News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

Resurrecting US 99 in Oregon

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

Previous topic - Next topic

english si

Quote from: fredmcain on June 28, 2017, 12:24:19 PMWell, 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.
While I agree they could be better, I found it pretty easy to follow US66 across the country on Streetview. There were places where there were problems (urban areas in particular), and OK wasn't very good due to OK66 being most of it, and then the rest being poorly signed (though it does seem to have had new signs added).

I do like your proposal of signing them as proper route shields - which does seem to be the case on lots of '66 - token signs scattered about is of no use to anyone.


Max Rockatansky

Quote from: roadguy2 on June 29, 2017, 12:27:23 AM
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.

In regards to US 99 in California, it obviously became the longest non-Interstate freeway in the country with CA 99.  Most of 99 whether be the east or west route was kept in the state highway system even after it bumped down to state route status.  A big part of the California renumbering was to eliminate what was considered to be "unnecessary" route multiplexes.  That being the case if I US 99 was going to remain a multi-state route it would have required a significant multiplex of I-5 to reach Oregon and think that is the true instigator of why it was decommissioned.  If you really think about it, if Caltrans or the Division of Highways had a hate boner for US Routes would something like US 199 really have survived this long?  Really it was about route simplification and keeping the remaining US Routes as multi-state. 

fredmcain

#27
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 29, 2017, 07:27:29 AMIn regards to US 99 in California, it obviously became the longest non-Interstate freeway in the country with CA 99.  Most of 99 whether be the east or west route was kept in the state highway system even after it bumped down to state route status.  A big part of the California renumbering was to eliminate what was considered to be "unnecessary" route multiplexes.  That being the case if I US 99 was going to remain a multi-state route it would have required a significant multiplex of I-5 to reach Oregon and think that is the true instigator of why it was decommissioned.  If you really think about it, if Caltrans or the Division of Highways had a hate boner for US Routes would something like US 199 really have survived this long?  Really it was about route simplification and keeping the remaining US Routes as multi-state.

To the one guy who stated that he thought some of these decommissionings were "stupid", well, I think he might have a point.  While some were probably justified, other decommissionings were possibly short-sighted. 

Now what?  Can U.S. Route 99 be recommissioned?  Probably but what is the justification?  We would need a good reason for doing this more than because we are U.S. Numbered Highway fans and would LOVE to see it done (Yes! I would).  The issues of which alignment to use where and where to multiplex etc., etc., etc., are relatively minor in contrast in getting the states or the U.S. Congress to look at doing it.

Why recommission any route?  With Route 66 it would be because I happen to believe the DEMAND is there.  There is some evidence for this that I could cite but that'd probably be a subject for a different thread.  Is the demand there for recommissioning U.S. 99? Quite possibly although it might not be as strong.  Maybe if we could put our heads together we could come up with some ideas.   One idea I had was that in a few areas a new U.S. 99 might make for a good alternate to the interstates in some areas.  This would especially be the case if they start tolling the interstates (an idea that seems to come up from time to time).  There is also the lure of people who might want to take a Route 66-like journey on U.S. 99.  Robert Droz once stated on his U.S. Highways site that 99 was a "possible recommissioning to form a Canamex Route" or something. Sadly, his site is now gone.  :(

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

Max Rockatansky

Quote from: fredmcain on June 29, 2017, 09:33:24 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 29, 2017, 07:27:29 AMIn regards to US 99 in California, it obviously became the longest non-Interstate freeway in the country with CA 99.  Most of 99 whether be the east or west route was kept in the state highway system even after it bumped down to state route status.  A big part of the California renumbering was to eliminate what was considered to be "unnecessary" route multiplexes.  That being the case if I US 99 was going to remain a multi-state route it would have required a significant multiplex of I-5 to reach Oregon and think that is the true instigator of why it was decommissioned.  If you really think about it, if Caltrans or the Division of Highways had a hate boner for US Routes would something like US 199 really have survived this long?  Really it was about route simplification and keeping the remaining US Routes as multi-state.

To the one guy who stated that he thought some of these decommissionings were "stupid", well, I think he might have a point.  While some were probably justified, other decommissionings were possibly short-sighted. 

Now what?  Can U.S. Route 99 be recommissioned?  Probably but what is the justification?  We would need a good reason for doing this more than because we are U.S. Numbered Highway fans and would LOVE to see it done (Yes! I would).  The issues of which alignment to use where and where to multiplex etc., etc., etc., are relatively minor in contrast in getting the states or the U.S. Congress to look at doing it.

Why recommission any route?  With Route 66 it would be because I happen to believe the DEMAND is there.  There is some evidence for this that I could cite but that'd probably be a subject for a different thread.  Is the demand there for recommissioning U.S. 99? Quite possibly although it might not be as strong.  Maybe if we could put our heads together we could come up with some ideas.   One idea I had was that in a few areas a new U.S. 99 might make for a good alternate to the interstates in some areas.  This would especially be the case if they start tolling the interstates (an idea that seems to come up from time to time).  There is also the lure of people who might want to take a Route 66-like journey on U.S. 99.  Robert Droz once stated on his U.S. Highways site that 99 was a "possible recommissioning to form a Canamex Route" or something. Sadly, his site is now gone.  :(

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

Really at the end of the day I don't think a lot of people thought there was going to be a ton of viability in US Routes after the Interstate system was created.  It wasn't like people were pining to keep most of the surface highways open out west that were replaced by Interstates.  The whole nostalgia trip thing for some of the classic US Routes coupled with the fact that many former corridors being still viable has really brought the topic into the forefront in road communities like this.   Really in regards to California, US 99 would have made a fine corridor to remain in the state considering it was over 300 miles when it was bumped down to a state route given it would loop off of I-5 and back.

fredmcain

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 29, 2017, 09:50:24 AMReally at the end of the day I don't think a lot of people thought there was going to be a ton of viability in US Routes after the Interstate system was created.  It wasn't like people were pining to keep most of the surface highways open out west that were replaced by Interstates.  The whole nostalgia trip thing for some of the classic US Routes coupled with the fact that many former corridors being still viable has really brought the topic into the forefront in road communities like this.   Really in regards to California, US 99 would have made a fine corridor to remain in the state considering it was over 300 miles when it was bumped down to a state route given it would loop off of I-5 and back. 

You know, a few years back there was a real push on to get much of the California 99 corridor added to the Interstate Highway system.  I do not know where that plan currently stands if it's dead or just simmering on the back burner somewhere out of visibility.

But anyhow, there was a newspaper in the Central Valley, (I THINK it was the Fresno Bee but I'm not sure anymore), that was really pushing hard for this.  They published several editorials favoring it.  Suspecting that they might just get shot down by the FHWA, I sent them an e-mail asking them about a new "99" U.S. Route designation in place of an Interstate if their Interstate plans fall through.  I tried to explain that'd be a good "back up" plan. Of course I realized it wouldn't make much of a difference in the actual infrastructure more that adding "prestiege" but I didn't tell them that.

They told me they thought that'd be an excellent idea but then I never heard anymore about it and that's been around 7 or 8 years ago, I think.  I still like the idea of a new U.S. 99.  Not sure I'll ever see it though.  Prbly not, huh?  You know, I am quite possibly older than some of the other guys on this group and I was actually ON U.S. 99 when I was a kid.  I distinctly remember when they took the signs down.  That was a sad day for me.  :(

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

Max Rockatansky

Quote from: fredmcain on June 29, 2017, 10:24:19 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 29, 2017, 09:50:24 AMReally at the end of the day I don't think a lot of people thought there was going to be a ton of viability in US Routes after the Interstate system was created.  It wasn't like people were pining to keep most of the surface highways open out west that were replaced by Interstates.  The whole nostalgia trip thing for some of the classic US Routes coupled with the fact that many former corridors being still viable has really brought the topic into the forefront in road communities like this.   Really in regards to California, US 99 would have made a fine corridor to remain in the state considering it was over 300 miles when it was bumped down to a state route given it would loop off of I-5 and back. 

You know, a few years back there was a real push on to get much of the California 99 corridor added to the Interstate Highway system.  I do not know where that plan currently stands if it's dead or just simmering on the back burner somewhere out of visibility.

But anyhow, there was a newspaper in the Central Valley, (I THINK it was the Fresno Bee but I'm not sure anymore), that was really pushing hard for this.  They published several editorials favoring it.  Suspecting that they might just get shot down by the FHWA, I sent them an e-mail asking them about a new "99" U.S. Route designation in place of an Interstate if their Interstate plans fall through.  I tried to explain that'd be a good "back up" plan. Of course I realized it wouldn't make much of a difference in the actual infrastructure more that adding "prestiege" but I didn't tell them that.

They told me they thought that'd be an excellent idea but then I never heard anymore about it and that's been around 7 or 8 years ago, I think.  I still like the idea of a new U.S. 99.  Not sure I'll ever see it though.  Prbly not, huh?  You know, I am quite possibly older than some of the other guys on this group and I was actually ON U.S. 99 when I was a kid.  I distinctly remember when they took the signs down.  That was a sad day for me.  :(

Regards,
Fred M. Cain

Funny, that's actually been an on/off debate on this forum for the couple years I've been on here.  A lot of people really seem to want I-7 or I-9 but don't really understand how much work it would really take to get the entirety of the CA 99 freeway up to Interstate standards.  Really the easier solution would be leave the CA 99 as is (which is what ultimately WILL happen) or simply apply US 99 to it.  I'm with you in regards to a US Route having a "higher status" than what I would say for pretty much any state highway would. 

mrsman

Generally, we need better signage overall.  Many state routes in CA are decomissioned and state law requires that they still be signed with shields - but they aren't.  Roads that are no longer maintained by state DOTs should still be signed in a good way so that the motoring public will be able to navigate with them.

So absent a formal recommissioning of US 66 and US 99, I think the idea of proper historic shields as navigation devices are an excellent idea and should include more than just historic US routes, but many decomissioned or unsigned state and county routes as well.

Thunderbyrd316

   I for one am wholeheartedly in favor of reinstating US 99. This is how I would do it. US 99 would start at Wheeler Ridge and follow SR 99 to US 50/BUS 80 to I-5. Just north of Sacramento I would have it follow SR 99 to SR 70 through Marysville and Oroville then follow SR 149 back to SR 99 through Chico and to I-5 at Red Bluff. (Note that I would make the existing SR 99 through Yuba City, Live Oak, Gridley, etc. US 99 Alt. or US 99A)

   Then I would silently multiplex US 99 with I-5 to SR 273 where US 99 would follow existing SR 273 through Anderson and Redding. Upon rejoining I-5 I would have the silent multiplex continue to Dunsmuir where US 99 would exit the freeway along the historic route and rejoin the freeway at Weed. A further silent multiplex would bring US 99 to Yreka where US 99 would follow SR 263 through Yreka to rejoin I-5 at the Klamath River.

   US 99 would again silently multiplex I-5 into Oregon where it would resume on Oregon 99 through Ashland, Medford, Central Point, Gold Hill and Grants Pass. US 99 would again resume a silent multiplex with I-5 to exit 120 where it would follow Oregon 99 through Roseburg and Sutherlin rejoining I-5 just north of Oakland. It would leave the freeway near Yoncalla and pass through Drain on former Oregon/US 99 rejoining I-5 near Curtin. It would again leave I-5 at exit 170 and pass through Cottage Grove and Creswell, rejoining I-5 at Goshen.

   Upon exiting at I-5 exit 192, it would follow Oregon 99 through Eugene to Junction City. At Junction City US 99 would follow Oregon 99W through Corvallis, McMinnville and Newberg to end at I-5 at Tigard. (Corvallis, McMinnville and Newberg are all sufficiently large and far enough from I-5 to justify a US route designation.) Oregon 99E would remain a state highway as it remains close to I-5 most of the way from Junction City to Oregon City and except for Canby, all towns along that route have pretty direct Interstate access.

   Note that I have chosen NOT to reinstate the segment through Dillard and Winston as Winston is served by Oregon 42, a major route, and Dillard is not sufficiently big to justify its own US route connection.

   I would also consider it to be an acceptable alternative to have the whole segment between Red Bluff and Eugene be silently multiplexed with I-5 but that is a pretty big silent multiplex and I believe that at least some of the larger communities I would have it passing through are sufficiently large and with enough traffic to justify a US route designation connecting them separate from I-5. (i.e Anderson - Redding, Ashland - Medford - Central Point - Grants Pass, Roseburg - Sutherlin)

   I would NOT continue US 99 into Washington as pretty much the entire route is right next to I-5 and does not really "serve" anywhere that is unique from I-5.

   As for HOW to make this happen, I like the idea of getting support for a congressional bill to "force" the issue.

   Finally, if US 99 cannot be reinstated, I would be happy to see a "Historic US 99" designation applied at a minimum to the Wheeler Ridge to Red Bluff and Eugene to Tigard segments. (With "Historic US 99" reassurance shields and shields on all applicable BGS signage.)

   I welcome any comments anyone may wish to make about this.

fredmcain

Thunderbyrd316,

I think those are good ideas and many of us could come up with more (I have a few of my own) but I still think that the most difficult nut to crack is to get the legislation passed that would do this.  If that could be done we could try and submit some of our ideas to the state DOTs.  Will any of this ever happen?  Definitely maybe it just depends how many people you could get interested in it. 

Do not discount roadside businesses along Old Route 99.  When I first got involved in trying to bring back route 66, I sent out e-mails to every chamber of commerce I could find between Chicago and Southern California.  They didn't all respond but it's safe to say that the majority DID respond.  Well, guess what?  Something like 80% (or about 8 out of every 10) didn't just say it'd be a good idea to restore the official "66" U.S. Roue designation on the road through their community but a *GREAT* idea.

That might be a good place to start and send out some "feelers"

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

dvferyance

US 99 along with US 16 east of Rapid City are the only US Highways I would bring back. Well maybe US 89 down to US 93 as well as the rest of US 61 in Minnesota.

Alps

I started looking at what it would take to resurrect 66 and 99 in particular, and ran out of believing that it made sense. In both cases you have long stretches of road that have since been decommissioned. You either need to add a bunch of mileage back into the state highway system (non-starter), swap it with other routes (why), or keep the US highway on a long stretch of Interstate (again, why). So for 99:
* Calexico to Whitewater - 111 (or 86)
* Whitewater to Wheeler Ridge, 180 miles of Interstate overlap (assuming the I-210 swap)
* Wheeler Ridge to Red Bluff - 99
Then other than 273 through Redding, you're basically on I-5 to Oregon. I think it's entirely too much multiplex for California's liking. And without CA, I don't see enough for OR and WA to go in together - all of southern Washington would be an I-5 multiplex as well, realistically.

Bickendan

Keep in mind that 99 is signed (from I-5) between I-5 and Drain though Yoncalla on non-county highways -- there is precedence of having a route on decommissioned roads.


Also, in Oregon's case, this is an issue I believe the Oregon Highway Commission would need to head up, not ODOT or the Oregon House or Senate.

Alps

Quote from: Bickendan on July 01, 2017, 05:00:04 PM
Keep in mind that 99 is signed (from I-5) between I-5 and Drain though Yoncalla on non-county highways -- there is precedence of having a route on decommissioned roads.


Also, in Oregon's case, this is an issue I believe the Oregon Highway Commission would need to head up, not ODOT or the Oregon House or Senate.
My case is built on California. I don't see this happening without their support. US 66 has less of an issue, as relatively less mileage is in California, but again they're not going to assign it. There's actually not much of a case for an independent US 66 until Oklahoma, and barely into Missouri from Kansas.

thefraze_1020

Regarding Washington, old 99 deviates from I-5 more than you think. Think about it, in the Columbia Gorge, ODOT has kept US 30 to serve as a business loop through all the towns during the long section it shares the same corridor with I-84. You could argue to ODOT that if it was done with US 30, why can't it be done with US 99? I think there is a chance that this could be a viable proposal if many cities and towns in WA, OR, CA realized that with a US route serving in-town, it would be a boost in tourism, and ultimately help support businesses in the downtown areas.

In addition US 30 in Oregon deviates from I-84 to serve some state parks. I know of a few state parks that are on the old-99 corridor not served by a state, US, or Interstate highway. If US-99 were to be revived, out-of-state travelers not familiar with the area would have an easier time finding some state parks, which in turn would bring in more revenue to the state parks of WA, OR, CA.

In Washington, I could see several cities that could benefit from a US 99 business loop off I-5, including downtown Vancouver, La Center, Woodland, Kalama, Kelso/ Longview, Castle Rock, Toledo, Chehalis/ Centralia, Tenino, Tumwater/ Olympia/ Lacey. Once the Alaskan Way Tunnel is done, the 99 corridor can handle more traffic, and with a US designation, more traffic would be encouraged to leave I-5 through downtown Seattle.

I could see downtown Everett benefiting from a US route, along with Marysville, Stanwood, Mount Vernon/ Burlington, downtown Bellingham, Ferndale, Blaine.

There are a few sections of old-99 that actually deviate quite a ways from I-5 in Washington. The section from La Center to Woodland is beautiful and a few miles away from I-5. Then one of the long ones is Jackson Highway, which leaves the freeway at the Lewis-Cowlitz county line, goes through Toledo, serves Lewis and Clark State Park, serves downtown Chehalis and Centralia. Another section leaves I-5 at Grand Mound, serves Tenino, Tumwater and downtown Olympia. The oldest alignment of US-99, from Arlington, through Silvana and Stanwood, and returns at Conway, actually deviates from the freeway about 5 miles away. Finally, old 99 leaves I-5 at the north end of Burlington, passes Skagit Speedway, serves Alger, and returns at the Whatcom County line. Chuckanut Drive could also see the US-99A designation returned.
Alright, this is how it's gonna be!

Alps

Quote from: thefraze_1020 on July 04, 2017, 12:41:11 PM
Regarding Washington, old 99 deviates from I-5 more than you think. Think about it, in the Columbia Gorge, ODOT has kept US 30 to serve as a business loop through all the towns during the long section it shares the same corridor with I-84. You could argue to ODOT that if it was done with US 30, why can't it be done with US 99? I think there is a chance that this could be a viable proposal if many cities and towns in WA, OR, CA realized that with a US route serving in-town, it would be a boost in tourism, and ultimately help support businesses in the downtown areas.

In addition US 30 in Oregon deviates from I-84 to serve some state parks. I know of a few state parks that are on the old-99 corridor not served by a state, US, or Interstate highway. If US-99 were to be revived, out-of-state travelers not familiar with the area would have an easier time finding some state parks, which in turn would bring in more revenue to the state parks of WA, OR, CA.

In Washington, I could see several cities that could benefit from a US 99 business loop off I-5, including downtown Vancouver, La Center, Woodland, Kalama, Kelso/ Longview, Castle Rock, Toledo, Chehalis/ Centralia, Tenino, Tumwater/ Olympia/ Lacey. Once the Alaskan Way Tunnel is done, the 99 corridor can handle more traffic, and with a US designation, more traffic would be encouraged to leave I-5 through downtown Seattle.

I could see downtown Everett benefiting from a US route, along with Marysville, Stanwood, Mount Vernon/ Burlington, downtown Bellingham, Ferndale, Blaine.

There are a few sections of old-99 that actually deviate quite a ways from I-5 in Washington. The section from La Center to Woodland is beautiful and a few miles away from I-5. Then one of the long ones is Jackson Highway, which leaves the freeway at the Lewis-Cowlitz county line, goes through Toledo, serves Lewis and Clark State Park, serves downtown Chehalis and Centralia. Another section leaves I-5 at Grand Mound, serves Tenino, Tumwater and downtown Olympia. The oldest alignment of US-99, from Arlington, through Silvana and Stanwood, and returns at Conway, actually deviates from the freeway about 5 miles away. Finally, old 99 leaves I-5 at the north end of Burlington, passes Skagit Speedway, serves Alger, and returns at the Whatcom County line. Chuckanut Drive could also see the US-99A designation returned.
How many of those sections are state maintained? Again, the state is not going to take on new mileage to designate a highway it doesn't need.

compdude787

Quote from: Alps on July 04, 2017, 02:15:15 PM
Quote from: thefraze_1020 on July 04, 2017, 12:41:11 PM
Regarding Washington, old 99 deviates from I-5 more than you think. Think about it, in the Columbia Gorge, ODOT has kept US 30 to serve as a business loop through all the towns during the long section it shares the same corridor with I-84. You could argue to ODOT that if it was done with US 30, why can't it be done with US 99? I think there is a chance that this could be a viable proposal if many cities and towns in WA, OR, CA realized that with a US route serving in-town, it would be a boost in tourism, and ultimately help support businesses in the downtown areas.

In addition US 30 in Oregon deviates from I-84 to serve some state parks. I know of a few state parks that are on the old-99 corridor not served by a state, US, or Interstate highway. If US-99 were to be revived, out-of-state travelers not familiar with the area would have an easier time finding some state parks, which in turn would bring in more revenue to the state parks of WA, OR, CA.

In Washington, I could see several cities that could benefit from a US 99 business loop off I-5, including downtown Vancouver, La Center, Woodland, Kalama, Kelso/ Longview, Castle Rock, Toledo, Chehalis/ Centralia, Tenino, Tumwater/ Olympia/ Lacey. Once the Alaskan Way Tunnel is done, the 99 corridor can handle more traffic, and with a US designation, more traffic would be encouraged to leave I-5 through downtown Seattle.

I could see downtown Everett benefiting from a US route, along with Marysville, Stanwood, Mount Vernon/ Burlington, downtown Bellingham, Ferndale, Blaine.

There are a few sections of old-99 that actually deviate quite a ways from I-5 in Washington. The section from La Center to Woodland is beautiful and a few miles away from I-5. Then one of the long ones is Jackson Highway, which leaves the freeway at the Lewis-Cowlitz county line, goes through Toledo, serves Lewis and Clark State Park, serves downtown Chehalis and Centralia. Another section leaves I-5 at Grand Mound, serves Tenino, Tumwater and downtown Olympia. The oldest alignment of US-99, from Arlington, through Silvana and Stanwood, and returns at Conway, actually deviates from the freeway about 5 miles away. Finally, old 99 leaves I-5 at the north end of Burlington, passes Skagit Speedway, serves Alger, and returns at the Whatcom County line. Chuckanut Drive could also see the US-99A designation returned.
How many of those sections are state maintained? Again, the state is not going to take on new mileage to designate a highway it doesn't need.

I agree, there seems to be little need to resurrect US 99 in Washington. The least they can do is slap a Historic US 99 sign on roads that used to be part of US 99.

US 89

Quote from: Alps on July 04, 2017, 02:15:15 PM
Quote from: thefraze_1020 on July 04, 2017, 12:41:11 PM
Regarding Washington, old 99 deviates from I-5 more than you think. Think about it, in the Columbia Gorge, ODOT has kept US 30 to serve as a business loop through all the towns during the long section it shares the same corridor with I-84. You could argue to ODOT that if it was done with US 30, why can't it be done with US 99? I think there is a chance that this could be a viable proposal if many cities and towns in WA, OR, CA realized that with a US route serving in-town, it would be a boost in tourism, and ultimately help support businesses in the downtown areas.

In addition US 30 in Oregon deviates from I-84 to serve some state parks. I know of a few state parks that are on the old-99 corridor not served by a state, US, or Interstate highway. If US-99 were to be revived, out-of-state travelers not familiar with the area would have an easier time finding some state parks, which in turn would bring in more revenue to the state parks of WA, OR, CA.

In Washington, I could see several cities that could benefit from a US 99 business loop off I-5, including downtown Vancouver, La Center, Woodland, Kalama, Kelso/ Longview, Castle Rock, Toledo, Chehalis/ Centralia, Tenino, Tumwater/ Olympia/ Lacey. Once the Alaskan Way Tunnel is done, the 99 corridor can handle more traffic, and with a US designation, more traffic would be encouraged to leave I-5 through downtown Seattle.

I could see downtown Everett benefiting from a US route, along with Marysville, Stanwood, Mount Vernon/ Burlington, downtown Bellingham, Ferndale, Blaine.

There are a few sections of old-99 that actually deviate quite a ways from I-5 in Washington. The section from La Center to Woodland is beautiful and a few miles away from I-5. Then one of the long ones is Jackson Highway, which leaves the freeway at the Lewis-Cowlitz county line, goes through Toledo, serves Lewis and Clark State Park, serves downtown Chehalis and Centralia. Another section leaves I-5 at Grand Mound, serves Tenino, Tumwater and downtown Olympia. The oldest alignment of US-99, from Arlington, through Silvana and Stanwood, and returns at Conway, actually deviates from the freeway about 5 miles away. Finally, old 99 leaves I-5 at the north end of Burlington, passes Skagit Speedway, serves Alger, and returns at the Whatcom County line. Chuckanut Drive could also see the US-99A designation returned.
How many of those sections are state maintained? Again, the state is not going to take on new mileage to designate a highway it doesn't need.

Don't some places sometimes post highway shields on routes that aren't state maintained?

Bickendan

The Yoncalla-Drain portion of OR 99 is not state maintained.

nexus73

Quote from: Bickendan on July 05, 2017, 02:31:16 AM
The Yoncalla-Drain portion of OR 99 is not state maintained.

It's not even SR 99.  The road is now a Douglas County route.  Then to add to the confusion is how signage between Drain and I-5 to the north is for SR 38 but the freeway BGS says 38/99.  I tell ya', 99 is dying a hard death over there!

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.

Bickendan

Clearly a case of the OTC and ODOT not communicating with each other.
I don't care if OR 99's routed on a county route, if that's what OTC wants. ODOT needs to follow up with signing it beyond the divergences from I-5.

Alps

Anyway, to the earlier point, I don't know that WA does that or wants to do that. There are a few highways on county routes or even town roads here in NJ, but I guarantee you they won't add a new one.

Quillz

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.
I read it was actually that California wanted to use as many white-on-green state highway shields as possible. So most of their US highways were decommissioned for this purpose.

Quillz

Quote from: roadfro on June 29, 2017, 01:31:49 AM
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).
And yet, that's exactly what I wished the US routes would have done. I don't like business routes, loops or spurs. I much prefer how Oregon uses US-30 for the same purpose, for example. US-40 doesn't necessarily need to be signed all the way across the state, but it could have been useful to have its own freeway alignment through Sacramento, instead of signing it as the Capital City Loop, for example.

english si

The issue in CA was due to US40 and I-40 clashing, ditto US80 and I-80. Then they got the bug and so other routes got chopped - even ones where an interstate hadn't replaced it like US6.

Of course, CA's former US routes are now in the process of being signed as Historic routes.



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.