In 1958, when Alaska was preparing to become the 49th state, a routing of US-97 was proposed that would have had access to US-97 in the "Lower 48," via B.C. 97 in the Dominion of Canada. It was never commissioned, though. :coffee:
Yep- the problem is that the Yukon refused to number their highway "97" which is what prevented it from happening
Since you mentioned it, there's a 1968 Hammond Road Atlas that shows the proposed Alaska US-97 running from the Canada/Alaska border to Fairbanks, and the Yukon highway marked as "97". Also, if the Yukon Territory didn't want to change the highway number, it could have posted signs reading "TO US-97." :coffee:
Why did they pick 97? Seems like it would have more numerical sense to extend either US-99 or US-101.
Quote from: Quillz on November 14, 2010, 01:57:09 AM
Why did they pick 97? Seems like it would have more numerical sense to extend either US-99 or US-101.
Much of the push for a US route extension to Alaska came from businesses in central Washington and Oregon, seeking to establish US 97 through their regions as the preferred approach route to Alaska, rather than I-5 or I-15.
99 would have made more sense than 101, as US 101 is completely discontinuous from BC 101.
Quote from: Quillz on November 14, 2010, 01:57:09 AM
Why did they pick 97? Seems like it would have more numerical sense to extend either US-99 or US-101.
Seems US-99 would be a good choice. I wonder if Canada's B.C. and Yukon Territory would have been willing to designate roads in those places with "99," or at least post "TO US-99" signs. :coffee:
Guys, look at a map of BC... http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/popular-topics/maps/2105-05.jpg
Yeah, unless Canada wanted to redo their entire highway system to satisfy American interests (which is an awfully narcissistic request), 97 was the only logical number
Quote from: corco on November 14, 2010, 07:57:39 PM
Yeah, unless Canada wanted to redo their entire highway system to satisfy American interests (which is an awfully narcissistic request), 97 was the only logical number
Canada? Just British Columbia and the Yukon, really.
And B.C. even numbered their highways largely based on the US Route system. 99, 97, 95, 93 and 395 all line up perfectly.
QuoteAnd B.C. even numbered their highways largely based on the US Route system. 99, 97, 95, 93 and 395 all line up perfectly.
Right, and 97 was the route that BC used that lines up with the Alaska highway. That's why it would have been US-97 that went into Alaska. Asking multiple provinces to renumber their 97s and 1s to 99 just to satisfy the interests of America (on a route largely NOT navigated by number!) while posting would have been awfully narcissistic. Since Washington, BC, and Alaska had all agreed on 97 as a number and the Yukon is sparse, I feel like that was not an unreasonable request, but changing it to 99? That would have required much more extensive renumbering in Canada.
As for US-99 trailblazers, I can't imagine rural Canadians would want a bunch of TO US-99 trailblazers in their backyards either- not over a gap that size. If it's a few miles, I think it would be OK, but a 3,000 km stretch? Why don't we just ask to annex BC and the Yukon while we're at it?
If Canada took over Mexico, I wouldn't want a bunch of TO TRANSCANADA 15 signs scattered through the US, because A) For Americans they serve no functional purpose and B) I don't want Canadian signage all over my own country except right by the border where it actually aids in navigation (where frankly I wish we used more of it)- that would almost feel like a Canadian invasion
interestingly, my TomTom GPS labels an old alignment of the Alaska Highway near its beginning in Dawson Creek, BC as none other than US 97. :wow:
I think that had this actually have come to pass, there should have been a new class of highway created. Maybe "Continental 97," as that would imply the highway travels through all of North America, including through other countries.
I think with I-69 being planned as part of a so-called CANAMEX corridor, the powers that be really ought to consider creating special shields for what are true continental highways. (Sort of like how Europe has a continental highway system, all the A class highways.)
Quote from: Quillz on November 15, 2010, 04:15:17 PM
I think with I-69 being planned as part of a so-called CANAMEX corridor, the powers that be really ought to consider creating special shields for what are true continental highways. (Sort of like how Europe has a continental highway system, all the A class highways.)
See that only works because the countries in Europe are smaller and closer knit with each other. I don't see that being feasible because, frankly, Canada, the US and Mexico are just way to big for that to be practical. Because there are more differences between countries in Europe in a smaller area, the E-road was needed to give some sort of consistency for all European drivers. Any kind of continental route system here would almost certainly be overshadowed by the Interstate, King's Highway, and Autopista systems.
The other things is that I don't think anybody navigates by numbers going to Alaska. I bet if you polled people who have driven the road, few know the number in BC ïs "97." It's the Alaska Highway and signs that say "Alaska Highway" are what people follow.
In this hemisphere, most of the people who drive I-69 are NOT going to be entering Canada or Mexico. Freeway drivers in Europe often cross the borders because A) It's easier to cross the border, B) the countries are smaller, and C) Rural automobile travel isn't nearly as commonplace and as a result is often international in nature. There's legitimate navigational need for a uniform system. Between US/Canada/Mexico, long distance cross border travel isn't that common. Some Detroiters will go to Toronto and some San Diegoans (San Diegans? San Diegáns?) will go to Tijuana every once in a while, but you don't see Americans using Canadian or Mexican freeways for travel on a regular basis*. A simple sign that says "Hey, I-5 is going to become BC-99 here in a couple miles" suffices
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2Fhighways%2F5%2F548to543%2F5.JPG&hash=9cb721c2cd7724f417f16a2b49b81de217b1f5dd)
(Side note: It's been brought to my attention that this sign has been very recently replaced with something that still has all four shields but is configured differently- if anybody has a shot I'd love to see it)
*The one exception to this is the 401/402/QEW/A-20, but that is signed in a pretty Internationally friendly way, with trailblazers to major interstates where relevant
I'm sure I've posted this in the forum somewhere before, but it seems appropriate for this thread.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.teresco.org%2Fpics%2Fsigns%2F20010617%2Falaska-us97.jpg&hash=8e51aadbbf7cac479db9f26d036cba0d7ed6dcf7)
So yes, US 97 is signed in Alaska, but only in a display at the University of Alaska-Fairbanks Museum (at least as of June 2001, when this was taken).
I know of two other examples of Alaska US 97 shields in private collections.
The other issue I have with US-97 being extended into Alaska was that odd-numbered US Routes that ended in "1" were supposed to be the longest and most important. I think if B.C. could go back in time and renumber their highways, they should have either picked 91 or 101.
Please look at a map before you post something dumb, Quillz.
91 may have been plausible, given that the Alaska Highway "starts" in Edmonton...
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/AB/AB19340021i1.jpg)
there is actually a control destination of "Alaska" in Edmonton to this day. Jim Teresco has a photo, I believe.
91 through Lethbridge, Calgary, and Edmonton kinda makes sense.
Quote from: NE2 on November 15, 2010, 09:02:21 PM
Please look at a map before you post something dumb, Quillz.
I have looked at a map. They could have, theoretically, picked 101 over 99 or 97. After all, Highway 99 follows the Sea-to-Sky Highway and moves considerably inward northeast en route to Highway 97. That could have been Highway 101, which could have then turned back to the northwest into the Yukon and later Alaska.
Of course that's not what happened, but I just think either 101 or 99 would have made much more sense than 97.
QuoteOf course that's not what happened, but I just think either 101 or 99 would have made much more sense than 97.
Right, but BC-97 was designated and the route established in 1953. In 1958, America came forward and said "Rah! US Highway to Alaska!" So BC-97 already existed when Alaska US-97 was proposed. If we would have said we wanted that to be US-99 and asked BC to renumber 97 north of 99 to 99 and the Yukon to renumber to 99, they'd have looked at us funny. When BC established their highway numbering, they went to fit the existing US grid which was nice of them, but they didn't further modify to serve US interests- BC-99 didn't become BC-5 when we built I-5, for instance.
At that point, why should the burden be on CANADA to renumber their highways just to serve America? I suspect that's why the Yukon never changed their number to 97- no reason to confuse residents just to satisfy international interests. BC had the same number already, so it worked on their end. 97 was the best we could do to concede to Canada, and the burden was entirely on us to do that. There's no way the question was "What number fits the grid the best?" as opposed to "What number will cause Canada to have to do the least amount of work?" which is what it should have been.
If Canada wanted a continuous Vancouver->Windsor connector via the US and asked us to renumber I-94 and I-90 to I-401 so they'd have continuity, we'd laugh at them.
wasn't Yukon 1 designated in the 1970s or 80s, though? before that, the Alaska Highway just used the Northwest Highway System shield, but I do not know if the number existed administratively.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on November 16, 2010, 12:31:09 AM
wasn't Yukon 1 designated in the 1970s or 80s, though? before that, the Alaska Highway just used the Northwest Highway System shield, but I do not know if the number existed administratively.
I believe you're right about Yukon 1's designation, but I don't remember exactly when the designation came into effect.
Quote from: corco on November 15, 2010, 05:24:39 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidjcorcoran.com%2Fhighways%2F5%2F548to543%2F5.JPG&hash=9cb721c2cd7724f417f16a2b49b81de217b1f5dd)
(Side note: It's been brought to my attention that this sign has been very recently replaced with something that still has all four shields but is configured differently- if anybody has a shot I'd love to see it)
It's a diagrammatic sign now. You can find it on SRWeb (WSDOT website, Maps & Data section) NW sector, 005 Mainline, Incr. MP at MP 274.43.
Edit 1:
Actually, the diagrammatic sign is an additional sign coming before the sign pictured above (at MP 274.77)
--Andy
Heh, would you look at that. That sign makes a lot more sense now- before trucks had to get off at BC-15 and then it was like "What now?" Now it says to take 8th to get back to 99, which is a good thing. Plus the BC shields now have "BC" on them
I wish I would have gotten shots when I was last up there in late 08, but there was construction near the border and the temporary contractor signs in the city of Blaine didn't call I-5 North "I-5 North" but "TO BC-99." Unfortunately I had gone up to Vancouver with some friends to exploit their lesser drinking age and didn't even bring my camera with me.
If I'm not mistaken, isn't the reason US-97 wasn't officially signed in AK because Yukon didn't number their segment 97? If that's the case, given that those sorts of number mismatches across territories occur all the time and are a fact of life, I think that it would still make sense to have 97 up in AK. In fact, I'd like to see it. Of course, I'm biased, though. :sombrero:
-Alex (Tarkus)
Quote from: Tarkus on November 16, 2010, 03:54:22 PM
If I'm not mistaken, isn't the reason US-97 wasn't officially signed in AK because Yukon didn't number their segment 97? If that's the case, given that those sorts of number mismatches across territories occur all the time and are a fact of life, I think that it would still make sense to have 97 up in AK. In fact, I'd like to see it. Of course, I'm biased, though. :sombrero:
Yeah, AASHTO (I think it was just AASHO at the time) gave Alaska DOT&PF conditional permission in 1964 to renumber as US 97, so long as Yukon changed its route number too. Of course, that permission is a little stale more than four decades later, so even if Yukon belatedly fell in line, Alaska DOT&PF would want to at least check back with AASHTO to confirm or renew the old approval.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on November 15, 2010, 09:14:44 PM
91 may have been plausible, given that the Alaska Highway "starts" in Edmonton...
there is actually a control destination of "Alaska" in Edmonton to this day. Jim Teresco has a photo, I believe.
91 through Lethbridge, Calgary, and Edmonton kinda makes sense.
Historically the Alaska Highway has more ties to Edmonton than to central and southern BC. In fact the current route from Dawson Creek to Alaska was constructed to connect the Northwest Staging Route, a series of airports and airstrips that connect the Lower 48 to Alaska and the Soviet Union during World War II. The route ran from Edmonton to Alaska, the two southern legs extending to Great Falls, MT and Minneapolis. If you look at the list of airport & airstrips that were included along the Great Falls route (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Staging_Route), it essentially includes towns along present day I-15, AB 4, AB 2, AB 43, BC 2, BC 97, and YK 1 between Great Falls and Alaska. I have argued that the entire CANAMEX section should be designated as TCH 2 because of the sections of BC 2 and AB 2 that the route follows, coincodently it would link to AK 2.
As a correction, Edmonton does not have a control city to Alaska, the picture you are referring to was taken in Grande Prairie, http://g.co/maps/u3pzf.
Quote from: corcoI have looked at a map. They could have, theoretically, picked 101 over 99 or 97. After all, Highway 99 follows the Sea-to-Sky Highway and moves considerably inward northeast en route to Highway 97. That could have been Highway 101, which could have then turned back to the northwest into the Yukon and later Alaska.
Of course that's not what happened, but I just think either 101 or 99 would have made much more sense than 97.
Today's map indicates that BC 99 is the shortest option north, however BC 99 only went as far north as Squamish in 1959, extended north to Whistler when it was developed in the 1960's and linked up with BC 97 in 1992. Even today, the preferred route from Vancouver to northern BC is along TCH 1 & BC 97 - and argument could be made about that route being BC 99 along with Alaska Hwy.
Quote from: corcoRight, but BC-97 was designated and the route established in 1953. In 1958, America came forward and said "Rah! US Highway to Alaska!" So BC-97 already existed when Alaska US-97 was proposed. If we would have said we wanted that to be US-99 and asked BC to renumber 97 north of 99 to 99 and the Yukon to renumber to 99, they'd have looked at us funny. When BC established their highway numbering, they went to fit the existing US grid which was nice of them, but they didn't further modify to serve US interests- BC-99 didn't become BC-5 when we built I-5, for instance/
Even that was an accomidation of US highways. Prior to 1953, the Cariboo and John Hart Highways (BC 97 between Cache Creek and Dawson Creek) were designated as BC 2 and cosigned as BC 2/97 until 1962 while the Okanagan Hwy was designated as BC 5.
How can we expect the U.S. and Canada to agree on consistent highway numbering, when Oregon, Idaho and Washington can't agree?
Oregon 11/Washington 125 between Milton-Freewater and College Place
Oregon 3/Washington 129 between Enterprise and Lewiston
Idaho 8/Washington 270 between Moscow and Pullman
Idaho 6/Washington 272 between Potlatch and Palouse
Idaho 60/Washington 274 near Tekoa
Idaho 58/Washington 278 near Rockford
Idaho 53/Washington 290 near Otis Orchards
Quote from: sp_redelectric on January 31, 2012, 11:13:22 PM
How can we expect the U.S. and Canada to agree on consistent highway numbering, when Oregon, Idaho and Washington can't agree?
They agree sometimes:
WA/ID 128 Lewiston/Clarkston
OR/ID 52 Payette
And there was almost a WA/OR 35 between White Salmon and Hood River
But in general, these things are hard to pull off as the states generally have completely different numbering systems.
I've always been impressed by the fact that British Columbia carries some of the US highway numbers into their province; there's certainly no reason they had to. Brings up a good question: is there any pattern to BC's highway numbering scheme? It seems like there is some tendency for the numbers to cluster, but overall it's hard to see any pattern.
Quote from: xonhulu on January 31, 2012, 11:39:39 PM
Brings up a good question: is there any pattern to BC's highway numbering scheme? It seems like there is some tendency for the numbers to cluster, but overall it's hard to see any pattern.
In the 1950s, the following highways existed: http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/TrafficData/historic-1951-1994.asp
*1 Trans-Canada Highway
*2 Cariboo Highway/Hart Highway
*3 Southern Trans-Provincial Highway
*4 Canadian Highway
*5 Princeton-Kamloops-North Thompson Highway
*6 Nelway-Vernon Highway
*7 Lougheed Highway
*8 Merritt-Spences Bridge Highway
*10 New McLellan-Beaubien-Ladner Trunk Roads
*11 Mission-Huntingdon Highway
*12 Lillooet Road
*14 Sooke Highway
*15 Pacific Highway
*16 Northern Trans-Provincial Highway
*17 Patricia Bay Highway
*18 Cowichan Lake Road
*19 Island Highway
*95 Kootenay-Columbia Highway
*97 Okanagan Highway
*99 King George-Upper Levels Highway
*101 Sunshine Coast Highway
http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/archives/3rdedition/economic/transportationandcommunications/085 shows that 93 was already around in 1955 (perhaps it's not included in the counts because it's gravel).
A 1947 US map shows only 99 matching the US. It otherwise has 1 and 3-5 in southern BC (presumably 2 was already in the north). The following routes were soon renumbered:
*4: 93 and 95 from US to Golden (93 north of Radium Hot Springs was 1B)
*5: 97 from US to Salmon Arm
Even ignoring 16 (which was probably numbered to match Alberta), I'm not seeing any pattern in the 1950s routes. Presumably 20 and up were numbered in order of creation.
did BC at one point have lettered routes? someone I know claims to have seen an early 1940s BC map that had that; but it may have been something specialized.
http://webspace.webring.com/people/hr/rvdroz/us38nw.jpg
I see A along the Southern Trans-Provincial Highway, and several other illegible routes.
I also found http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/publications/Circulars/All/G_Circ/1960/g6-60.pdf which has 9, 13, 22, and 93.
There's some other interesting stuff in http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/publications/Circulars/lister.asp?set=All&circ=G&year=1960 and other years.
Quote from: NE2 on February 01, 2012, 02:34:05 AM
http://webspace.webring.com/people/hr/rvdroz/us38nw.jpg
I see A along the Southern Trans-Provincial Highway, and several other illegible routes.
neato! that is indeed a general-purpose road atlas, so that confirms that.
Quote from: sp_redelectric on January 31, 2012, 11:13:22 PM
How can we expect the U.S. and Canada to agree on consistent highway numbering, when Oregon, Idaho and Washington can't agree?
BC is probably the best out of all the Canadian provinces for accomidating other provincial or state highway numbers. As already mentioned, all the US highways are numbered the same in BC plus until the mid-90's, ALL the highways that crossed into Alberta had the same number in BC (north to south, BC/AB 64, 49, 2, 16, 1, 93, and 3), it was Alberta that changed AB 2 to AB 43 while BC retained BC 2.
As for BC highway numbering, there really isn't any sort of obveous system other than as a general rule, odd numbers go N-S while even numbers go E-W - there are exceptions to the rule (the big ones being TCH 1, BC 3, and BC 7) but it is a generalization.