.S. Route 66 Recommissioning Initiative
http://www.bringbackroute66.com/home.html
Fred M. Cain
U.S. Route 66 Initiative
http://www.bringbackroute66.com/home.html

english si

6 days shy of a 7 year bump! :O

These sorts of sign would arguably do the job well without needing AASHTO/Congress, and both CA and OR have parts of the route signed.

Of course, like with OK66, same-numbered state routes tend not to be signed with historic-US signage (US20 having historic US20 signs being an exception!).

Though if you want plain vanilla US99, then, I-69W/C/E shows that AASHTO don't care about suffixed routes much these days, so OR can have US99W and US99E variants.

fredmcain

Quote from: english si on June 28, 2017, 11:57:49 AM
6 days shy of a 7 year bump! :O  These sorts of sign would arguably do the job well without needing AASHTO/Congress, and both CA and OR have parts of the route signed.
variants.

Well, yes and no.  There is no doubt that such "Historic" markers are better by far than nothing.  The problem with them is that they tend to be commemorative in nature and not really traffic guides. Pretty tough to first find and then follow a route using them.  That was the whole issue with "Historic" Route 66 signage.  What you really need are "MUTCD-like" route markers similar to what's used on all of our state and U.S. highways.   To give you an idea of what I'm talking about check here:  http://www.bringbackroute66.com/signs.html   Scroll down 'til you get to my diagrams.

Regards,
Fred M. Cain
Fred M. Cain
U.S. Route 66 Initiative
http://www.bringbackroute66.com/home.html

ATLRedSoxFan

I know California started it, but what was all the hoopila with decommissioning US routes in the first place? They DID serve a purpose.

sp_redelectric

With the exception of 99W between Tigard and Eugene (including the portion of 99 from Junction City to Eugene), 99 in Oregon no longer serves as a through route - with many parts of it reverted to county roads or overlaid by Interstate 5.  So why sign it as one?

I agree that ODOT should designate 99 as a historic highway just as the Historic Columbia River Highway is, and place "Historic Route US 99/99W/99E" signs as appropriate - it requires no authorization aside from the ODOT Director to accomplish.

Signs need only be placed at city limits, county boundaries, major junctions, or places where the highway served multiple routes dependent upon the era.

Alps

I think any state highway that was a US highway, should revert. That includes the short ones like 309 and 611. If NJ gets to keep 46, any state can keep anything it wants.

US 89

Quote from: ATLRedSoxFan on June 28, 2017, 10:35:13 PM
I know California started it, but what was all the hoopila with decommissioning US routes in the first place? They DID serve a purpose.

The idea was that they had been functionally replaced, so they were no longer needed. I would argue that they are useful for when the Interstate is closed or has a major accident and traffic needs to be diverted, it is a good idea to have an alternate through route.

Of course, some decommissionings made less sense (and some were downright stupid).

IIRC, there was a thread on here where it was said that Caltrans just had one guy who totally hated US routes.

Quote from: Alps on June 29, 2017, 12:19:23 AM
I think any state highway that was a US highway, should revert. That includes the short ones like 309 and 611. If NJ gets to keep 46, any state can keep anything it wants.

What if they don't want the US designation but like the number, like US/MN 61 and US/MN 169? Those always seemed stupid to me.

nexus73

Quote from: sp_redelectric on June 28, 2017, 11:49:08 PM
With the exception of 99W between Tigard and Eugene (including the portion of 99 from Junction City to Eugene), 99 in Oregon no longer serves as a through route - with many parts of it reverted to county roads or overlaid by Interstate 5.  So why sign it as one?

I agree that ODOT should designate 99 as a historic highway just as the Historic Columbia River Highway is, and place "Historic Route US 99/99W/99E" signs as appropriate - it requires no authorization aside from the ODOT Director to accomplish.

Signs need only be placed at city limits, county boundaries, major junctions, or places where the highway served multiple routes dependent upon the era.

99 has a decent length through the Rogue Valley (Ashland to Central Point) with SR 99 available for re-signing from a bit north of Central Point to Grants Pass.  99 also has another stretch through the Umpqua Valley from south of Winston to Sutherlin.  Toss in the segment that runs through Yoncalla and Drain.  There's plenty more of 99 than what is in the Willamette Valley and for the most part those sections are major carriers of traffic. 

Washington's best stretch is in the Puget Sound area and will include the new tunnel.  Any business routes between PDX and that stretch of 99 can also be signed as US 99 to encourage traffic into discovering those cities.  Close out the route with the final stretch heading for the Canadian border.

I am 100% in favor of reviving US 99.  It might make Fresno feel better since they currently have no Interstate or US highway connections. 

Rick
US 101 is THE backbone of the Pacific coast from Bandon OR to Willits CA.  Industry, tourism and local traffic would be gone or severely crippled without it being in functioning condition in BOTH states.

roadfro

Quote from: roadguy2 on June 29, 2017, 12:27:23 AM
The idea was that they had been functionally replaced, so they were no longer needed. I would argue that they are useful for when the Interstate is closed or has a major accident and traffic needs to be diverted, it is a good idea to have an alternate through route.

That line of thinking works well in many places, but not so much in the west. For example, I-80 was laid directly on top of US 40 through most of California and Nevada, so it physically couldn't act as an alternate. Keeping US 40 would've involved the route jumping off and back on I-80 at every city and town–well that's what Interstate Business Loops are for (and why Nevada has at least 9 of them).
Roadfro - AARoads Pacific Southwest moderator since 2010, Nevada roadgeek since 1983.



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.