Regional Boards > Northwest

US Route 101 in Washington

<< < (4/6) > >>

Quillz:

--- Quote from: pderocco on September 30, 2022, 12:14:50 AM ---
--- Quote from: Quillz on September 29, 2022, 08:11:11 PM ---Would not be allowed because AASHTO now requires US highways to either cross state lines or be at least 300 miles in length. More likely Washington would assign a branch route number, perhaps from 2 or 101. And US-399 existed historically in California, today it's CA-33 and US-119.

--- End quote ---

This is interesting (though a bit off-topic). I didn't realize that a US route could be entirely within one state as long as it was 300 miles long. I thought they had to be interstate, and that was why US-299 in CA was kicked out of the US highway system back in '64. Although it was under 300 miles, the replacement CA-299 was extended to the Nevada border, making it over 300 miles. Wouldn't that have allowed it to remain a US route? Or did AASHO laugh at the attempt to extend the route, because it terminates at a dirt road in Nevada?

--- End quote ---
That was not originally in place when the system was devised in 1926. It was considered much later, I think well after the interstates. That's the technical reason why US-99 didn't remain in California. Enough of its alignment was swapped over to I-5 that it fell below the 300 mile threshold. Although even then, Caltrans could have just turned it into a state route anyway. I think it's also less a rule and more guidelines, as frankly there's so many violations that I don't think anyone really cares all that much. Especially given some of the later additions like US-163 that have zero relation to US-63, and numerous other US routes that don't really seem to follow a whole lot of logic in various ways. But this "rule" does explain why US-199 remained while US-299 and US-399 did not. The former is likely due to the elimination of US-99. The latter would be too, but Caltrans also had a strong desire to extend state routes so they could use the green miner spade, and extending CA-33 southward worked out. This was the driving force behind the elimination of other US routes, like US-101 Alt becoming an extended CA-1. (Which I still think should be CA-3, given that was the original number, but CA-1 also works as more of a "brand" at this point). A lot of the western states just put interstates directly over US highways so most of California's were eliminated because of this. As for Washington eliminating some of their US routes, it was probably for similar reasons: desire to use interstates instead, or their own revised state highway system.


--- Quote ---On the other hand, in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Numbered_Highways I see quite a few intrastate US routes that are much shorter than 300 miles. What gives? Were they grandfathered in because they used to be longer and/or interstate?
--- End quote ---
I think it comes down to it being more a guideline than a real rule. They might have been longer at one point, but I think it should also be noted that nowadays, adding new routes would require them to meet modern interstate standards and also be at least 300 miles in length if they do not cross state lines. US-121 is under construction and being built to this. So I think if anything, it was intended for routes that did not exist at the time.

Alps:

--- Quote from: pderocco on September 30, 2022, 12:14:50 AM ---
--- Quote from: Quillz on September 29, 2022, 08:11:11 PM ---Would not be allowed because AASHTO now requires US highways to either cross state lines or be at least 300 miles in length. More likely Washington would assign a branch route number, perhaps from 2 or 101. And US-399 existed historically in California, today it's CA-33 and US-119.

--- End quote ---

This is interesting (though a bit off-topic). I didn't realize that a US route could be entirely within one state as long as it was 300 miles long. I thought they had to be interstate, and that was why US-299 in CA was kicked out of the US highway system back in '64. Although it was under 300 miles, the replacement CA-299 was extended to the Nevada border, making it over 300 miles. Wouldn't that have allowed it to remain a US route? Or did AASHO laugh at the attempt to extend the route, because it terminates at a dirt road in Nevada?

On the other hand, in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Numbered_Highways I see quite a few intrastate US routes that are much shorter than 300 miles. What gives? Were they grandfathered in because they used to be longer and/or interstate?

--- End quote ---
Yeah, they're previously in there and for whatever reason they stayed. NJ kept US 46 (which once went into PA) and US 130, for example, while other states gave up longer or more substantial routes. It's entirely possible it was politics that saved a few of them.

Max Rockatansky:
If we are going super fictional why not just reroute US 101 over WA 20 and the Port Townsend Ferry to I-5 if the north/south orientation is of prime importance?  The Port Townsend Ferry is stated maintained so I don’t think AASHTO has a rule against it.

Bickendan:
But then we'd have to figure out how to connect US 101 with BC 101...
And I think the exercise gets a bit absurd at that point.

Amaury:

--- Quote from: Quillz on September 29, 2022, 06:37:35 PM ---That's probably something WDOT might get around to. If they changed the directionality for US-101, they could for appropriate sections of WA-20. That's why I brought up my idea, the upper banner always reflects the overall orientation, while the bottom banner works for short-term direction.
--- End quote ---

I didn't have time to post this the other day, but these are the sections I was talking about with regard to SR 20. They're not as long or "dramatic" as those sections of US 101, so perhaps that's why WSDOT has left the route alone in that regard.

South and north sections between:

* Port Townsend and Anacortes, including the spur route: https://goo.gl/maps/iaPYgP86in6YcfF76
* Rockport and Twisp, albeit they are diagonal, so it's more northeast/southwest and southeast/northwest: https://goo.gl/maps/hqMZzkamVK7atsvAA
* Okanogan and Tonasket, but since it is a concurrency with US 97 and US 97 is the primary highway, where its mileposts are used, I'm not necessarily counting this one toward that, but: https://goo.gl/maps/7HAhS12t1R2nrjxU6
* Colville and the junction with SR 211 near Usk: https://goo.gl/maps/aog5qajKgXD8maLG9
*
* Between Ruby and Locke, you can see the short section that runs "backwards." If you are on the eastbound lanes, you are heading west in that section; if you are on the westbound lanes, you are heading east in that section.
I realize that no highway is going to run perfectly west/east (even) or south/north (odd), as even I-90, like after/before crossing the Vantage Bridge, has sections running south and north, so I'm not including everything under the sun, just a few that really stand out. Like US 101, which, as is being discussed in this thread, clearly has sections like this in Washington.

And I do like your idea. It would just have to be made clear somehow on the signs that the top is the overall direction and that the bottom is the short-term direction.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page