US-191 in northern Arizona

[agentsteel53]

this weekend, I drove US-191 north from the US-160 multiplex, and saw that it was signed as "Indian 12 TO US-191".  this replaces signage which show US-191 as continuous, as of several years ago.

when the road hits Utah, it magically reverts to US-191 again.

anyone have any idea what happened here?  this signage is extremely confusing - if someone didn't trust the cutoff (a lot of roads out there are pretty shitty dirt) and decided to continue along 160, assuming 191 continued as well, they would get hopelessly lost.  the only reason I managed to stay on 191 is because I thought to myself that the real 191 turnoff (which I drove in 2009) was still a bit to the east - and then, "oh, a new cutoff, how interesting, I'll drive it".

[corco]

That threw me off too when I was up there. It actually hasn't been in the ADOT record books since at least 2007- so at some point they gave it back to the reservation to maintain. It seems to be in pretty shitty condition though, so I'm guessing it's been a while.


I'm not sure why- I suspect maybe ADOT is helping out with Indian 59, but I'm not sure.

Here's some pictures





But I had the same problem- my saving grace was that I was coming down 160 east towards New Mexico, with the intent of coming back up 191 north into Utah two days later. I passed that split, stayed on 160 but kept expecting the junction to show up. It never did so I knew two days later that I needed to follow the Indian bypass.

[The High Plains Traveler]

^That directional sign gives short shrift to New Mexico. True, U.S. 160 heads northeast to Colorado (after clipping NM), but there is a major junction with U.S. 64 30 miles ahead, a major route across northern New Mexico.

[agentsteel53]

there are plenty of US routes which are not under state maintenance (Vermont comes to mind as having a lot of them), but they are at least still signed continuously.  why is Arizona making an exception here?

[NE2]

Political correctness. Duh. That's why the signs say INDIAN and not NAVAJO - the latter has become a racial slur for GPS voices.

[Scott5114]

I have a feeling this is really one of those stupid situations you particularly hate, Jake–namely, "Let's sign things based on who maintains what as opposed to what makes a logical thru route". At least this time we get a "to 191". If they have to sign it as an Indian route why not Indian 191, so as to avoid confusing anyone but roadgeeks?

"Utah" and "Colorado" are also blatantly shitty destination points.

[Rover_0]

there are plenty of US routes which are not under state maintenance (Vermont comes to mind as having a lot of them), but they are at least still signed continuously.  why is Arizona making an exception here?

I never thought I'd see Arizona have a US-89A/UT-11 type situation, or something close to it. While it's the Navajo Nation doing the "NA-12/TO US-191" thing and not AzDOT itself, you'd think that they'd handle something like this in a much better way. I'd say dually sign them with no ambiguity as to which one is prioratized. That or just sign it US-191.

AzDOT possibly dealing with NA-59? I think it's a good idea. NA-59 is a great cutoff route (at least geographically) between US-160 and US-191/NA-12 (this discrepancy continues south of US-160, right?) and should become a state route. Heck, I've had some quite far out ideas to reroute US-60, US-82, or US-380 into Utah (or establishing a new US-164) ), and having NA-59 become a state route would be that much closer to reality.

(NA="Native American")

[xonhulu]

Here's the signage I saw at the 160-191 junction back in 2005.  Back then, the first reassurance marker northbound was only "Indian 12:" 



I don't remember if there were any US 191 shields along the northbound route before the Utah border, but this shield and Jake's story makes me doubt it.

There was a mention of US 191 on the southbound road -- this shield right before the junction with 160 that oddly informs you that 191 is to the right and behind you:



I'd be shocked if this next classic sign was still there:



I believe this was on US 160 eastbound/US 191 northbound right before the junction, but I'm not 100% sure.

Anyway, the pix Jake posted don't look familiar to me at all, so I'm guessing the signage has all changed since my last visit 7 years ago.  The current signage is cryptic at best ("idiotic" was the first word that came to mind), and is just asking for motorist confusion.

[corco]

That's still the only reassurance marker, which does add confusion


The other two signs you posted are gone, as far as I can remember.

(this discrepancy continues south of US-160, right?)

No- it's just this segment from the north 160 junction to the state line. The rest is signed as regular 191.

[iflypsa]

Something tells me I need to research this more on my next trip to the State Archives.

Based on what's available online, it appears that this section of Indian route was never part of the State Highway system. This section of US 191 was extended south to I-40 in 1982 over former AZ 63, which was only designated from Chambers to Mexican Water.

[Rover_0]

That threw me off too when I was up there. It actually hasn't been in the ADOT record books since at least 2007- so at some point they gave it back to the reservation to maintain. It seems to be in pretty shitty condition though, so I'm guessing it's been a while.


I'm not sure why- I suspect maybe ADOT is helping out with Indian 59, but I'm not sure.

Here's some pictures





But I had the same problem- my saving grace was that I was coming down 160 east towards New Mexico, with the intent of coming back up 191 north into Utah two days later. I passed that split, stayed on 160 but kept expecting the junction to show up. It never did so I knew two days later that I needed to follow the Indian bypass.

Mind if I use some of these pictures? I'm going to ask AzDOT directly about this and see how they respond.

[corco]

Sure, go to town- just promise you'll share the result with everybody

[Rover_0]

Email sent...and now we play the waiting game.

The waiting game sucks-let's play Hungry Hungry Hippos!

/Simpsons reference

[Rover_0]

OK, right now I'm in the middle of letting an AzDOT rep know that it is US-191 that is being signed as N-12. They're trying to say that the two roads are completely different. This is going to take some time...any suggestions?

(I'm also using Google Street View to convince them, as well.)

[agentsteel53]

OK, right now I'm in the middle of letting an AzDOT rep know that it is US-191 that is being signed as N-12. They're trying to say that the two roads are completely different. This is going to take some time...any suggestions?

(I'm also using Google Street View to convince them, as well.)

kidnapping.

or, road trip to the scenic Four Corners region, if you want to dress it up all fancy-like.

[corco]

As far as ADOT is concerned, it's not US-191- I'd remind them that 191 north begins again in Utah, is signed along the 160 concurrency, and the public only stands to be confused by Indian 12 primarily being signed as Indian 12 instead of US 191 from US 191 since they're not likely to be aware of the technicality.

[Rover_0]

They're actually saying that US-191 is left, while it (US-191) takes you to N-12. Problem is, there's no other paved road worthy of marking as N-12, and US-191 is marked as N-12.

I've sent in several Google Street View shots to this AzDOT rep. While I don't expect GSV to have updated scenes most of the time, what I'm seeing there matches what everyone here is seeing. I've sent (short) links referring to this, and with a little moving around in GSV, it's obvious that US-191 is solely marked as N-12. Question is: will those at AzDOT notice?

[corco]

That's...really weird. When I drove that stretch, that was what I thought was going on but then I didn't see a real US-191 junction, so heh.

[aboges26]

Bumping this thread because US 191 is still NOT signed between US 160 and the Utah border other than the "TO" references on US 160, while the US 191 Wikipedia pages act like this gap is non-existent...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Route_191_in_Arizona
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Route_191

I am hoping someone has an update on this situation, or at the very least can get these Wikipedia pages updated so it reflects accurate information.

[Max Rockatansky]

Bumping this thread because US 191 is still NOT signed between US 160 and the Utah border other than the "TO" references on US 160, while the US 191 Wikipedia pages act like this gap is non-existent...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Route_191_in_Arizona
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Route_191

I am hoping someone has an update on this situation, or at the very least can get these Wikipedia pages updated so it reflects accurate information.

For context on the state of Arizona Highway pages there was a recent thing someone put on the I-17 page about the exits being remembered (they aren't).  Basically I wouldn't trust what Wikipedia says about Arizona highway anything until someone reliable begins to edit those pages.  I would instead refer you to ADOT which doesn't have it on their 2020 log book as something they maintain but nonetheless has BIA 12 as part of the National Highway System north of US 160:

https://azdot.gov/sites/default/files/media/2020/10/2020-Mapbook.pdf

Now the only other place I can think to refer to you is the AASHTO Database.  In theory you ought to be able to find if the AASHTO considers the local roadway (BIA 12)  north of US 160 as part of US 191 (I'm thinking they probably do).

[aboges26]

Bumping this thread because US 191 is still NOT signed between US 160 and the Utah border other than the "TO" references on US 160, while the US 191 Wikipedia pages act like this gap is non-existent...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Route_191_in_Arizona
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Route_191

I am hoping someone has an update on this situation, or at the very least can get these Wikipedia pages updated so it reflects accurate information.

For context on the state of Arizona Highway pages there was a recent thing someone put on the I-17 page about the exits being remembered (they aren't).  Basically I wouldn't trust what Wikipedia says about Arizona highway anything until someone reliable begins to edit those pages.  I would instead refer you to ADOT which doesn't have it on their 2020 log book as something they maintain but nonetheless has BIA 12 as part of the National Highway System north of US 160:

https://azdot.gov/sites/default/files/media/2020/10/2020-Mapbook.pdf

Now the only other place I can think to refer to you is the AASHTO Database.  In theory you ought to be able to find if the AASHTO considers the local roadway (BIA 12)  north of US 160 as part of US 191 (I'm thinking they probably do).

I saw that I-17 exit renumbering and had to shake my head, I gave up on contributing to Wikipedia awhile ago when my good and factual edits were being rejected.  Too much revisionist activism and denying good content makes that site a joke, but I still went there first to try to find out anything about the US 191 gap before searching here and bumping this thread.

Good to know the gap is official as far as ADOT goes, but it still makes me scratch my head why they would endorse such a gap.  The highway design seems good enough to support a 65 MPH speed limit if they would just resurface that rough road.  Maybe that is the standoff that they think NNDOT or BIA should contribute to such maintenance since it more so serves the Reservation's traffic.

[Max Rockatansky]

Bumping this thread because US 191 is still NOT signed between US 160 and the Utah border other than the "TO" references on US 160, while the US 191 Wikipedia pages act like this gap is non-existent...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Route_191_in_Arizona
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Route_191

I am hoping someone has an update on this situation, or at the very least can get these Wikipedia pages updated so it reflects accurate information.

For context on the state of Arizona Highway pages there was a recent thing someone put on the I-17 page about the exits being remembered (they aren't).  Basically I wouldn't trust what Wikipedia says about Arizona highway anything until someone reliable begins to edit those pages.  I would instead refer you to ADOT which doesn't have it on their 2020 log book as something they maintain but nonetheless has BIA 12 as part of the National Highway System north of US 160:

https://azdot.gov/sites/default/files/media/2020/10/2020-Mapbook.pdf

Now the only other place I can think to refer to you is the AASHTO Database.  In theory you ought to be able to find if the AASHTO considers the local roadway (BIA 12)  north of US 160 as part of US 191 (I'm thinking they probably do).

I saw that I-17 exit renumbering and had to shake my head, I gave up on contributing to Wikipedia awhile ago when my good and factual edits were being rejected.  Too much revisionist activism and denying good content makes that site a joke, but I still went there first to try to find out anything about the US 191 gap before searching here and bumping this thread.

Good to know the gap is official as far as ADOT goes, but it still makes me scratch my head why they would endorse such a gap.  The highway design seems good enough to support a 65 MPH speed limit if they would just resurface that rough road.  Maybe that is the standoff that they think NNDOT or BIA should contribute to such maintenance since it more so serves the Reservation's traffic.

FWIW BIA 12 is part of the 1981 AASHO definition of US 191 which is when it was extended to Chambers.  Regardless of it not being an ADOT maintained road it effectively is part of US 191 despite what the field signage says.  USends had an image snip of the 1981 definition of US 191 here:

https://www.usends.com/191.html

[The Ghostbuster]

US 191 south of Yellowstone Park should have been a southern extension of US 187 in my opinion, or a northern extension of US 666. Maybe even all of US 191 in Montana should have been part of US 187 (it would have connected with US 87 near Moore, and split from 87 in Lewistown; thus connecting with its parent route). I think the 1981 southern extension of US 191 was completely insane, and I don't it should have been implemented.

[aboges26]

Bumping this thread because US 191 is still NOT signed between US 160 and the Utah border other than the "TO" references on US 160, while the US 191 Wikipedia pages act like this gap is non-existent...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Route_191_in_Arizona
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Route_191

I am hoping someone has an update on this situation, or at the very least can get these Wikipedia pages updated so it reflects accurate information.

For context on the state of Arizona Highway pages there was a recent thing someone put on the I-17 page about the exits being remembered (they aren't).  Basically I wouldn't trust what Wikipedia says about Arizona highway anything until someone reliable begins to edit those pages.  I would instead refer you to ADOT which doesn't have it on their 2020 log book as something they maintain but nonetheless has BIA 12 as part of the National Highway System north of US 160:

https://azdot.gov/sites/default/files/media/2020/10/2020-Mapbook.pdf

Now the only other place I can think to refer to you is the AASHTO Database.  In theory you ought to be able to find if the AASHTO considers the local roadway (BIA 12)  north of US 160 as part of US 191 (I'm thinking they probably do).

I saw that I-17 exit renumbering and had to shake my head, I gave up on contributing to Wikipedia awhile ago when my good and factual edits were being rejected.  Too much revisionist activism and denying good content makes that site a joke, but I still went there first to try to find out anything about the US 191 gap before searching here and bumping this thread.

Good to know the gap is official as far as ADOT goes, but it still makes me scratch my head why they would endorse such a gap.  The highway design seems good enough to support a 65 MPH speed limit if they would just resurface that rough road.  Maybe that is the standoff that they think NNDOT or BIA should contribute to such maintenance since it more so serves the Reservation's traffic.

FWIW BIA 12 is part of the 1981 AASHO definition of US 191 which is when it was extended to Chambers.  Regardless of it not being an ADOT maintained road it effectively is part of US 191 despite what the field signage says.  USends had an image snip of the 1981 definition of US 191 here:

https://www.usends.com/191.html

That makes it seem like US 191 should be signed concurrently with BIA 12 and there should be no "TO" reference for US 191 off of US 160 for the sake of clarity in route navigation, regardless of who maintains it.  Maintenance agreements can be relegated to agency files while publicly things stay clear as far as route network completeness and make sense for the motoring public (non-road geeks).

[Max Rockatansky]

Bumping this thread because US 191 is still NOT signed between US 160 and the Utah border other than the "TO" references on US 160, while the US 191 Wikipedia pages act like this gap is non-existent...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Route_191_in_Arizona
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Route_191

I am hoping someone has an update on this situation, or at the very least can get these Wikipedia pages updated so it reflects accurate information.

For context on the state of Arizona Highway pages there was a recent thing someone put on the I-17 page about the exits being remembered (they aren't).  Basically I wouldn't trust what Wikipedia says about Arizona highway anything until someone reliable begins to edit those pages.  I would instead refer you to ADOT which doesn't have it on their 2020 log book as something they maintain but nonetheless has BIA 12 as part of the National Highway System north of US 160:

https://azdot.gov/sites/default/files/media/2020/10/2020-Mapbook.pdf

Now the only other place I can think to refer to you is the AASHTO Database.  In theory you ought to be able to find if the AASHTO considers the local roadway (BIA 12)  north of US 160 as part of US 191 (I'm thinking they probably do).

I saw that I-17 exit renumbering and had to shake my head, I gave up on contributing to Wikipedia awhile ago when my good and factual edits were being rejected.  Too much revisionist activism and denying good content makes that site a joke, but I still went there first to try to find out anything about the US 191 gap before searching here and bumping this thread.

Good to know the gap is official as far as ADOT goes, but it still makes me scratch my head why they would endorse such a gap.  The highway design seems good enough to support a 65 MPH speed limit if they would just resurface that rough road.  Maybe that is the standoff that they think NNDOT or BIA should contribute to such maintenance since it more so serves the Reservation's traffic.

FWIW BIA 12 is part of the 1981 AASHO definition of US 191 which is when it was extended to Chambers.  Regardless of it not being an ADOT maintained road it effectively is part of US 191 despite what the field signage says.  USends had an image snip of the 1981 definition of US 191 here:

https://www.usends.com/191.html

That makes it seem like US 191 should be signed concurrently with BIA 12 and there should be no "TO" reference for US 191 off of US 160 for the sake of clarity in route navigation, regardless of who maintains it.  Maintenance agreements can be relegated to agency files while publicly things stay clear as far as route network completeness and make sense for the motoring public (non-road geeks).

Yes, to the average driver they don't care who maintains BIA 12.  It seems ADOT and the Bureau of Indian Affairs subscribes to the notion that signage of a US Route indicates state maintenance.    The AASHTO has no such provision that requires US Routes to be under the maintenance of a State DOT.