News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

Alaska US-97

Started by Tom, November 13, 2010, 03:20:51 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Tom

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:


corco

Yep- the problem is that the Yukon refused to number their highway "97" which is what prevented it from happening

Tom

#2
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:

Quillz

Why did they pick 97? Seems like it would have more numerical sense to extend either US-99 or US-101.

oscar

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.
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

Bickendan

99 would have made more sense than 101, as US 101 is completely discontinuous from BC 101.

Tom

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:

NE2

pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

corco

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

Quillz

#9
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.

corco

#10
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

agentsteel53

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:
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

Quillz

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.)

njroadhorse

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.
NJ Roads FTW!
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 30, 2009, 04:04:11 PM
I-99... the Glen Quagmire of interstate routes??

corco

#14
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


(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

Jim

I'm sure I've posted this in the forum somewhere before, but it seems appropriate for this thread.



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).
Photos I post are my own unless otherwise noted.
Signs: https://www.teresco.org/pics/signs/
Travel Mapping: https://travelmapping.net/user/?u=terescoj
Counties: http://www.mob-rule.com/user/terescoj
Twitter @JimTeresco (roads, travel, skiing, weather, sports)

agentsteel53

I know of two other examples of Alaska US 97 shields in private collections.
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

Quillz

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.

NE2

Please look at a map before you post something dumb, Quillz.
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

agentsteel53

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.

live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

Quillz

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.

corco

#21
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.

agentsteel53

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.
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

njroadhorse

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.
NJ Roads FTW!
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 30, 2009, 04:04:11 PM
I-99... the Glen Quagmire of interstate routes??

andytom

#24
Quote from: corco on November 15, 2010, 05:24:39 PM

(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



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.