Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[texaskdog]

God love my state of Texas and El Paso, but these roads are duplexed hundreds of miles just to be signed for one.   

[xonhulu]

These are sort of different questions.  I could see US 85 being removed as it has been rendered effectively pointless south of Colorado Springs.  There have been proposals to have it take over parts of other US highways, but those always seemed awkward to me.

US 62, however, is a different matter.  In my mind, the problem isn't with it, but with US 180.  At least US 62 makes sense as a route: a diagonal highway of semi-transcontinental extent.

US 180 is actually two routes serving different purposes -- a diagonal route across AZ/NM, and a short east-west route in north central TX -- with these seemingly unrelated routes stitched together by a long pair of contiguous multiplexes with US 62 and I-10.  It doesn't make a lot of sense to me why that is necessary as a route.  It's almost like US 180 got first established as running to El Paso in 1944 just to give it enough length to justify its existence, but why it was then extended awkwardly to the Grand Canyon in 1961 (replacing the perfectly-serviceable US 260) doesn't fully compute.

Not to go fictional highways here, but I'd rather see US 180 in TX yield to a re-extended US 80, also restoring that route to its original NM/AZ routing.  However, instead of taking it down to El Paso, I'd route it over US 82 and US 70, using either NM 18 or NM 529 to connect (and just ending US 82 at the junction so as to not create another duplex).  Then the remaining part of US 180 in NM/AZ makes sense as a spur from its parent, and US 62 gets the west TX and NM highway to itself, as it did from 1932-1944.

The remaining philosophical question would be: exactly what is the problem with duplexes, anyway?  A logical route should connect two areas in a sensible way.  If two routes need to share a highway to accomplish this, so be it.  The part of US 62 that bothers me is the leapfrogging duplexes with other US routes in TX in order to move diagonally across the Panhandle.  They can't build a more-direct highway through here for US 62 to follow?  I've been there; it's not like the terrain is a big obstacle.

[NE2]

62 does this sort of stairstepping all over. Look at the part southwest of Youngstown.

[texaskdog]

These are sort of different questions.  I could see US 85 being removed as it has been rendered effectively pointless south of Colorado Springs.  There have been proposals to have it take over parts of other US highways, but those always seemed awkward to me.


US 62, however, is a different matter.  In my mind, the problem isn't with it, but with US 180.  At least US 62 makes sense as a route: a diagonal highway of semi-transcontinental extent.

US 180 is actually two routes serving different purposes -- a diagonal route across AZ/NM, and a short east-west route in north central TX -- with these seemingly unrelated routes stitched together by a long pair of contiguous multiplexes with US 62 and I-10.  It doesn't make a lot of sense to me why that is necessary as a route.  It's almost like US 180 got first established as running to El Paso in 1944 just to give it enough length to justify its existence, but why it was then extended awkwardly to the Grand Canyon in 1961 (replacing the perfectly-serviceable US 260) doesn't fully compute.

Not to go fictional highways here, but I'd rather see US 180 in TX yield to an re-extended US 80, also restoring that route to its original NM/AZ routing.  However, instead of taking it down to El Paso, I'd route it over US 82 and US 70, using either NM 18 or NM 529 to connect (and just ending US 82 at the junction so as to not create another duplex).  Then the remaining part of US 180 in NM/AZ makes sense as a spur from its parent, and US 62 gets the west TX and NM highway to itself, as it did from 1932-1944.

The remaining philosophical question would be: exactly what is the problem with duplexes, anyway?  A logical route should connect two areas in a sensible way.  If two routes need to share a highway to accomplish this, so be it.  The part of US 62 that bothers me is the leapfrogging duplexes with other US routes in TX in order to move diagonally across the Panhandle.  They can't build a more-direct highway through here for US 62 to follow?  I've been there; it's not like the terrain is a big obstacle.

85 should replace 285 to make it a prominent route, since they almost connect anyway.

I agree, I would take 62 over 180, but 180 could also connect to 80 and bring that route back to prominence, making 62 redudant.  Otherwise you have to extend 62 and make it double back north again

I really hate triplexes and quadroplexes.  There are plenty of unused numbers to go around.

[xonhulu]

85 should replace 285 to make it a prominent route, since they almost connect anyway.

All of 285, or would you break off at Ensino or Vaughn and take it down US 54 so 85 still serves El Paso?

[texaskdog]

85 should replace 285 to make it a prominent route, since they almost connect anyway.

All of 285, or would you break off at Ensino or Vaughn and take it down US 54 so 85 still serves El Paso?

All of 285.  I really don't care if it goes to El Paso.  El Paso will do fine without 85.  and 62!

how do you confuse a quote and an img tag??

[Mike D boy]

U.S. Route 62 used to continue west into Palm Springs, Cal. but the section of road between Amboy, Ca. and Parker, Az. was incompleted, became Cal. Route 62 in the 1960's when the US highway system decommissioned the original route on Amboy Road. I heard of the "US Route 64, 195 and 295" project connecting Phoenix with Indio/Coachella, Ca. and Mexico. Today, there's the Route 62 cafe in Yucca Valley (has the US highway signage for a business logo) to honor the route and the route was useful at the time when the 29 Palms Marine Corps Base and Joshua Tree National Park were founded.

But the Interstate system gotten started and I-10 replaced US 60/70 and later US 99 (the "Main street of the west"), the idea of a road in the middle of desert wasn't well thought of until World War II. There was the historic Plank Road in the 1920s from Yuma to the Salton Sea, followed the Union pacific railroad with a total 40-mile wood plank platform to made it navigable for cars back in the 1920s. But sand dunes and desert heat made the roads not always reliable and more unsafe.

[NE2]

U.S. Route 62 used to continue west into Palm Springs, Cal.

I doubt this.

[xonhulu]

Yeah, I've never heard anywhere that US 62 ever reached Palm Springs or was even intended to.  What's your source on this?

[Steve]

He saw an erroneous US sign on a restaurant and assumed that it must be correct

[agentsteel53]

there has never been a US-62 in California. but the erroneous CALIFORNIA US 62 sign on the restaurant is, indeed, there as of a few months ago.

[Mike D boy]

Huh...the National Geographic mag. had a map of California in the 1950s and shown Cal. route 62 with an US highway marker, and went from US 60 or 99 near Palm Springs to US 66 in the (now ghost) town of Amboy. US 62 over the Colorado River valley, like US 140 and 299 (with Cal. state route 139) in western Nevada, southern Oregon and northernmost Cal. are "ghost highways", separate swaths of the same road unfinished and couldn't remain commissioned as it is.

How more erroneous can it get? US routes 66, 99 (San Fernando Road) and 6 (Sepulveda Blvd., Wilshire Blvd., Figueroa Street and/or Alameda Street down to the port of L.A./Long Beach) meet in downtown L.A. I can safely say US 60-Cal. 62-64 (US 70)-66-99 to become Interstates 5-10-40 are a number game gimmick for travelers to navigate easily into the largest city in the western US.

I can think of Arizona route 85 (former US 85 or 80?) connected I-10 in Buckeye, Az. to I-8 in Gila Bend, Az. though Az. route 85 continued its way to Mexico: in the towns of Ajo, Az. and Lukeville, Az. in the Tohono O'odham (Papago Indians) Nation. Deserts are natural barriers to road development and construction crews had to find ways to stay cool when they work out in the summer heat. 

[agentsteel53]

the same National Geographic also shows "US 140"?  Likely it is shown along the Winnemucca-to-the-Sea Highway.  That was once a proposed numbered US route, and is now Nevada/Oregon state route 140 along a portion of it.

[route29]

I, for one like US 62 ending (or beginning) in El Paso.  A highway signed east-west that runs from Canada to Mexico is rather unique.  As for US 85, not much of a multiplex since it isn't even signed in NM.

[NE2]

A highway signed east-west

Not entirely.

[route29]

A highway signed east-west

Not entirely.

Oh, I'm so sorry.  I meant to say "signed east-west for a really long time". 

[The High Plains Traveler]

I'll add U.S. 180 to this discussion. With regard to 62, it was established across Texas and New Mexico more than 10 years before 180.  I think all three of these routes have "issues" with their routing. U.S. 180 is a logical route from Ft. Worth west to El Paso, providing an alternative route that is well separated from I-20 and I-10 and serving population centers not served by those interstates. The extension in 1962 along what was originally U.S. 260 from Deming NM northwest to Holbrook AZ - and its further extension to the Grand Canyon - really didn't make sense because there is no true relationship between those two segments. I'd really rather see that original designation return, though Arizona has a major state route now with that number. As noted previously, 62 steps south and west from Oklahoma rather than having a straighter alignment. Thus, between 62 and 180, the latter is the more logical designation where they are concurrent, regardless of the novelty of an El Paso to Niagara Falls route.

Then there's 85, which isn't marked for about 600 miles between Fountain CO and the NM-TX state line along I-25 and I-10. New Mexico doesn't acknowledge its existence and Colorado only uses it for local routes still in the state system along I-25. U.S. 85 isn't even continuous in Colorado, and the state marks the Walsenburg business loop, which is technically U.S. 85, as I-25 BL instead. (I haven't forgotten the equally invisible 87, it's just a different topic). There is no need for an additional designation along I-25 south of Denver that I can see.

Given that there is a "wasted" U.S. x5 route here, I've looked at alternative routings that would at least extend the route over its own unique routing rather than having it concurrent with an interstate over most of its southern extent. One was already described above, replacing U.S. 285 with 85. Another idea I've had is to use it on routes designated for future improvement, namely the Heartland Expressway and Ports to Plains Highway. You could route U.S. 85 over SD/NE/CO-71 (the Heartland) from Rapid City south to Limon, then pick up U.S. 287 to Amarillo. From there, I haven't worked out in detail what the routing could be across Texas to the Gulf, and I don't want to replace or create a long concurrency with U.S. 83.

Unfortunately for this idea, Colorado has done squat with its Heartland Expressway portion. CO-71 is a terrible road south of I-76, narrow with pavement in very poor condition. AASHTO would certainly not entertain this idea without a plan to upgrade the road. And, I really don't see the traffic demand for a major route in this area.