In talking with someone at AASHTO, they provided a link to look at past Interstate, U.S., and Bike Route applications. In perusing through some of the applications and correspondence, I found some pretty interesting ideas.
Among them are:
US-78 extension to Denver, CO circa 1954
US-24 extension to St. George, UT circa 1955
US-200 establishment between Missoula, MT and Duluth, MN, circa 1961
US-64 extension to California via a lengthy concurrency with US-66 (1933 correspondence)
There are also other applications/correspondence that we know about as well. I can't seem to get direct links to the individual applications, but here is the link to the database:
https://grmservices.grmims.com/vsearch/portal/public/na4/aashto/default
Just enter in the number, state, and/or year you're looking for and you should be able to find these documents pretty easily.
Nice! This sheds some light on what the hell actually happened with US-377 in Oklahoma, where, before, all we knew was there was a string of applications that were rejected. Turns out that Rep. Wes Watkins had been the one trying to get the extension done (at the behest of a local Highway 99 Association). AASHTO at the time had a point-scoring system and 377 never reached the required score (based on quality of the road, perceived over-density of US routes, being rejected before, and the designation being pushed by someone outside the highway department–definitely not a criterion that would stand up in the modern day!)
What we do know is that in 1988 ODOT mysteriously started posting US-377 without AASHTO approval, as noted in their own documentation. So prevailing wisdom has been that was an instance of ODOT being ODOT and not playing by the rules. Turns out the truth is much less interesting...Wes Watkins wrote the designation into the Department of Transportation and Related Appropriations Act, 1988 (which was signed in December 1987). ODOT to submitted an application to AASHTO for rubber-stamping. AASHTO disapproved it in June 1988. ODOT shrugged, looked at the law, and posted the signs anyway. Can't say I blame them.
Oh, by the way, according to the bill, the official terminus of US-377 is at I-44, not OK-66. Oklahoma just sucks at road signs.
I wonder who was the shortminded who proposed the number I-238 without checking if there was a I-38 first. Oh, wait...
I like how Texas, New Mexico and Arizona tried to extend US 90 all the way to San Diego. California, on the other hand, didn't got along as they couldn't find a suitable alternate to US 80.
Oh, and I like how Rand McNally really cared about route numbering. Surely they didn't release their road atlases in April back then.
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on September 22, 2020, 03:36:05 PM
I wonder who was the shortminded who proposed the number I-238 without checking if there was a I-38 first. Oh, wait...
I believe it was a CA state route and they didn't want another I-x80.
Quote from: Rover_0 on September 22, 2020, 01:56:10 PM
In talking with someone at AASHTO, they provided a link to look at past Interstate, U.S., and Bike Route applications. In perusing through some of the applications and correspondence, I found some pretty interesting ideas.
Among them are:
US-78 extension to Denver, CO circa 1954
US-24 extension to St. George, UT circa 1955
US-200 establishment between Missoula, MT and Duluth, MN, circa 1961
US-64 extension to California via a lengthy concurrency with US-66 (1933 correspondence)
There are also other applications/correspondence that we know about as well. I can't seem to get direct links to the individual applications, but here is the link to the database:
https://grmservices.grmims.com/vsearch/portal/public/na4/aashto/default
Just enter in the number, state, and/or year you're looking for and you should be able to find these documents pretty easily.
This is awesome...thank you for posting the link...learning a ton already
Don't think I was previously aware of this: a 1961 proposal to extend US 13 all the way to New Orleans.
In Georgia, this was to follow GA 72 from South Carolina to Athens, then US 78 to Atlanta, then US 19/41 and GA 85 to Columbus, hopping on US 80 into Alabama.
Rejected, according to the document, because "certain sections" (not necessarily in GA, may have been in other states on the routing) were "not up to the required standards", along with "not enough through traffic" on the route.
US 5 was requested to replace US 13 and US 17 all the way to Punta Gorda FL!
Other things I've found spending 45 minutes with this:
US 319 extension to Clarksville VA
US 220 extension to Charleston via SC 41
US 158 extension to Jonesville SC
US 313 from Elizabethtown NC to Charleston using 41
US 33 as a real N-S route from Rogersville TN northward
Lengthy US 1 Alt from Columbia SC to southeast GA (AASHO said improve the roads and move US 1. This would use SC 3 and US 301.
US 23 extension to St Petersburg
2 other US 13 to SC attempts
Quote from: Mapmikey on September 22, 2020, 05:36:01 PM
US 5 was requested to replace US 13 and US 17 all the way to Punta Gorda FL!
Hey! I have had that idea too, totally separately!
This is a really awesome find. The exact kind of thing I hoped to discover when joining this forum.
Quote from: Rothman on September 22, 2020, 03:40:47 PM
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on September 22, 2020, 03:36:05 PM
I wonder who was the shortminded who proposed the number I-238 without checking if there was a I-38 first. Oh, wait...
I believe it was a CA state route and they didn't want another I-x80.
They didn't want to renumber CA 180 and the rest of the X80s were used up at the time.
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on September 22, 2020, 03:36:05 PM
I wonder who was the shortminded who proposed the number I-238 without checking if there was a I-38 first. Oh, wait...
I-238/CA 238 is rather like your favorite Interstate, I-41/US 41. California generally takes the approach of "one route, one number", even if the shape of the route marker changes from Interstate to some other kind mid-route (as with routes 15, 110, and 210). Wisconsin and (nominally) Illinois did something similar with their portions of U.S. 41. I'm pleased that AASHTO didn't get overly fussy about either situation, like it can be on other things.
Wow, great find!
In the year 2000, Alabama submitted their application to move US 29 over to I-85. The point-to-point mileage was submitted in what appears to be Comic Sans:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/2069_22_09_20_8_15_39.png)
(Spoiler alert: Yes, it was approved.)
Well, there goes my evening :-)
Thank you Rover_0!
Mods, maybe we could pin this somehow as a good source of information?
Quote from: kurumi on September 22, 2020, 10:28:22 PM
Well, there goes my evening :-)
Thank you Rover_0!
Mods, maybe we could pin this somehow as a good source of information?
Done!
I will be digging into this some more, but not tonight as it will keep me up late!
One thing I found was a 1955 application by NC/SC to extend US 220 south from Rockingham along SC 381, SC 9, SC 57 and SC 41 to US 17 near Mt Pleasant via Dillon and Mullins.
We know that CT/MA I-395 was conceived as I-290 for a while, but this was new to me:
Quote
Some previous correspondence has referred to the possibility of this Route being designated as Interstate 290; however, the State of Massachusetts feels that such a number would be misleading since it indicates a closed loop off I-90 under AASHTO guidelines. Although the proposed Interstate connects two major Interstate routes, FHWA offÂicials in Washington were not receptive to a two digit number being used when the two states first approached them about designating route 52 as an Interstate highway. I-99 may be the only available two digit number which substantially meets AASHTO guidelines, but its use would require renumbering Connecticut 99 which traverses six towns in this state and is of considerable length. Connecticut would not accept this number.
Aw man CT, you could have renumbered CT 99 and had I-99. CT 99 is really only in 3 towns. You could have called it 299 and no one would shed a tear.
(And I-99 could have extended to Leominster and beyond...)
Merry Christmas, everyone!
I found an early NY 3DI numbering plan (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yomEpGIUfi7BuSYhRYXYCACMEzeBYGqT/view?usp=sharing). This has some stuff we never knew existed.
Quote from: Rover_0 on September 22, 2020, 01:56:10 PM
In talking with someone at AASHTO, they provided a link to look at past Interstate, U.S., and Bike Route applications. In perusing through some of the applications and correspondence, I found some pretty interesting ideas.
Among them are:
US-78 extension to Denver, CO circa 1954
US-24 extension to St. George, UT circa 1955
US-200 establishment between Missoula, MT and Duluth, MN, circa 1961
US-64 extension to California via a lengthy concurrency with US-66 (1933 correspondence)
There are also other applications/correspondence that we know about as well. I can't seem to get direct links to the individual applications, but here is the link to the database:
https://grmservices.grmims.com/vsearch/portal/public/na4/aashto/default
Just enter in the number, state, and/or year you're looking for and you should be able to find these documents pretty easily.
It was quite interesting to see that in 1974, both North and South Dakota requested US 85 from Deadwood to Canada be renumbered as...US 385. AASHTO rejected it due to everyone in both states being used to having US 85 on that road through Belle Fourche, Buffalo, Bowman, Belfield, Watford City, and Williston.
I suspect a similar type of renumbering would be met with a similar rejection, especially considering the substantial oil industry at the north end of the route.
Colored signs: https://na4.visualvault.com/app/AASHTO/Default/documentviewer?DhID=244fde34-4de6-ea11-a98a-ff9beffbfef8&hidemenu=true
Blueprint of CT state numbering plan, late 1931: https://na4.visualvault.com/app/AASHTO/Default/documentviewer?DhID=fb748934-c1d5-ea11-a98a-ff9beffbfef8&hidemenu=true
This has some wild stuff that was revised before the 1932 renumbering.
* CT 17 from Granby to Old Saybrook (became CT 9 in 1932)
* CT 9 from New Haven to Union and Mass Line via Middletown, East Hartford, Stafford (became CT 15)
* CT 180, Glastonbury (94)
* and lots of smaller stuff: 171, 192, 155, etc. in odd places
Sadly, it looks like there's no way to link to anything without it 404ing. Or at least not in the usual way.
New corridors (no number discussed):
Savannah GA to Marble NC
Norfolk to Hatteras NC
Gauley Bridge WV to Ashtabula OH
Pascagoula MS to Jackson TN
As part of US 52 extension to Bluefield a request to connect US 23 and US 52 with a US route (likely what became US 119 later)
US 219 was truncated from Princeton WV in 1966 (solves a mystery)
Have not yet found proof MSR 121 was a requested US route, though all of SC 121 (still SC 19 then) was in the US 319 extension request.
Also found proof that US 15 did exist south of Walterboro briefly. And that SC really wanted US 17E and US 17W but knew it would be rejected.
Found proof US 52 did go into Huntington WV prior to 1932.
Found proof that Virginia did sign VA 301 prior to US 301 extension to Baltimore.
Not only was US 33 through KY-TN out there, it had a US 33E and US 33W split
Tennessee REALLY did not want to change most of their suffixed routes.
The answer to what was I-B59 in Alabama is about is in there.
I-72 on the Baltimore Beltway
Some states (esp. TN) sent their entire official maps with early submissions.
There were 3 attempts to extend US 58 to E St Louis (Illinois even had a US 58 ALT) and 2 more to extend it to Chattanooga TN.
So much to learn...barely scratched the surface.
US 241 (the second) was proposed to run all the way up to Michigan City. US 131 was proposed to run all the way down to the Gulf coast, although I haven't seen where exactly because the last pages of that discussion failed to load (I suspect down what is now US 231 and US 331 in Alabama and Florida, ending at Santa Rosa Beach). Not bad.
Also, US 86 was briefly proposed for "The Appalachian Corridor" in Alabama. I wonder to what that refers, since Corridors V and X were already US 72 and US 78 (now I-22) respectively.
New Jersey is largely devoid of much documentation. One of the more recent documents show what many believed was true: I-95/I-295 around Trenton was to become I-195, and this decision was made well before most of us saw it on maps. Yet, there's nothing to document how this eventually became 295. PA's database doesn't shed any light on this either.
Another, more localized change near me that's not documented: US 322 was moved from its original routing to a bypass in Mullica Hill, NJ. I've never seen anything that shows NJ submitted this request to any federal organization for approval, and this database doesn't reveal such documentation either.
So I ended up staying up late and sifting through this afterall. :coffee:
Delaware proposed redesignating U.S. 202 from I-95 at Exit 8, 1.31 miles north to the original end of SR 141 at Fairfax as temporary I-195 in 1978.
QuoteWhen the section is rebuilt to proper standards we will request permanent designation of I-195.
The following year Delaware recommended eliminating Temporary I-195:
QuoteThis section is only 1.31 mile and serves mainly short trip, local orientated traffic, and designation of temporary I-195 needs to be eliminated to avoid traffic confusion.
There's a number of applications from Delaware also for renumbering I-95 as I-395/595 before settling for I-895 during the major widening/reconstruction project through Wilmington.
For Florida, there was a request to extend U.S. 431 south in 1961 from Dothan to Panama City Beach. The route was proposed along SR 77, SR 277 and SR 79 south to U.S. 98. It was denied because of redundancy with U.S. 231 and it not being the most direct route, etc via AASHO's point scoring system.
Interstate 195 was originally submitted on August 8, 1958 for the "Bayshore Connector". It was deleted and 195 reassigned to the current route between Miami and Miami Beach in 1959.
Interstate 220 in Jackson, Mississippi was originally referenced as Route A20
Interstate 420 in Monroe, Louisiana was approved in 1958, as was the full I-410 loop in Baton Rouge.
AASHO did question whether the proposals for I-10/610 in New Orleans, as to whether they should be reversed.
QuoteThe route carrying the major traffic stream should be allotted the two digit number and I am sure that you have considered this matter. However, Route 10 seems to be rather circuitous.
The Louisiana Department of Highways responded on September 3, 1958:
Quote...concluded that the two digit number should be assigned to the route indicated in our submission of July 25, since this routing will carry the vast majority of the Interstate traffic entering the city of New Orleans. Furthermore, the section showing numbered as 610 will not be constructed in the early years of the program, and for continuity of routing, the proposal as submitted by this office is believed to be appropriate.
The Texas urban submissions in 1958 outlined:
- "Interstate Highway F 20" - IH 820 as a three quarter loop missing the NW quadrant
- "Interstate Highway H 45" - IH 610 without the portion between IH 45 and IH 10 to the east
- "Interstate Highway S 10" - IH 410 without the segment between IH 10 and IH 35 to the north.
- "Interstate Highway D 35E" - IH 635 was the same.
Texas initially outlined IH 20 as overlapping with IH 10 west all the way to El Paso.
QuoteIn view of the instructions in Guide Number 6 in Purpose and Policy of Marking for the Interstate System, we are wondering if Interstate 20 in Texas should be considered terminated at its junction with U.S. 290 which is 40 miles west of Pecos, or should it continue in conjunction with Interstate 10 to a major control point, the city of El Paso.
A circumferential route around Texarkana was recommended for approval in November 1958. No number was assigned.
The alignment of IH 20 through Dallas/Fort Worth was outlined in 1958 as following what is now IH 30 east to IH 35W, then US 277 southeast to IH 820 and then the present alignment east into Dallas. Within Dallas, IH 20 followed US 67 northeast to an overlap with IH 35E to Downtown, and then IH 30 and US 80.
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on September 23, 2020, 08:05:54 AM
Also, US 86 was briefly proposed for "The Appalachian Corridor" in Alabama. I wonder to what that refers, since Corridors V and X were already US 72 and US 78 (now I-22) respectively.
Just found a 1933 Virginia request to establish US 86 from Norfolk to Roanoke. Included was a request to establish US 33 from Danville to Reedville. I guess AASHO said they can have 460 and 360 instead...
This would also be the second or third attempt at a US 33 that is not what ultimately became US 33 in Virginia alone...
Quote from: (redacted for privacy)This is like fucking Christmas.
Quote from: NE2 on September 22, 2020, 11:42:21 PM
Colored signs: https://na4.visualvault.com/app/AASHTO/Default/documentviewer?DhID=244fde34-4de6-ea11-a98a-ff9beffbfef8&hidemenu=true
The link returns a 404 error. Do you remember where you found the document?
One interesting thing I found was Ohio asked that US 20A be eliminated entirely in Ohio (from west of Ohio 15 to Maumee) in 1973. This was found to be "favorable" by AASHTO. Yet in 2020, US 20A is still field signed.
I'm going to have to block that website or I'll never get work done again...
Denver Colorado's Interstate numbering had a number of changes in the beginning.
I-225 between I-25 and I-70 was initially proposed as part of Route A25, as was I-270 west from I-70 to I-25. Both were proposed to be renumbered as Route 25E in a letter dated April 3, 1958.
A letter from July 31, 1958 to AASHO outlined renumbering both sections of Route A25 as I-225. A November 10, 1958 AASHO responded with the suggestion that I-225 between I-25 and I-70 to the north be renumbered as I-425.
AASHO satisfactory replied with the Colorado request to renumber I-425 to I-270 on February 26, 1959. This was because the location of I-80S changed to end at I-25 north of Denver, overlapping with one mile of the proposed I-425. So with the north end of I-425 being at I-80S and not I-25, Colorado proposed changing it to I-270.
Funny enough AASHO suggested that I-270 and I-80S might be overlapped west to I-25 (meaning they could have just left it as I-425):
QuoteFor actual accounting and record purposes 270 would have to terminate with its intersection with Route 70 and 80S. However, I suggest that you probably will have to extend the route numbering for the convenience of the travelling public from Route 70 to Route 25 and that you make a short section dually marked as 270 and 80s.
Quote from: Alex on September 23, 2020, 10:50:46 AM
Denver Colorado's Interstate numbering had a number of changes in the beginning.
I-225 between I-25 and I-70 was initially proposed as part of Route A25, as was I-270 west from I-70 to I-25. Both were proposed to be renumbered as Route 25E in a letter dated April 3, 1958.
A letter from July 31, 1958 to AASHO outlined renumbering both sections of Route A25 as I-225. A November 10, 1958 AASHO responded with the suggestion that I-225 between I-25 and I-70 to the north be renumbered as I-425.
It appears some states had placeholder letter designations for the urban interstate segments. Alabama (which had one make it to the RMcN) and Tennessee had them in the same format as Colorado, with letters at the front that did not start over if the mainline interstate number was different. Virginia did a slightly different method by numbering theirs U1, U2, etc. until they ran through their entire urban inventory.
Minnesota items some might find of interest
The infamous decommissioning of US 61 finally has an explanation: cost savings, the belief that US 61 was superfluous, and apparently an edict from FHWA about cleaning up unneeded duplexes.
There's a piece of correspondence from 1979 (with nothing else) stating that I-35E and I-35W should be kept "for now" citing a discussion about developments in the EIS study on I-35E and the state legislature. My interpretation of this is AASHTO was possibly pressing for I-35W to be renumbered as I-35 due to the difficulties the state was having in getting 35E built through St. Paul.
I found some cool stuff for my birth state of IL! Among the following are:
The 1966 relocation of I-494 from Lake Shore Drive to the Crosstown Expressway, with full freeway interchanges at the Kennedy-Edens split, Eisenhower, Southwest (Stevenson) and Dan Ryan Expressways; half-diamonds at Belmont Avenue (southbound), Diversey Avenue (northbound), Washington Street (southbound), Madison Street (northbound), Kedzie Avenue (westbound), Columbus Blvd (eastbound) and Halsted Street (eastbound); and full diamonds at Milwaukee Avenue, North Avenue, Chicago Avenue, 16th Street, 31st Street, Archer Avenue, 63rd Street, Pulaski Road and Ashland Avenue. Also, the orientation would change from N-S to E-W between Archer Avenue and 63rd Street.
Various 1950s applications for US 58 that would've run along parts of US 460 and US 51.
A 1974 application for I-53 that would've run from I-55 to I-80 and included what is now I-180.
A 1981 application for US 251 that would replace US 51, which was being relocated to a new freeway (now I-39). This route was eventually given an IL state route designation of the same number.
A 1990 application for I-37 that would run from I-55 at Lincoln to I-74 at Morton; it is now I-155.
Now if only we'd come across this in the early days of the pandemic shutdowns, time would have flown like an arrow!
.
Wow!! This is an amazing treasure. So many maps, and things way beyond what the AASHTO site SCORN Excel files had!!
Several attempts before Kentucky finally got US 127, and the first two tries had it running concurrently with US 25 and KY 22 to Owenton, instead of the current routing over what was a 2xx-series state route and KY 35 and a concurrency with US 42.
Quote from: Mapmikey on September 23, 2020, 11:02:20 AM
Quote from: Alex on September 23, 2020, 10:50:46 AM
Denver Colorado's Interstate numbering had a number of changes in the beginning.
I-225 between I-25 and I-70 was initially proposed as part of Route A25, as was I-270 west from I-70 to I-25. Both were proposed to be renumbered as Route 25E in a letter dated April 3, 1958.
A letter from July 31, 1958 to AASHO outlined renumbering both sections of Route A25 as I-225. A November 10, 1958 AASHO responded with the suggestion that I-225 between I-25 and I-70 to the north be renumbered as I-425.
It appears some states had placeholder letter designations for the urban interstate segments. Alabama (which had one make it to the RMcN) and Tennessee had them in the same format as Colorado, with letters at the front that did not start over if the mainline interstate number was different. Virginia did a slightly different method by numbering theirs U1, U2, etc. until they ran through their entire urban inventory.
One of the NY documents actually has an illustration of an "A" shield.
(https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-0/p280x280/120186738_2666660246915899_4848667312651487663_n.png?_nc_cat=101&_nc_sid=b96e70&_nc_ohc=TxV-bgkfbVcAX_gHz2I&_nc_ad=z-m&_nc_cid=0&_nc_ht=scontent.xx&oh=7086b124968ac47a286871fcdd4fff12&oe=5F8F7192)
I never realized how much of a mess it was to renumber I-80N/I-15W to I-84 and I-86- looking at the general timeline in a few different applications (a lot of the later drama is actually buried in the I-705 Washington application for some reason):
1. AASHTO recommends dumping suffixed interstates
2. Idaho takes the lead and recommends that all of I-80N from Echo to Portland is renumbered as I-82, never mind that I-82 in OR/WA already existed. They also recommend that I-15W (today's I-86) becomes I-84 and I-82 becomes I-84, but that the two I-84s do not run concurrent.
3. Utah writes a letter supporting this.
4. Oregon suggests this is insane and I-80N is working perfectly fine
5. Washington suggests that renumbering I-82 is insane
6. AASHTO hates the idea of having two I-84s and recommends I-15W becomes I-215 and I-82 is left as-is, with I-80N becoming I-84 or I-86.
7. Utah says "Okay we don't care what you call I-80N, but I-15W can't be I-215, that's the number of the SLC belt route, what about calling it I-115"
8. Idaho says "no, we are working on phasing out all three digit routes of all types in Idaho. Three digit route markers are more expensive and are more difficult to put on printed materials, so we insist on a two digit number" (this is apparently the actual reason for I-86 in Idaho!)
9. Oregon again suggests renumbering I-80N is a terrible idea because it will confuse everybody and cost businesses money, recommends renumbering I-80N only once the entire interstate system is built out.
10. Idaho and Utah think Oregon is being dumb, think it's better just to get the renumbering out of the way now.
11. Oregon gets the sense that AASHTO will approve the change, sends another letter stating they are withholding their presence from that year's AASHTO conference because of it.
12. AASHTO approves over the objections of Oregon and designates the interstates we know them today.
Also interesting to note that Idaho's application to renumber I-180 to I-184 only refers to it as I-180, not "I-180N" as has long been road enthusiast lore (though nobody has ever seen a sign in the field). The application even explicitly notes that there are several other I-180s.
Massachusetts confirming that the re-routed US 44 in Carver and Plymouth was supposed to be numbered as MA 44A (it's currently not numbered - outside of erroneous new signage calling it US 44 because Massachusetts).
From the file Other_CA_1926__.pdf (which includes some 1927 correspondence):
California says "According to our records, Route No. 66 ends at San Fernando and does not directly enter into Los Angeles." "Also the route does not enter the City of Los Angeles, the termination being at San Fernando which is north of Los Angeles... Route 66 passes through Pasadena, and it might be appropriate to mention that town." But then "Route 99, therefore, would extend south to Los Angeles and continue to follow Route 66 to San Bernardino..."
AASHO replies "I note that you do not seem to desire Route No. 66 as shown reaching Los Angeles, but we have had such a string of protests from the Automobile Club of Los Angeles and the people of the East are advertising No. 66 as a through route from Chicago to Los Angeles that I think we had better leave the description stand, although of course Los Angeles would be the next to last named city. You could erect a sign at the nearest point to the city limits of Los Angeles as you pass by."
So it seems both parties agreed the original terminus of 66 was in San Fernando (which actually matches the 1930 official (http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239599~5511899:Road-Map-of-the-State-of-California)! That would probably be the intersection of Maclay and San Fernando (not Truman).
Other_CA_1928__.pdf talks about moving 99 off 66 between SBD and LA.
Other_CA_1931__.pdf states that 66 had been signed to 101 in LA and then beyond to Santa Monica despite not having been approved by AASHO.
Other_CA_1936__ (2) has a very nice state map.
Quote from: usends on September 23, 2020, 10:23:51 AM
Quote from: NE2 on September 22, 2020, 11:42:21 PM
Colored signs: https://na4.visualvault.com/app/AASHTO/Default/documentviewer?DhID=244fde34-4de6-ea11-a98a-ff9beffbfef8&hidemenu=true
The link returns a 404 error. Do you remember where you found the document?
Correspondence (23) US 1 FL 1956 Correspondence 1956
Quote from: NE2 on September 23, 2020, 05:02:09 PM
From the file Other_CA_1926__.pdf (which includes some 1927 correspondence):
California says "According to our records, Route No. 66 ends at San Fernando and does not directly enter into Los Angeles." "Also the route does not enter the City of Los Angeles, the termination being at San Fernando which is north of Los Angeles... Route 66 passes through Pasadena, and it might be appropriate to mention that town." But then "Route 99, therefore, would extend south to Los Angeles and continue to follow Route 66 to San Bernardino..."
AASHO replies "I note that you do not seem to desire Route No. 66 as shown reaching Los Angeles, but we have had such a string of protests from the Automobile Club of Los Angeles and the people of the East are advertising No. 66 as a through route from Chicago to Los Angeles that I think we had better leave the description stand, although of course Los Angeles would be the next to last named city. You could erect a sign at the nearest point to the city limits of Los Angeles as you pass by."
So it seems both parties agreed the original terminus of 66 was in San Fernando (which actually matches the 1930 official (http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239599~5511899:Road-Map-of-the-State-of-California)! That would probably be the intersection of Maclay and San Fernando (not Truman).
Other_CA_1928__.pdf talks about moving 99 off 66 between SBD and LA.
Other_CA_1931__.pdf states that 66 had been signed to 101 in LA and then beyond to Santa Monica despite not having been approved by AASHO.
Other_CA_1936__ (2) has a very nice state map.
Regarding that 1930 Division of Highways Map I always wondered what was up with that and I guess that's the answer I've been looking for. That's still a clunky terminus given it essentially was carried to a San Fernando via a long multiplex of US 99 from San Bernardino.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 23, 2020, 05:16:54 PM
Regarding that 1930 Division of Highways Map I always wondered what was up with that and I guess that's the answer I've been looking for. That's still a clunky terminus given it essentially was carried to a San Fernando via a long multiplex of US 99 from San Bernardino.
Except it appears that US 99 went via city streets from Pasadena to LA and then Route 4 to San Fernando.
Quote from: NE2 on September 23, 2020, 05:26:11 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 23, 2020, 05:16:54 PM
Regarding that 1930 Division of Highways Map I always wondered what was up with that and I guess that's the answer I've been looking for. That's still a clunky terminus given it essentially was carried to a San Fernando via a long multiplex of US 99 from San Bernardino.
Except it appears that US 99 went via city streets from Pasadena to LA and then Route 4 to San Fernando.
I had a thought that maybe 99 was intended to go to downtown Los Angeles via San Fernando Road given that was direct line to Legislative Route 4. From there I have no idea how it would get East towards San Bernardino given most of that infrastructure was built up post 1933 when the DOH could maintain roads in cities. If that were the case it would make a lot more sense to have 66 end at 99 in San Fernando. Really a signed highway could have been anywhere in those incorporated cities back then, it would just largely depend on where the ACSC wanted to sign them.
I've been pouring over the database and found that there's even average people who suggested ideas for highways back then. There's correspondence in 1951 and 1953 between a gentleman in Spokane, Washington and AASHO, where the resident of Spokane wrote to suggest an extension of US 8 between Minneapolis and Spokane.
https://na4.visualvault.com/app/AASHTO/Default/documentviewer?DhID=0f5003d8-c5d5-ea11-a98a-ff9beffbfef8&hidemenu=true (https://na4.visualvault.com/app/AASHTO/Default/documentviewer?DhID=0f5003d8-c5d5-ea11-a98a-ff9beffbfef8&hidemenu=true)
https://na4.visualvault.com/app/AASHTO/Default/documentviewer?DhID=1a602b0e-c6d5-ea11-a98a-ff9beffbfef8&hidemenu=true (https://na4.visualvault.com/app/AASHTO/Default/documentviewer?DhID=1a602b0e-c6d5-ea11-a98a-ff9beffbfef8&hidemenu=true)
Speaking of that, check out the letter from the guy who wanted to extend US 136 (!) to Eugene, Oregon! It's in the Oregon file under 136.
I've also run across some route enthusiasts...
Other tidbits:
US 55 and US 155 requested by Kansas (eventually became US 56 and 156)
New corridor Panama City FL to Richmond VA using nearly all of MSR 49 in VA-NC-SC (no number floated)
MSR 121 was attempted to become a US route in 1964, but only south of Augusta. No number floated.
US 378 extension to Scottsboro AL denied
US 276 extension denial in 1941 was through GSMNP to Knoxville
New corridor Carthage MO to Pueblo Co (1962, no number floated)
Louisiana tried to extend US 98 to Monroe 3 times: 1955 and 1968 rejected; 1956 was told they could have US 265, then Louisiana said no
In 1930, when US 60 still ended in Springfield MO, there was apparently an effort by Missouri, Kansas, Colorado, and Utah to extend US 60 west to Cortez, Colorado (presumably along US 160), and northwest to Monticello, Utah. It was understood at the time that it would be impossible to route a US highway southwest from Monticello because of poor road quality - but future extensions would route it down the corridors of what is now US 191 to Bluff, US 163 to Kayenta, US 160 to Tuba City, US 89 north to Mt Carmel, Utah 9 west through Zion National Park to La Verkin, and Utah 17 north to US 91 (now I-15) at Anderson Junction.
https://na4.visualvault.com/app/AASHTO/Default/documentviewer?DhID=a28f3cc4-52e6-ea11-a98a-ff9beffbfef8&hidemenu=true
In the 1950 extension of US 441 to Miami, the Pahokee Lions' Club, Pahokee Rotary Club, Belle Glade Chamber of Commerce, and a lawyer made sure to have their say to Governor Spessard Holland, since US 441 would have turned south on the diagonal route of "mid-modern-era" SR 716 (later US 98, now just SR 700) which would have bypassed Pahokee and Belle Glade, instead of taking SR 15. So they proposed an "Alternate US 441" from Canal Point to Twenty Mile Bend, but that 19.3 mile option was rejected.
...and there's a telegram enclosed.
Originally, it was going to overlap US 1 from SR 80 in Palm Beach, but with US 94's "merger" to US 41, suddenly positioning it to US 441 along SR 7 made more sense. The north part of the state wanted it to go as far west as Perry, but Georgia wanted it from Baldwin/Cornelia and then to points south as we see it today. So Perry was rejected in 1948 in favor of High Springs.
Arkansas wanted a US 427 (Application_AR_1994_427_US) -- approved, but numbered US 371
Apparently in 1963 WA/ID/MT/ND/MN came back after "US 200" was rejected on MSR 200 and suggested a slightly different routing...asking for it to be an extension of US 8!
https://na4.visualvault.com/app/AASHTO/Default/documentviewer?DhID=85da96cb-4ee6-ea11-a98a-ff9beffbfef8&hidemenu=true
Also at least somebody wanted US 789 to be numbered US 777
https://na4.visualvault.com/app/AASHTO/Default/documentviewer?DhID=96fa72b3-c5d5-ea11-a98a-ff9beffbfef8&hidemenu=true
It looks like the extension of US 16 to Yellowstone over what was then US 14/20 was due to some businessowner strongarming the Wyoming Congressman
https://na4.visualvault.com/app/AASHTO/Default/documentviewer?DhID=6fdf62ad-c5d5-ea11-a98a-ff9beffbfef8&hidemenu=true
Quote from: Mapmikey on September 23, 2020, 07:41:17 PM
Louisiana tried to extend US 98 to Monroe 3 times: 1955 and 1968 rejected; 1956 was told they could have US 265, then Louisiana said no
While it runs some differently, US-425 is pretty much this route (It followed an existing route through Rayville a little over 20 miles further east.). This was finally done in the late 1980's. While the north south route of 425 is proper, it is over 600 miles to US 25. Clearly US 98 would have fit better than 425 in spite of the change of direction.
New Mexico and Texas proposed a US 114 in 1975, which would have run from Dallas to US 70 at Elida, NM along the existing TX/NM 114. AASHTO denied it because of low traffic, poor geometry, and "overconcentration of US Routes".
https://na4.visualvault.com/app/AASHTO/Default/documentviewer?DhID=520d71cb-54e6-ea11-a98a-ff9beffbfef8&hidemenu=true
These visualvault.com URLs seem to be valid only for the person doing the search. The US 114 link was 2 minutes old and already 404'ed.
Another interesting one: in 2003, Arizona applied to decommission I-40 Business in Kingman. Their reasoning? Because it was also Historic US 66 and having two numbers was confusing.
https://na4.visualvault.com/app/AASHTO/Default/documentviewer?DhID=fc1fb464-56e6-ea11-a98a-ff9beffbfef8&hidemenu=true
Quote from: kurumi on September 24, 2020, 12:32:57 AM
These visualvault.com URLs seem to be valid only for the person doing the search. The US 114 link was 2 minutes old and already 404'ed.
If you've done a search yourself recently, all the links should work.
Quote from: kurumi on September 24, 2020, 12:32:57 AM
These visualvault.com URLs seem to be valid only for the person doing the search. The US 114 link was 2 minutes old and already 404'ed.
Yea, unfortunately, I don't know exactly why. That's why I only linked the primary URL.
Anyways, I appreciate the thanks, and I had no clue what this would get as big as it did.
EDIT: Found out that the links work after searching yourself. Weird, but great to know.
Wow, US 371 in Arkansas and Louisiana was originally going to be US 427. That number is out of whack, and AASHTO rightly gave it a more appropriate number. Was US 427 meant to be one of the 400-412-425 series highways?
Quote from: bugo on September 24, 2020, 09:45:02 AM
Wow, US 371 in Arkansas and Louisiana was originally going to be US 427. That number is out of whack, and AASHTO rightly gave it a more appropriate number. Was US 427 meant to be one of the 400-412-425 series highways?
I found evidence the 412 number was made up by one of the states and was initially rejected because it had no relationship to US 12.
My guess on 427 was that it was just west of 425.
Quote from: Mapmikey on September 24, 2020, 12:44:05 PM
Quote from: bugo on September 24, 2020, 09:45:02 AM
Wow, US 371 in Arkansas and Louisiana was originally going to be US 427. That number is out of whack, and AASHTO rightly gave it a more appropriate number. Was US 427 meant to be one of the 400-412-425 series highways?
I found evidence the 412 number was made up by one of the states and was initially rejected because it had no relationship to US 12.
How did it get approved, then?
Likewise, I could find nothing on 400–Kansas proposing it to promote southern Kansas tourism, Missouri going along with it to be nice, and not once was the number discussed in official correspondence.
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 24, 2020, 02:50:18 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on September 24, 2020, 12:44:05 PM
Quote from: bugo on September 24, 2020, 09:45:02 AM
Wow, US 371 in Arkansas and Louisiana was originally going to be US 427. That number is out of whack, and AASHTO rightly gave it a more appropriate number. Was US 427 meant to be one of the 400-412-425 series highways?
I found evidence the 412 number was made up by one of the states and was initially rejected because it had no relationship to US 12.
How did it get approved, then?
Likewise, I could find nothing on 400–Kansas proposing it to promote southern Kansas tourism, Missouri going along with it to be nice, and not once was the number discussed in official correspondence.
No other document explicitly labeled 412 had anything further.
A lot of the CORRESPONDENCE documents have no route number associated and I haven't taken the time yet to try to find other 1980s documents that show what happened.
But the 400-412-425-437 thing is debunked with the 412 situation alone.
It's probably for another thread, but it is fascinating to think of how these routes may have changed over time.
For instance, using the US-24-to-Utah example, I'd say that its route gets smoothed out over time as I-70 and UT-24 are built through the San Rafael Swell and Wayne County, respectively.
My gut says that if the extension went through, you'd see 24 running along UT-20, (US-89), UT-62, and UT-24 to I-70, then overlapping US-6 (and I-70) to its current west end near Minturn.
Tip: Leave the state field blank, if you can't find something. I found a US 219 document filed under NC.
Quite a fight from local businesses in East Aurora and Warsaw, NY when US 20 was moved from what is now 20A to its current alignment! Wanted "Scenic US 20" instead.
And now it's broken.
EDIT: Now it's working again.
The letterhead for the Oklahoma State Highway Commission in 1926 was really cool. It was replaced a couple of years later with a much more boring design.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50382302576_162ae240ef_c.jpg)
Quote from: Rover_0 on September 24, 2020, 09:47:24 PM
For instance, using the US-24-to-Utah example, I'd say that it's route gets smoothed out over time as I-70 and UT-24 are built through the San Rafael Swell and Wayne County, respectively.
My gut says that if the extension went through, you'd see 24 running along UT-20, (US-89), UT-62, and UT-24 to I-70, then overlapping US-6 (and I-70) to its current west end near Minturn.
This is actually why SR 62 goes where it does, by the way. The road from US 89 near Kingston to Otter Creek Reservoir used to be part of SR 22, but it was changed to 62 in 1967 for route continuity - because UDOT was fully aware that people were using it as an east-west through route with SR 24 to the north.
More fun found:
US 269 in Missouri turned down
US 301 extension to Everglades City turned down
US 319 extension to Panama City as a longer US 98 overlay denied
Long US 301 ALT from Effingham to Allendale via Walterboro was turned down
MSR 28 (NC/GA/SC) turned down with no number floated
Another US 55 proposal, from Wisconsin to Nogales!
Have to research to see if there was a typo but it appears Oklahoma tried to get US 477
US 378 was supposed to go to Myrtle Beach with US 501 rerouted to US 17 near the NC Line (denied)
As late as 1979 they were still trying to get rid of some of Tennessee's suffixed routes, specifically US 25W. Both AASHO and Tenn floated proposals involving US 119 extending south via TN 63. Don't know why changes weren't enacted.
Georgia tried to originally extend US 25 to Waycross instead of Brunswick
The transition from the 1925 US route list to the 1927 list was multistep:
There was a list of changes/additions in Jan 1926
Another list was in Sept 1926
Both lists are in the same document, search MINUTES 1926 and IL
Are there commercial maps that show the snapshot between Jan and Sept 1926?
The 10-12 swap for instance was in Jan but the 60-66 swap was in Sept. Not all the changes in these interim lists had numbers but I found at least 1 number that was explicitly assigned (570) in the interim that was not on either the 1925 or final 1927 list.
The US 15-17 changes in Walterboro SC were done in 3 consecutive AASHO meetings:
1. Move US 17, AASHO rejected keeping original 17 in as US 17 ALT (so what was the state route designation between Yemassee and Walterboro? SC Officials make it seem steps 1 and 2 were combined)
2. Extend US 15 to Pocotaligo
3. Approve the much longer US 17 ALT which AASHO made contingent on rolling US 15 back to Walterboro
Pro Tip #1 - you can find the approval/rejection summaries more or less in order for the early days by searching MINUTES with no other parameters. Whoever put this database together sometimes assigned it to the state where the meeting was held. Quite a number of intrastate corridors were turned down (mostly without numbers floated)
Pro Tip #2 - the search return maxes out at 200 and some states have more than 200 items, so you have to search with each document type to see them all.
It will take a ton of researching to piece together every officially requested US route that ultimately was declined. Some proposals are in CORRESPONDENCE or OTHER documents only. I had thought the Droz site had nearly everything there was to have but it turns out this is nowhere near being true...historical documents are finally being made available.
There are solved mysteries about specific endpoints that Dale Sanderson can use. For example:
US 191 was never moved to the US 20 freeway at Idaho Falls to I-15 in the 1970s
US 98 ended at the center of the Mississippi River Bridge
Quote from: bugo on September 25, 2020, 10:36:53 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on September 25, 2020, 09:34:26 AM
More fun found:
Another US 55 proposal, from Wisconsin to Nogales!
I have known about this for about 8 years now. I was viewing the 1957 Oklahoma official highway map, and noticed that what became US 56 was marked as US 55. Later, I found some PDF documents in the bowels of the ODOT website that said that the highway was going to be US 55 until somebody noticed that it runs E-W and it was changed to US 56. I posted about it on this forum when I found out about it in 2012, but it didn't get many replies. and was largely forgotten.
Searching a little more, there was really just 1 US 55 proposal that got recycled
1. 1954 - Wisconsin to Nogales
2. 1955 - Kansas requested US 155 to associate with proposed US 55 (I originally misread this one to have a KS-only US 55)
3. 1956 - this started as a rehash of the 1954 proposal then revised to be Springer to KC
Search route 55 with no states. The Wisc 1954 one shows all the states' intended routes for US 55 to Arizona
Quote from: Rover_0 on September 22, 2020, 01:56:10 PM
In talking with someone at AASHTO, they provided a link to look at past Interstate, U.S., and Bike Route applications.
Did your AASHTO contact say this digitization project is complete? Or is it ongoing, with additional material still being added?
Quote from: usends on September 25, 2020, 01:59:27 PM
Quote from: Rover_0 on September 22, 2020, 01:56:10 PM
In talking with someone at AASHTO, they provided a link to look at past Interstate, U.S., and Bike Route applications.
Did your AASHTO contact say this digitization project is complete? Or is it ongoing, with additional material still being added?
They said that it was ongoing and that this list isn't complete.
For instance, I don't think there's anything on Kansas' proposal to extend US-270 north to I-70—at least when I first searched for it.
EDIT: It's incorrectly listed as an *Interstate 270* application.
Quote from: Rover_0 on September 25, 2020, 02:23:15 PM
Quote from: usends on September 25, 2020, 01:59:27 PM
Did your AASHTO contact say this digitization project is complete? Or is it ongoing, with additional material still being added?
They said that it was ongoing and that this list isn't complete.
Yeah, that likely explains why we haven't been able to find some of the documentation that probably exists. I wonder how long it will take for them to finish digitizing everything. I'm sure it's a huge project...
You never know how long a website stays online, and this one seems a little sketchy, so I'm downloading all of the PDF files that I view. If the site goes down and stays down, I will still have those documents on my hard drive. I recommend that everybody saves the more interesting documents on your computer.
There are some really great maps in some of these PDF files. And the scans are very high in quality, and you can zoom way in and it doesn't get blurry.
Here are a few things I have noticed so far, mostly in the Mid South region
:
-Arkansas and Louisiana really wanted a US route from Pine Bluff to Clayton, mostly along today's US 425. They sent in an application for this route to be US 265, and it was disapproved. They then sent in one for it to be US 65W, but AASHO quickly shut that one down.
-When US 167 was rerouted between Thornton and El Dorado to go through Hampton instead of Camden, the locals in Camden threw a temper tantrum and tried to get it reversed. Their excuse was that while it was 10 miles shorter, the new 167 route through Hampton was mostly gravel and had a *gasp* toll bridge over the Ouachita River. When they were laughed out of the building for that proposal, they tried to get the old US 167 route through Camden to be renumbered US 167W and the new route through Hampton to be renumbered US 167E. This was also the source of much laughter, and Camden threw another hissy fit. Having US 167 taken away from them caused massive amounts of butthurt to Camden's leaders. AASHO reminded Camden that they had just approved US 79 to run through their town (part of it even ran along old US 167) and that the town was still on the US route system, but Camden still whined about it. They claimed US 67 having E and W routes set a precedent, despite AASHO policy had changed since the E/W splits were approved. They finally gave up, I presume.
-The Broadway of America Association wanted what was then US 70 and AR 7 (today, it is AR 5 and AR 7) to be signed as US 67W. It was never taken seriously.
-The original plans for US 270 had it running through Mena and Norman, following today's US 270 from the Oklahoma line east to Acorn, then US 71 south to Mena, then AR 8 east to Glenwood, then US 70 east to Hot Springs. Why it would overlap with US 70 and end in Hot Springs is a mystery. It would have been better to have ended it in Glenwood. It's a moot point, because it was discovered that today's AR 8 in Polk and Montgomery Counties was not up to standards and was still unimproved in some areas. So they routed it north on 71 through Foran Gap and then east on what was then AR 6 to Hot Springs.
-The reason that US 63 ended in Memphis for years was because the original plan was to extend US 63 to Biloxi. They extended 63 to Memphis. but they declined the section from Memphis to Biloxi, because it would have apparently followed US 49 and/or US 51 through most of the state. These documents make it clear that US 63 had a segment in Tennessee and didn't just end at the state line. I assume it ended at the foot of the Memphis-Arkansas Bridge.
US 70 east of De Queen was in poor shape for years, so a Temporary US 70 was commissioned to follow US 71 from the US 70 split south to Lockesburg, then AR 24 (now US 371) east (south) to Nashville, then AR 27 to Kirby where it ended at US 70. This temporary routing was AASHO-approved, and was officially a US highway.
Much more to come...
According to several of the documents in this archive, AASHO placed a moratorium on adding new US highways from approximately July, 1929 to July, 1930.
US 371 apparently did exist for a short time in 1929 and 1930, between the time that US 271 was rerouted to run from Poteau to Wister and eventually to Hugo instead of Poteau to Heavener and Mena and the time that US 270 was commissioned. I hope to find the exact dates buried somewhere deep in the bowels of this archive.
There was a proposal for a US highway between Springfield, MO to Ft Smith, AR that was truncated in both directions and the final proposal ran from Monett, MO to Rogers, AR. If it had been approved, it would have probably ended at US 62 in Gateway, just barely across the state line. This route is currently MO/AR 37. It was denied because it was only a little more than 30 miles long, so Missouri reverted to plan B, which was to apply for a US 269 that would have begun in either Rogers or Gateway and would have followed MO 37 north to US 60 north to MO 13 north to end at US 69 at Bethany.
If that US 371 really happened, it would be the 4th number, and the only one not to start with 4, to have been used three times (the others are US 48, US 401 and US 411).
Quote from: Mapmikey on September 25, 2020, 09:34:26 AM
More fun found:
Another US 55 proposal, from Wisconsin to Nogales!
That would have replaced all of US 151 except the segment from Cedar Rapids to Anamosa, where it would have followed US 30 and IA 261 (now 1). It would have also replaced IA 149*, followed US 63 and 34 through Ottumwa, and replaced IA 60 (now 5) from Albia through Centerville into Missouri.
There was a 1955 submission filed under US 34 in Iowa to extend US 26 from Ogallala, NE, to Fort Recovery, OH. It would have followed NE/IA 2, IL 9, and IN 26.
Per the “other” documents filed under Iowa, requests were submitted in the late 1930s/early 1940s to add IA 9 and IA 92 to the US Highway system, but they were ultimately declined.
In 1957, the Knoxville Chamber of Commerce went directly to AASHO for an Alternate US 65 along IA 117, IA 163, IA 14, and IA 2 for US 65 traffic to bypass Des Moines. AASHO deferred them to the Iowa Highway Commission, who apparently took no action.
And Illinois wanted to extend US 218 from Keokuk to Cairo in 1956, replacing all of IL 127 and following a series of existing US and state highways through Carthage, Mount Sterling, and Jacksonville. AASHO turned it down because the need for the extension was not given in the application (which is filed under bike routes for some reason).
*That wouldn’t be the last time IA 149 would be considered as a US Highway. It’s not in the document library, but after US 151 was extended from Cedar Rapids to I-80 in 1985, civic leaders in Sigourney wanted US 151 to replace the rest of 149. The Iowa DOT turned down their request in 1986, citing the poor condition of 149 at the time.
Quote from: bugo on September 26, 2020, 10:52:53 AM
US 371
"Other (4)" OK 1929 page 40: December 7, 1929, the executive secretary authorized Oklahoma to designate former 271 south of Poteau as 371.
"Minutes_DC_1930__" page 4: May 26, 1930 meeting, 270 was approved to include Mena-Poteau. Thus 371 was implicitly killed.
1926: Virginia is filed under Utah.
1927: Virginia and Washington are filed under Utah.
1929: Virginia is filed under Utah.
As early as January 1927, Tennessee was signing mapping unapproved directional splits. AASHO approved them in 1929.
Quote from: NE2 on September 27, 2020, 11:41:37 PM
1926: Virginia is filed under Utah.
1927: Virginia and Washington are filed under Utah.
1929: Virginia is filed under Utah.
There is a bunch of stuff misfiled under Utah through the early years (I've seen some Ohio stuff somewhere in there, too), most likely because AASHO President Henry H. Blood was from Utah and had a mailing address in Salt Lake City.
There are quite a few misfiled documents ("US" vs. "Interstate", some route numbers, etc.).
Filed under "DC" are more than 200 docs, many addressing non-DC or nationwide issues (such as what appears to be a late 1970s interstate route log). It's a bit of a treasure hunt, but there's some good treasure.
Edit: "Other_DC_1927__" is a 143-page doc announcing the birth of the US system, with strip maps of many major routes
There are some correspondence under IL and US Routes that have never entered that state. Those are inquiries from Rand McNally.
Quote from: kurumi on September 28, 2020, 12:50:27 AM
Edit: "Other_DC_1927__" is a 143-page doc announcing the birth of the US system, with strip maps of many major routes
A second Other_DC_1927 document contains all 50 states replying to the question of what percentage of the US routes have you actually signed?
Useful for questions like, was US 511 ever signed? The answer is no (I've seen a separate document saying TN still hadn't signed their US routes as of Feb 1929).
LOL - New Jersey not only said no posting, they said they hadn't even decided to accept the concept of interstate routes...
Quote from: Mapmikey on September 28, 2020, 06:49:12 AM
A second Other_DC_1927 document contains all 48 states replying to the question of what percentage of the US routes have you actually signed?
FTFY. Alaska and Hawaii weren't states yet at the time.
Quote from: US 89 on September 28, 2020, 12:26:58 AM
There is a bunch of stuff misfiled under Utah through the early years (I've seen some Ohio stuff somewhere in there, too), most likely because AASHO President Henry H. Blood was from Utah and had a mailing address in Salt Lake City.
There are a bunch of files in the Oklahoma section that are actually for Oregon. I wonder if there are a whole bunch of OK documents that are filed in another state's folder.
Quote from: kurumi on September 28, 2020, 12:50:27 AM
"Other_DC_1927__" is a 143-page doc announcing the birth of the US system, with strip maps of many major routes
Can you either post the URL, or else the search parameters you used to find this? I'm using various combinations of "DC", "1927" and "Other", but I can't seem to find it.
A few more Minnesota tidbits not mentioned by Patrick (TheHighwayMan394):
- US 169 was not an original U.S. route. Minnesota requested its addition as early as 1927.
- Correspondence from Minnesota in 1930 regarding US 10 and US 12 crossing into Wisconsin. Both routes were originally routed via the Hudson, WI toll bridge because there was no other bridge available. In 1930 the Prescott bridge was being built, initially as a toll bridge but with both Minnesota and Wisconsin negotiating to make it toll-free. Minnesota requested that, upon removal of the Prescott tolls, that US 10 be permanently rerouted to that bridge and US 12 be temporarily routed there as well until the Hudson bridge became toll-free.
- More 1930 correspondence, with Minnesota giving its blessing to South Dakota's request to extend US 77 from Milbank to Ortonville.
- Relevant to upthread conversation about US routes in Arkansas, approval of US 371 from Little Falls to Cass Lake (with recommended concurrency along US 2 to Bemidji) in 1931. "I am suggesting that route be run in Over Route 2 to Bemidji and then be designated as U.S. 371. The No. 271 is already in use."
- A 1932 request by the "U.S. 69 Highway Association" to extend US 69 from Albert Lea to International Falls. Minnesota Highway Department declined.
- US 14 extension from Winona, MN to Chicago in 1933. Minnesota had a preference to routing it via LaCrescent (as wound up being approved), but otherwise was deferring to Wisconsin as to how the extension would traverse that state. So there was a possibility it could have crossed the river at Winona instead of LaCrescent-LaCrosse. The other interesting thing is that the AASHO Executive Committee decided to approve the US 14 extension in March, without waiting for the annual meeting in June.
- A 1933 proposal by local interests to extend US 77 from Milbank, SD to Fargo, ND via Rosholt, ND. From what I can tell, the "local interests" comprised of groups in Milbank, Rosholt, Roberts County (SD), and the publisher of the newspaper in Browns Valley, MN. There seems to have been some misunderstanding involved...as the groups apparently weren't aware that US 77 was extended to Ortonville three years prior (see above), and AASHO wasn't interested in extending US 77 from Ortonville, nevermind that the proposal came from private citizens instead of the respective state transportation commissions, though a Minnesota Congressman representing the area did send an inquiry letter to AASHO.
The proposed route appears to have continued north from Milbank (via today's SD 15), then gone to Browns Valley, MN, then north along the west side of Lake Traverse to Rosholt where it would meet then-US 81, then concurrent with US 81 up to Fargo. The proposers pushed this as a "more direct route" from Sioux Falls to Fargo. AASHO's disinterest focuses mainly on the proposal not reaching them via the state authorities, but in their correspondence they also cited the lengthy concurrency with US 81, having both US 75 and US 81 as north-south routes in the region, and the proposed route following county roads instead of state roads. - In 1935, AASHO initially approved the extension of US 59 via Granite Falls, Montevideo, and Benson (basically today's MN 23, US 212, MN 29, and MN 9). Minnesota felt this was an error and sent a clarifying letter noting that improved routes were either already built or under construction more directly connecting Marshall and Morris via Montevideo and Appleton (i.e. today's US 59). AASHO concurred and corrected it in the final update.
- US 77's later, approved, truncation from Ortonville to Milbank, SD in 1966.
A whole lot more in there. I'll probably make a separate post about the jumble of changes (and various proposals) that occurred in the 1933-34 timeframe.
One more I just found: a 1950 request from the Minneapolis Junior Chamber of Commerce for a single U.S. route number running from "Indian River City" (Titusville, FL) via Orlando, Columbus (GA), Birmingham (AL), East St. Louis (IL), Cedar Rapids (IA), and St. Paul (MN), to the Candian border at Pembina, ND. The group claimed (rather falsely) that "there are few, if any, highways across the United Sgtates that have one number.". They also claimed that tourists spend too many hours plotting their vacations and that such a route would increase tourist travel in the communities along the route.
AASHO denied it on the simple basis that the request didn't come from the respective state highway departments, but went further noting the need for "strong justification in the form of traffic survey data" and also corrected their false claim.
Quote from: usends on September 28, 2020, 10:35:58 AM
Quote from: kurumi on September 28, 2020, 12:50:27 AM
"Other_DC_1927__" is a 143-page doc announcing the birth of the US system, with strip maps of many major routes
Can you either post the URL, or else the search parameters you used to find this? I'm using various combinations of "DC", "1927" and "Other", but I can't seem to find it.
Search DC and 1927...just 4 documents come up and it's one of the first two...
Quote from: froggie on September 28, 2020, 11:05:26 AM
One more I just found: a 1950 request from the Minneapolis Junior Chamber of Commerce for a single U.S. route number running from "Indian River City" (Titusville, FL) via Orlando, Columbus (GA), Birmingham (AL), East St. Louis (IL), Cedar Rapids (IA), and St. Paul (MN), to the Candian border at Pembina, ND. The group claimed (rather falsely) that "there are few, if any, highways across the United Sgtates that have one number.". They also claimed that tourists spend too many hours plotting their vacations and that such a route would increase tourist travel in the communities along the route.
AASHO denied it on the simple basis that the request didn't come from the respective state highway departments, but went further noting the need for "strong justification in the form of traffic survey data" and also corrected their false claim.
So score another US Route denial for poor old FL 50? That road is so important to that part of the state but couldn't get an ounce of respect from the AASHO.
Quote from: Mapmikey on September 28, 2020, 12:35:09 PM
Quote from: usends on September 28, 2020, 10:35:58 AM
Quote from: kurumi on September 28, 2020, 12:50:27 AM
"Other_DC_1927__" is a 143-page doc announcing the birth of the US system, with strip maps of many major routes
Can you either post the URL, or else the search parameters you used to find this? I'm using various combinations of "DC", "1927" and "Other", but I can't seem to find it.
Search DC and 1927...just 4 documents come up and it's one of the first two...
This is what I'm seeing...
(https://i.imgur.com/kvdwh4k.png)
I think it's ok to just post the URL. My understanding is that works as long as you're already in the database and you paste in the link.
Quote from: usends on September 28, 2020, 01:18:24 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on September 28, 2020, 12:35:09 PM
Quote from: usends on September 28, 2020, 10:35:58 AM
Quote from: kurumi on September 28, 2020, 12:50:27 AM
"Other_DC_1927__" is a 143-page doc announcing the birth of the US system, with strip maps of many major routes
Can you either post the URL, or else the search parameters you used to find this? I'm using various combinations of "DC", "1927" and "Other", but I can't seem to find it.
Search DC and 1927...just 4 documents come up and it's one of the first two...
This is what I'm seeing...
(https://i.imgur.com/kvdwh4k.png)
I think it's ok to just post the URL. My understanding is that works as long as you're already in the database and you paste in the link.
https://na4.visualvault.com/app/AASHTO/Default/documentviewer?DhID=e7695a22-55e6-ea11-a98a-ff9beffbfef8&hidemenu=true
Quote from: usends on September 28, 2020, 10:35:58 AM
Quote from: kurumi on September 28, 2020, 12:50:27 AM
"Other_DC_1927__" is a 143-page doc announcing the birth of the US system, with strip maps of many major routes
Can you either post the URL, or else the search parameters you used to find this? I'm using various combinations of "DC", "1927" and "Other", but I can't seem to find it.
Search for state == "DC", year == 1927 works for me. There are 4 results. Two have the same "Other_DC_1927__" name. The first is the 143-page doc, the second is a "status of highway markings and sign erection" doc that may also be of interest.
Quote from: kurumi on September 28, 2020, 01:46:10 PM
Search for state == "DC", year == 1927 works for me. There are 4 results. Two have the same "Other_DC_1927__" name. The first is the 143-page doc, the second is a "status of highway markings and sign erection" doc that may also be of interest.
I found the problem: I had left the database open in a browser tab for a few days, and it was no longer working properly, even after refreshing the page. Instead I had to re-open the URL.
Anyway, that document is a great find. The first section talks at length about the conditions of US 40 across the country, and I love this excerpt from p. 8:
Quote
...the excellent gravel roads make 40 miles an hour a comfortable speed. It is probable that the ordinary driver will average about 150 miles a day for the entire trip, and at this rate the journey from coast to coast may be made in three weeks."
Quote from: kurumi on September 28, 2020, 01:46:10 PM
Search for state == "DC", year == 1927 works for me. There are 4 results. Two have the same "Other_DC_1927__" name. The first is the 143-page doc, the second is a "status of highway markings and sign erection" doc that may also be of interest.
One of the other documents that comes up in that search is the April 1927 route log that Droz used as the primary source on the 1927 listing on his website. It contains the errors he and others have noted, e.g. US 89 beginning in "Armington" (instead of Spanish Fork), the omission of US 611, etc.
It appears that this database only includes data that dates before 2015. I came upon the lack of results after searching for the I-587 (NC) AASHTO submission from 2016.
^ Perhaps because all submissions and meeting materials for 2015 through 2019 are on another webpage (https://route.transportation.org/past-meetings/)...
Found an amusing typo in the Mass. application to reroute US 20 onto I-291 in Springfield in 1972 (besides referring to the application as being for an Interstate), the hand-drawn key for the map of the new route labels the red line as being "US Route 20 (as presently appv'd by ASSHO)". Perhaps that's why Mass. doesn't send to many applications to them these days. :-D
A lot of the files have now been uploaded to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Minutes_from_the_American_Association_of_State_Highway_and_Transportation_Officials.
There is a project to transcribe them on https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Portal:American_Association_of_State_Highway_and_Transportation_Officials.
The 1984 application by Georgia for requesting the establishment of I-516 has two items of interest. In a letter dated June 20, 1984 from the FHWA to GDOT, there were requests for adding SR 400 from I-285 north to SR 306 near Cumming as an Interstate (29 miles), and SR 316 from I-85 east to SR 120 west of Lawrenceville (5 miles) as an Interstate, with SR 316 east from SR 120 to U.S. 29/SR 8 as a future addition (5.5 miles).
FHWA responded on SR 400:
QuoteWe find that this route would not be a logical addition to the Interstate System because this route lacks the unique characteristics which would warrant incorporation as part of the Interstate System.
FHWA responded on SR 316:
QuoteThe segment between I-85 and SR 120 west of Lawrenceville was requested as an addition under Section 139(a). The segment between SR 120 and SR 8 was requested as a future addition under section 139(b). We find that both segments of this route would not be logical additions to the Interstate System because the route lacks the unique characteristics which would warrant incorporation as part of the Interstate System.
The same letter cited that adding SR 365 from I-85 to Gainesville [I-985]
Quotewould be a logical addition to provide a direct Interstate connection for Gainesville which is approaching the status of an urbanized area.
^^^
Georgia also applied to swap the I-75 & I-475 designations in Macon and extend I-16 to the current I-75/475 split north of town.
Another extension I found interesting is that Kentucky wanted to extend US-58 to East St. Louis, IL in 1955. Link below (just remember to search beforehand.)
https://na4.visualvault.com/app/AASHTO/Default/documentviewer?DhID=a8fb03a8-bbd5-ea11-a98a-ff9beffbfef8&hidemenu=true
It should be under US 58, KY, 1955.
Quote from: bugo on September 30, 2020, 11:23:04 AM
When the US 60 extension west of Springfield, there was some uncertainty about its routing. One plan sent US 60 into Kansas and ending in Colorado, and extending US 164 east to Springfield. The proposed US 60 routing in Kansas and Colorado was replaced largely by US 160.
It's almost like US-160 was a "failed" US-60 extension–just slap a 1 in front of the number! Same thing, right?
At least 160 didn't become a 1000+ mile US-60N; in that sense you could call 160's numbering more forward-thinking.
Quote from: Rover_0 on September 30, 2020, 11:28:22 AM
Quote from: bugo on September 30, 2020, 11:23:04 AM
When the US 60 extension west of Springfield, there was some uncertainty about its routing. One plan sent US 60 into Kansas and ending in Colorado, and extending US 164 east to Springfield. The proposed US 60 routing in Kansas and Colorado was replaced largely by US 160.
It's almost like US-160 was a "failed" US-60 extension–just slap a 1 in front of the number! Same thing, right?
At least 160 didn't become a 1000+ mile US-60N; in that sense you could call 160's numbering more forward-thinking.
I'd argue that end result of US 60 and US 160 was the right call. US 66 the was planned as US 60 originally outside forces changed that because they wanted an X0 Route. Getting the final US 60 across the country in just a couple years really panned out since it was built over a lot of new highway like the Salt River Canyon and the Sonoran Desert in California.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 30, 2020, 12:13:54 PM
Quote from: Rover_0 on September 30, 2020, 11:28:22 AM
Quote from: bugo on September 30, 2020, 11:23:04 AM
When the US 60 extension west of Springfield, there was some uncertainty about its routing. One plan sent US 60 into Kansas and ending in Colorado, and extending US 164 east to Springfield. The proposed US 60 routing in Kansas and Colorado was replaced largely by US 160.
It's almost like US-160 was a "failed" US-60 extension–just slap a 1 in front of the number! Same thing, right?
At least 160 didn't become a 1000+ mile US-60N; in that sense you could call 160's numbering more forward-thinking.
I'd argue that end result of US 60 and US 160 was the right call. US 66 the was planned as US 60 originally outside forces changed that because they wanted an X0 Route. Getting the final US 60 across the country in just a couple years really panned out since it was built over a lot of new highway like the Salt River Canyon and the Sonoran Desert in California.
You could argue though that the final US 60 was a waste of a number in the southwest because it was concurrent with US 70 through most of Arizona and California. I would have rather seen US 60 and 160 switched at Springfield, with 60 getting to SoCal via modern 160, St George, and Las Vegas. Other than Amarillo the modern 60 doesn't really serve much between Springfield and Phoenix anyway. I don't see why the southern route couldn't have been a US 160 that ended at US 70 in Globe, or maybe at US 89 if Arizona wanted to emphasize 160's role as a route to Phoenix.
Quote from: US 89 on September 30, 2020, 01:38:31 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 30, 2020, 12:13:54 PM
Quote from: Rover_0 on September 30, 2020, 11:28:22 AM
Quote from: bugo on September 30, 2020, 11:23:04 AM
When the US 60 extension west of Springfield, there was some uncertainty about its routing. One plan sent US 60 into Kansas and ending in Colorado, and extending US 164 east to Springfield. The proposed US 60 routing in Kansas and Colorado was replaced largely by US 160.
It's almost like US-160 was a "failed" US-60 extension–just slap a 1 in front of the number! Same thing, right?
At least 160 didn't become a 1000+ mile US-60N; in that sense you could call 160's numbering more forward-thinking.
I'd argue that end result of US 60 and US 160 was the right call. US 66 the was planned as US 60 originally outside forces changed that because they wanted an X0 Route. Getting the final US 60 across the country in just a couple years really panned out since it was built over a lot of new highway like the Salt River Canyon and the Sonoran Desert in California.
You could argue though that the final US 60 was a waste of a number in the southwest because it was concurrent with US 70 through most of Arizona and California. I would have rather seen US 60 and 160 switched at Springfield, with 60 getting to SoCal via modern 160, St George, and Las Vegas. Other than Amarillo the modern 60 doesn't really serve much between Springfield and Phoenix anyway. I don't see why the southern route couldn't have been a US 160 that ended at US 70 in Globe, or maybe at US 89 if Arizona wanted to emphasize 160's role as a route to Phoenix.
It was US 70 that was the waste, it came after US 60 was extended to California. I have a theory that US 70 was supposed to reach Riverside via what was CA 740 but there isn't much early California documents on the database.
There is some good information about the decommissioning of US 630, which was the shortest US highway of all time in the "Other_ID_1927_" file which can be found by searching for Idaho and 1927. It was one of the shortest lasting US routes, as the states started making plans to decommission it less than a year after it was approved.
Quote from: US 89 on September 30, 2020, 01:38:31 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 30, 2020, 12:13:54 PM
Quote from: Rover_0 on September 30, 2020, 11:28:22 AM
Quote from: bugo on September 30, 2020, 11:23:04 AM
When the US 60 extension west of Springfield, there was some uncertainty about its routing. One plan sent US 60 into Kansas and ending in Colorado, and extending US 164 east to Springfield. The proposed US 60 routing in Kansas and Colorado was replaced largely by US 160.
It's almost like US-160 was a "failed" US-60 extension–just slap a 1 in front of the number! Same thing, right?
At least 160 didn't become a 1000+ mile US-60N; in that sense you could call 160's numbering more forward-thinking.
I'd argue that end result of US 60 and US 160 was the right call. US 66 the was planned as US 60 originally outside forces changed that because they wanted an X0 Route. Getting the final US 60 across the country in just a couple years really panned out since it was built over a lot of new highway like the Salt River Canyon and the Sonoran Desert in California.
You could argue though that the final US 60 was a waste of a number in the southwest because it was concurrent with US 70 through most of Arizona and California. I would have rather seen US 60 and 160 switched at Springfield, with 60 getting to SoCal via modern 160, St George, and Las Vegas. Other than Amarillo the modern 60 doesn't really serve much between Springfield and Phoenix anyway. I don't see why the southern route couldn't have been a US 160 that ended at US 70 in Globe, or maybe at US 89 if Arizona wanted to emphasize 160's role as a route to Phoenix.
This is bordering on fictional highways, but I've thought if anyone besides me has ever thought to swap US-60 and US-380 west of I-25(/US-85). That leaves 60 to go on a more northern route (perhaps via I-25, NM-6, I-40, US-491, NM/AZ-264, and US-160 to US-89) with 380 replacing 60 to US-70 at Globe, then having 70 take over for 60 from there west.
Speaking of which, there are documents about extending US-380 west into Arizona as well (though not along the northerly route I mentioned above).
EDIT: Here it is, under "Other, NM, 32" : https://na4.visualvault.com/app/AASHTO/Default/documentviewer?DhID=3d43457b-50e6-ea11-a98a-ff9beffbfef8&hidemenu=true
Has anyone found the approvals from June 22, 1934? All I can find is in the 1935 minutes:
QuoteIn view of the fact that additions and revisions of the U. S. numbered routes approved by the Executive Committee on June 22, 1934, and subsequently, are so numerous, on motion the printed report of the U. S. Numbered System as of March 1, 1935, was made the official record of these proceedings.
And then there's the cover of the 1935 booklet but nothing else.
The 1935 booklet is completely reproduced in Other_CA_1936__ (2) (the same one that includes an awesome map of the state sign routes), so perhaps all that exists is available.
Quote from: Henry on September 23, 2020, 11:32:28 AM
I found some cool stuff for my birth state of IL! Among the following are:
The 1966 relocation of I-494 from Lake Shore Drive to the Crosstown Expressway, with full freeway interchanges at the Kennedy-Edens split, Eisenhower, Southwest (Stevenson) and Dan Ryan Expressways; half-diamonds at Belmont Avenue (southbound), Diversey Avenue (northbound), Washington Street (southbound), Madison Street (northbound), Kedzie Avenue (westbound), Columbus Blvd (eastbound) and Halsted Street (eastbound); and full diamonds at Milwaukee Avenue, North Avenue, Chicago Avenue, 16th Street, 31st Street, Archer Avenue, 63rd Street, Pulaski Road and Ashland Avenue. Also, the orientation would change from N-S to E-W between Archer Avenue and 63rd Street.
I don't recall seeing seeing the east-west portion shown on Page 5 of 13 near 67th Street between the Skyway and Stony Island before. I always though the Lake Shore Drive version of I-494 went down to I-94 near 103rd Street.
Also found reference to tentative designations in Nebraska of A-80 (now I-180), B-80 (now I-680), and C-80 (now I-480).
Tennesee also apparently proposed cosigning I-81 with I-40 into downtown Knoxville (GRM Barcode 101277400).
Apparently there was once a serious proposal to reroute I-70 out of downtown St. Louis and onto I-270. (GRM Barcode 101277403) Of the three numbering alternatives for the St. Louis area listed in the proposal:
* Alt 1 placed I-70 onto I-270 (using the Chain of Rocks Bridge), had the beltway except for the north half as I-70, and had I-70 between the current I-70/I-270 interchange in Bridgeton as I-255.
* Alt 2 had the loop as I-270, and an "I-270 spur" for the section between today's I-255 and I-55/70 at Troy.
* Alt 3 was similar to Alt 1, but had I-64 replace current I-70 between the PSB and the current I-70/I-270 interchange in Bridgeton.
Apparently there is a January 31, 1973 report entitled "A Study to Eliminated Cardinal Initials on Interstate Routes and Other Needed Route Changes in Interstate Numbering". Based correspondence (Barcode 101277401) with the application to switch I-57 north of Milwaukee with I-43, this report recommend I-39 for this corridor.
Apparently Illinois was more open to extending I-65 into Wisconsin over using I-55 and I-57, but Indiana objected. Correspondence (101277384) seems to suggest this extension would have used the Toll Road in Indiana.
Quote from: NE2 on October 01, 2020, 03:56:03 PM
Has anyone found the approvals from June 22, 1934? All I can find is in the 1935 minutes:
QuoteIn view of the fact that additions and revisions of the U. S. numbered routes approved by the Executive Committee on June 22, 1934, and subsequently, are so numerous, on motion the printed report of the U. S. Numbered System as of March 1, 1935, was made the official record of these proceedings.
And then there's the cover of the 1935 booklet but nothing else.
The 1935 booklet is completely reproduced in Other_CA_1936__ (2) (the same one that includes an awesome map of the state sign routes), so perhaps all that exists is available.
US 601 is missing from the 1935 booklet because AASHO assumed NC was downgrading what was not taken over by US 52 to a state route.
There is correspondence from NC to AASHO asking why 601 wasn't on the list. AASHO stated their assumption and suggested NC actually downgrade it but NC declined to do so.
An "other" document from 1970 (Barcode 101277386) appears to be large collection of status maps for the interstate system:
* Page 276/314 has I-20 going into downtown Dallas over today's US 80, but appears it may have multiplexed with I-35E south to the current bypass alignment.
* Page 278/314: I can't tell for sure, but it appears I-20 did a similar thing for Fort Worth with a multiplex with I-35W south of downtown to run west on what is today I-30. There also appears to be faint lines for cancelled/other freeways: A north-south route west of but generally parallel to I-35W; an east-west route north of today's I-30 and south of TX 199; an east-west route farther south than today's I-30 east of downtown; and what evolved into the Chrisholm Trail Parkway.
* Page 288/314 has a nice map showing when I-415 was the southeast portion of the partial beltway for Salt Lake City.
* Page 293/314 has a map showing a redo of the interstate system around Richmond and Petersburg, VA. It's missing numbers of some of the corridors, but does show a southern bypass of Petersburg connecting I-85 to what is today I-295. It also appears I-295 would have crossed I-95 closer to today's cloverleaf with Wagner Road.
* Page 308/314 shows I-57 in Wisconsin with an "original location closer to what is today's WI 172 around Green Bay.
Quote
SOUTH CAROLINA
STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT
COLUMBIA
December 12, 1935
Mr. W. C. Markham, Executive Secretary, American Association of State Highway Officials, Washington, D. C,
Dear Sir:
With reference to the question of double marking U. S. Highway No, 15 across South Carolina, we don't want to do anything contrary to the policy of the Association of State Highway Officials, but it appears to us that the confusion to traffic which has arisen as a result of North Carolina's refusal to mark this route as approved by the Association would undoubtedly be minimized by our double marking the route in South Carolina as 15 and 15-A.
It is my understanding that this question has been brought to your attention, and, while it does not have the official .approval of the Association, you have not offered any objections to it.
In view of the situation, we are setting out to double mark this route across South Carolina as 15 and 15-A with the idea, of course, that the 15-A marking is temporary and will be discontinued if and when the confusing situation in question is cleared up.
Yours very truly.
J. S. Williamson, State Highway Engineer.
Quote from: NE2 on October 07, 2020, 02:27:20 AM
Quote
SOUTH CAROLINA
STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT
COLUMBIA
December 12, 1935
Mr. W. C. Markham, Executive Secretary, American Association of State Highway Officials, Washington, D. C,
Dear Sir:
With reference to the question of double marking U. S. Highway No, 15 across South Carolina, we don't want to do anything contrary to the policy of the Association of State Highway Officials, but it appears to us that the confusion to traffic which has arisen as a result of North Carolina's refusal to mark this route as approved by the Association would undoubtedly be minimized by our double marking the route in South Carolina as 15 and 15-A.
It is my understanding that this question has been brought to your attention, and, while it does not have the official .approval of the Association, you have not offered any objections to it.
In view of the situation, we are setting out to double mark this route across South Carolina as 15 and 15-A with the idea, of course, that the 15-A marking is temporary and will be discontinued if and when the confusing situation in question is cleared up.
Yours very truly.
J. S. Williamson, State Highway Engineer.
There are a number of documents that go into the 15-15A mess in SC. It stems really from a powerful senator from Durham who refused to let 15 be removed from the corridor designated as US 501 by AASHO. I have to re-search, but a non-government entity claims credit for talking SC into posting 15-15A, which they really did.
Temporary turned out to be at least 12 years. There is a photo of 15-15A-301 in South Carolina which means it was posted to at least 1947.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Fscannex%2Froute-log%2Fimages%2Fus15-15a.jpg&hash=fe5bace66b49cc775b2d22f44398b4d975bcadd2)
North Carolina was regularly called out by AASHO for not following approved routings. There are maps from 1934-35 that show US 74 rerouted east of Lumberton that made no sense given before and after this time is followed the known US 74 route, but there is a document where AASHO calls them out for moving it without authorization and NC moved it back. They also called NC out in 1960 for making 90 unapproved changes in the US system (mostly bypasses and A routes) between 1957-60.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Fncannex%2Fncscans%2F21174.jpg&hash=1088dc3f3de799d0763d9b870e3495de9ccac6c3)
1935 Gen Draft
But I've also seen a document from AASHO that admits they have no enforcement over the states ignoring them.
Quote from: Mapmikey on October 07, 2020, 06:49:01 AM
North Carolina was regularly called out by AASHO for not following approved routings. There are maps from 1934-35 that show US 74 rerouted east of Lumberton that made no sense given before and after this time is followed the known US 74 route, but there is a document where AASHO calls them out for moving it without authorization and NC moved it back.
Strange...this was the routing given in the 1935 log book, and I remember seeing it in some of the 1934-35 communication.
[edit] It was explicitly moved back in 1938.
The early California history for the Interstate system is fascinating. I'm sure most of this was known already, but:
CA proposed using 11 in place of 5, to make room for north-south interstates west of 5. And they had specific numbers in mind: 3 for what is now 280, 5 for what is now 680/780, 7 for what is now 505, 9 for what is now 405. They also used 72 for what is now 580 east of the Bay Bridge, 12 for what is now 210, and 13 for what is now 605. Along with this, they suggested renumbering 40 and 80 as we all know, to avoid conflicts with US 40 and US 80: they suggested 30 (which would only involve renumbering the much shorter route that is now 30!) and 76. They even mentioned using a number small enough for 80 to leave room for a number for a north Sacramento bypass!
AZ asked to route 10 along what is now 8, with 12 taking over what is now 10. CA said fine, but they would have to also change what they put down as 12 (now 210) as 14.
There was some confusion about the downtown LA freeways - the feds suggested using 110 for the "loop" of what is now 101 north of the East LA interchange and the end of the San Bernardino Freeway between 101 and the north 5/10 interchange. CA wanted to use separate numbers, and argued successfully that nobody actually uses both legs as a loop, and there would have been no east 10 -> north 110 access anyways, so it couldn't be used as a bypass of 10.
CA really didn't like 5W/5E and wanted to use distinct numbers like 3 and 7 instead for the 5W segments.
The Bay Area 3DI numbering was wonkey: CA suggested 180 for what is now 280, 380 for what became 480, and 580 for what is now 680/780. I suspect CA and the feds had different interpretations; CA gave odd numbers to spurs connecting to the parent at only one end, but the feds counted them as loops since the other end was as another interstate, even though it wasn't actually the parent.
Quote from: citrus on October 07, 2020, 08:19:14 PM
CA really didn't like 5W/5E and wanted to use distinct numbers like 3 and 7 instead for the 5W segments.
Perhaps on that issue, or otherwise, but there were concerns about motorist confusion with then-US 99W and 99E. The argument was motorists might think there was just one 99 route, and that 99W was just the westbound direction of that one route, rather than a route separate from 99E.
This is something I recall from a quick peek at the California file, while I was visiting AASHTO's offices to more thoroughly review its Alaska and Hawaii files.
Quote from: NE2 on October 07, 2020, 12:30:15 PM
[edit] It was explicitly moved back in 1938.
Strange...1935 (draft not released) and 1936 NC Officials already show it moved back...
Have to try to find photos...
Quote from: oscar on October 07, 2020, 08:44:20 PM
Quote from: citrus on October 07, 2020, 08:19:14 PM
CA really didn't like 5W/5E and wanted to use distinct numbers like 3 and 7 instead for the 5W segments.
Perhaps on that issue, or otherwise, but there were concerns about motorist confusion with then-US 99W and 99E. The argument was motorists might think there was just one 99 route, and that 99W was just the westbound direction of that one route, rather than a route separate from 99E.
This is something I recall from a quick peek at the California file, while I was visiting AASHTO's offices to more thoroughly review its Alaska and Hawaii files.
What's worse was that at one point there was two splits in US 99. Most forget US 99 also split into E/W routes south of Stockton before US 50 was extended to the Bay Area.
Quote from: oscar on October 07, 2020, 08:44:20 PM
there were concerns about motorist confusion with then-US 99W and 99E. The argument was motorists might think there was just one 99 route, and that 99W was just the westbound direction of that one route, rather than a route separate from 99E.
And that, in my opinion, is a perfectly reasonable concern. It's natural to interpret "US 99W" as "US 99 West".
Quote from: kphoger on October 08, 2020, 09:44:43 AM
Quote from: oscar on October 07, 2020, 08:44:20 PM
there were concerns about motorist confusion with then-US 99W and 99E. The argument was motorists might think there was just one 99 route, and that 99W was just the westbound direction of that one route, rather than a route separate from 99E.
And that, in my opinion, is a perfectly reasonable concern. It's natural to interpret "US 99W" as "US 99 West".
The irony is the state could have solved it much earlier by building a direct route from Marysville to Sacramento down the center of Sacramento Valley. Ultimately they did in the 1960s and it became CA 99 (which was never part of US 99).
The Stockton-Manteca US 99 split could have been resolved by extending US 48 to Stockton when US 99 had a new direct alignment built to Manteca. Ultimately US 50 was extended and resolved the split in US 99 and part of US 99W was recycled into CA 120.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 08, 2020, 10:37:46 AM
Manteca
As an aside... What a name for a town. All because the railroad couldn't spell 'Monteca' correctly, residents ended up living in a town whose name means 'Lard' instead.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 08, 2020, 10:37:46 AM
Quote from: kphoger on October 08, 2020, 09:44:43 AM
Quote from: oscar on October 07, 2020, 08:44:20 PM
there were concerns about motorist confusion with then-US 99W and 99E. The argument was motorists might think there was just one 99 route, and that 99W was just the westbound direction of that one route, rather than a route separate from 99E.
And that, in my opinion, is a perfectly reasonable concern. It's natural to interpret "US 99W" as "US 99 West".
The irony is the state could have solved it much earlier by building a direct route from Marysville to Sacramento down the center of Sacramento Valley. Ultimately they did in the 1960s and it became CA 99 (which was never part of US 99).
The Stockton-Manteca US 99 split could have been resolved by extending US 48 to Stockton when US 99 had a new direct alignment built to Manteca. Ultimately US 50 was extended and resolved the split in US 99 and part of US 99W was recycled into CA 120.
There is more to the story. California originally proposed extending US 48 southwest to San Jose, assigning US 48N to go to Oakland and having a separate US 48S go from Maneca to Mossdale.
AASHO came back with the extending US 40 from Oakland to San Jose instead.
Then they came up with the US 101E-W set up and the US 99E-W set up south of Stockton.
Good maps of the 48N-S proposal and the 99-101 proposals are present.
Found this at 1929 CA OTHER
https://na4.visualvault.com/app/AASHTO/Default/documentviewer?DhID=2669f497-4be6-ea11-a98a-ff9beffbfef8&hidemenu=true
Quote from: NE2 on September 23, 2020, 05:02:09 PM
From the file Other_CA_1926__.pdf (which includes some 1927 correspondence):
This document also mentions an Optional US 99. The only optional highways that I know that were ever signed were Optional US 71 in southwestern Missouri and Optional US 40 in Kansas City. There might have been one in St Louis at one time as well.
There was a bit of a border war between Kansas and Missouri in the 1940s. Kansas put signs along the road due east of Baxter Springs, which was K-12 at the time. Missouri wanted the crossing to follow US 66 between Joplin and Baxter Springs. The road in Kansas was state maintained, but in Missouri it was a local road, and Missouri didn't want to route it along a county road. They ended up improving Apricot Drive and a few other routes. This alignment of US 166 only lasted a few years, as Future I-44 was built in the late 1950s and signed as US 166. For a while, there was a de facto gap in the highway from the state line east of Baxter Springs, as Missouri considered US 166 to temporarily end at the US 66/71 intersection in Joplin.
I have been extracting the high quality maps that are embedded in some of these PDF documents. When I get through isolating the maps, I'll post them in PDF file format to the Map Scans group over on Facebook.
[edit]The more I read this and other 1946 correspondence, the more I suspect this was a draft resolution prepared by one Nesbitt Sullivan, who was pushing for his "Southern Short-Way" between Baton Rouge and Norfolk.
AASHO tried to set up an official Pan-American Highway in 1946. This is in Correspondence (523).pdf which is actually filed under 1940.
QuoteBE IT RESOLVED by the American Association of State Highway Officials in annual session assembled that, in order to set up the OFFICIAL Pan-American Highway(s) System across the United States, the affected States jointly and severally officially adopt for greater improvement as time and funds shall allow these routes:
The advocated direct-line route from U.S.1 at Franklinton, N.C. direct to Baton Rouge to connect Mexico 1 by Houston (and Galveston) and Beevllle and Laredo;
U.S.1 from Brunswick, Malne, to Key West together with U.S.9 and U.S.201 connectlons to Quebec and (optional) side loop Waycross by Tampa to Miami;
Optional for possible continuous single-number route marking Quebec-Laredo, the existing route Franklinton,N.C., to Weldon and U.S. 301 to Baltimore, U.S. 40 to New Castle, U.S.13 to Trenton;
To join the present Alaska Highway at Dawson Creek over shortest existing route by Edmonton and Saskatoon and Moose Jaw, U.S. 52 by Minot and Minneapolis and Dubuque to Indianapolis and thence by Frankfort and Danville and Mt. Vernon to Knoxville, Sylva, High Hampton, Anderson, McCormick to connect U.S. 1 at Augusta, Georgia;
Laredo-Detroit-Quebec along interregional routes on or near U.S. 81 to Hillsboro, U.S.77 to Dallas, U.S. 75 to Denison, U.S. 69 to Commerce, U.S. 66 to near Joliet and thence over most direct interregional route to Detroit connecting shortest route to Quebec and side loop by Ottawa;
From Commerce,Oklahoma, continue along U.S. 69 to Albert Lea and thence interregional route to Minneapolis;
U.S. 83 Laredo to Minot so that one of the main Alaska-Mexlco links shall lie East of the mountains just like the Alaska Highway is located;
From U.S. 83 at Childress, U.S. 287 to Amarillo; U.S. 87 by Denver to Great Falls and U.S. 89 to connect by Calgary North;
U.S. 99 or nearest interregional route to connect Alaska Highway by Vancouver and Prince George and the new cut-off to Dawson Creek, and South connecting by Calexico and Nogales (by Phoenix and Tucson) with Pacific Highway in Mexico for Guadalajara to Join the Pan-American Highway at Mexico City.
Per Other (81) from 1940, US 4 probably ended on Middle at State (looking north on US 1; US 4 was straight ahead (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.074793,-70.7605617,3a,15y,27.14h,94.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sON_dRjq_GzKAs5gmOcgPMQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)).
Quote from: Mapmikey on October 07, 2020, 06:49:01 AM
North Carolina was regularly called out by AASHO for not following approved routings. There are maps from 1934-35 that show US 74 rerouted east of Lumberton that made no sense given before and after this time is followed the known US 74 route, but there is a document where AASHO calls them out for moving it without authorization and NC moved it back. They also called NC out in 1960 for making 90 unapproved changes in the US system (mostly bypasses and A routes) between 1957-60.
So North Carolina has a long history of doing what it wants in regards to numbered routes. What they're doing with interstates nowadays fits right in line.
Quote from: NE2 on October 19, 2020, 02:05:33 PM
Per Other (81) from 1940, US 4 probably ended on Middle at State (looking north on US 1; US 4 was straight ahead (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.074793,-70.7605617,3a,15y,27.14h,94.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sON_dRjq_GzKAs5gmOcgPMQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)).
That appears to be correct; this solves a long-standing mystery. It would also be interesting if we could find documentation specifying
US 4 (https://www.usends.com/portsmouth.html) being cut back to the Bypass.
There's no explanation for why US 180 was extended to Handley, but it ended at the Fort Worth city limits (apparently then at Sandy Lane east of Handley (https://catalog.archives.gov/id/48302387), which had been annexed in 1946).
Quote from: usends on October 19, 2020, 08:40:52 PM
Quote from: NE2 on October 19, 2020, 02:05:33 PM
Per Other (81) from 1940, US 4 probably ended on Middle at State (looking north on US 1; US 4 was straight ahead (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.074793,-70.7605617,3a,15y,27.14h,94.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sON_dRjq_GzKAs5gmOcgPMQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)).
That appears to be correct; this solves a long-standing mystery. It would also be interesting if we could find documentation specifying US 4 (https://www.usends.com/portsmouth.html) being cut back to the Bypass.
As of 1950 it still seems to have still ended downtown (last page of Correspondence (797) from 1951).
Correspondence (23) from 1956:
QuoteThis Department has felt there would be a definite advantage in using reflectorized colored signs in our highway signing program. After extensive study we have inaugurated a colored sign program on all US routes. We felt you would be interested, since ultimately it will affect similar programs in other states.
Many states were contacted to determine whether they are using a colored route marker program. We found very few following such extensively. Connecticut and the District of Columbia are using red on US 1, which does affect Florida. Therefore, we are using red for that route.
Our plan places all US routes in reflectorized colors, featuring seven basic colors. They are rotated on various routes so that the same colors do not cross. To establish uniformity for the motorist it is our hope that Florida's color scheme will be adopted in other states, particularly in the Southeast.
We have completed marking US 27 in green and US 1 in red. We hope to finish the entire program in 1957. A complete list of our US routes and colors is attached. I also am enclosing a copy of the "All Florida" weekly magazine published by the John H. Perry papers, which carried a cover picture showing samples of our signs.
North Dakota tried to extend US 385 to Canada up to five times. As it would have been redundant to US 85 (even though on the last time the US 385 extension would have been at the expense of US 85), it's no wonder why that was rejected every time.
The US 99 West/US 99 East split from Red Bluff to Sacramento was approved on 8/6/1928:
https://na4.visualvault.com/app/AASHTO/Default/documentviewer?DhID=1969f497-4be6-ea11-a98a-ff9beffbfef8&hidemenu=true
The reasoning for the split US 99 route was that the initial mainline from Red Bluff to Woodland on Legislative Route 7 had half the traffic than Legislative Route 3.
CA was allowed to move US 6 to the Hollywood Freeway in 1960 (second half of Application (71): "approval is requested at this time in order to complete signing plans").
Wow, I found some correspondence showing that not only US 90, but also US 62 was at some point proposed to be extended to San Diego. The proposal for US 62 is from 1946, while the push to extend US 90 came later, in between 1952 and 1955.
Quote from: Revive 755 on October 03, 2020, 02:46:58 PM
An "other" document from 1970 (Barcode 101277386) appears to be large collection of status maps for the interstate system:
* Page 276/314 has I-20 going into downtown Dallas over today's US 80, but appears it may have multiplexed with I-35E south to the current bypass alignment.
* Page 278/314: I can't tell for sure, but it appears I-20 did a similar thing for Fort Worth with a multiplex with I-35W south of downtown to run west on what is today I-30. There also appears to be faint lines for cancelled/other freeways: A north-south route west of but generally parallel to I-35W; an east-west route north of today's I-30 and south of TX 199; an east-west route farther south than today's I-30 east of downtown; and what evolved into the Chrisholm Trail Parkway.
* Page 288/314 has a nice map showing when I-415 was the southeast portion of the partial beltway for Salt Lake City.
* Page 293/314 has a map showing a redo of the interstate system around Richmond and Petersburg, VA. It's missing numbers of some of the corridors, but does show a southern bypass of Petersburg connecting I-85 to what is today I-295. It also appears I-295 would have crossed I-95 closer to today's cloverleaf with Wagner Road.
* Page 308/314 shows I-57 in Wisconsin with an "original location closer to what is today's WI 172 around Green Bay.
Some more interesting finds:
* Page 120 shows I-69 ending at I-70 a few miles east of I-465 and I-465 not existing at all between its northern I-65 junction and I-865
* Page 129 has I-80 hitting I-35 around the present-day Grand Ave exit and not at the western end of I-235
* Page 133 shows I-471 as a very short loop running on the south side of the Ohio River from I-71/75 before crossing the Ohio near its current crossing
* Page 158 shows I-696 running along (or on top of) 8 Mile Rd and I-275 running along Telegraph Rd
* Montana included street maps of all of their major cities that an Interstate was planned to pass by (even if said Interstate was never planned to enter the city limits (pages 170 to 178)
* Page 203 shows I-40 hitting I-95 in the Selma/Smithfield area and ending there (instead of crossing I-95 near Benson on its way to Wilmington)
Quote from: ftballfan on November 23, 2020, 05:48:00 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on October 03, 2020, 02:46:58 PM
An "other" document from 1970 (Barcode 101277386) appears to be large collection of status maps for the interstate system:
* Page 276/314 has I-20 going into downtown Dallas over today's US 80, but appears it may have multiplexed with I-35E south to the current bypass alignment.
* Page 278/314: I can't tell for sure, but it appears I-20 did a similar thing for Fort Worth with a multiplex with I-35W south of downtown to run west on what is today I-30. There also appears to be faint lines for cancelled/other freeways: A north-south route west of but generally parallel to I-35W; an east-west route north of today's I-30 and south of TX 199; an east-west route farther south than today's I-30 east of downtown; and what evolved into the Chrisholm Trail Parkway.
* Page 288/314 has a nice map showing when I-415 was the southeast portion of the partial beltway for Salt Lake City.
* Page 293/314 has a map showing a redo of the interstate system around Richmond and Petersburg, VA. It's missing numbers of some of the corridors, but does show a southern bypass of Petersburg connecting I-85 to what is today I-295. It also appears I-295 would have crossed I-95 closer to today's cloverleaf with Wagner Road.
* Page 308/314 shows I-57 in Wisconsin with an "original location closer to what is today's WI 172 around Green Bay.
Some more interesting finds:
* Page 120 shows I-69 ending at I-70 a few miles east of I-465 and I-465 not existing at all between its northern I-65 junction and I-865
* Page 129 has I-80 hitting I-35 around the present-day Grand Ave exit and not at the western end of I-235
* Page 133 shows I-471 as a very short loop running on the south side of the Ohio River from I-71/75 before crossing the Ohio near its current crossing
* Page 158 shows I-696 running along (or on top of) 8 Mile Rd and I-275 running along Telegraph Rd
* Montana included street maps of all of their major cities that an Interstate was planned to pass by (even if said Interstate was never planned to enter the city limits (pages 170 to 178)
* Page 203 shows I-40 hitting I-95 in the Selma/Smithfield area and ending there (instead of crossing I-95 near Benson on its way to Wilmington)
I just noticed Page 25 seems to imply that I-380 in California was at some point intended to extend slightly south (along US-101?) from the 101/380 interchange near SFO Airport.
The description of the change in US 33 in the 1981 agenda is horribly wrong:
QuoteBeginning at the intersection of present U.S. Route 33 and Hacock and Harrison Streets in Richmond, then northeasterly along Harrison and Hancock Streets to the intersection of Leigh Street, then southeasterly along Leigh Street to a new terminus at the intersection of SR 33.
The actual submission document (and map) makes it clear that Virginia was truncating 33 to the intersection of Broad and Hancock:
QuoteIn the City of Richmond, U.S. Route 33 traverses a portion of Broad Street and presently terminates at its junction with U.S. Route 360 at 17th Street where it also tied in with our State Route 33. State Route 33 has been relocated over the Martin Luther King, Jr. Bridge and Leigh Street, thence utilizing Harrison and Hancock Streets as a one-way system for entry and exit at Broad Street (U.S. Route 33 and 250).
We are desirous of eliminating the portion of U.S. Route 33 between its existing terminus and the new tie-in with State Route 33, length 1.75 miles.
Quote from: NE2 on November 28, 2020, 09:09:54 PM
The description of the change in US 33 in the 1981 agenda is horribly wrong:
QuoteBeginning at the intersection of present U.S. Route 33 and Hacock and Harrison Streets in Richmond, then northeasterly along Harrison and Hancock Streets to the intersection of Leigh Street, then southeasterly along Leigh Street to a new terminus at the intersection of SR 33.
The actual submission document (and map) makes it clear that Virginia was truncating 33 to the intersection of Broad and Hancock:
QuoteIn the City of Richmond, U.S. Route 33 traverses a portion of Broad Street and presently terminates at its junction with U.S. Route 360 at 17th Street where it also tied in with our State Route 33. State Route 33 has been relocated over the Martin Luther King, Jr. Bridge and Leigh Street, thence utilizing Harrison and Hancock Streets as a one-way system for entry and exit at Broad Street (U.S. Route 33 and 250).
We are desirous of eliminating the portion of U.S. Route 33 between its existing terminus and the new tie-in with State Route 33, length 1.75 miles.
Couldn't be any clearer than that...
Regrettably, Richmond signed US 33 to end at the MLK Bridge when this change came through.
Quote from: citrus on November 23, 2020, 06:58:52 PM
I just noticed Page 25 seems to imply that I-380 in California was at some point intended to extend slightly south (along US-101?) from the 101/380 interchange near SFO Airport.
Would this have covered today's dual-dual freeway setup between 380 and the airport access ramps? (Which essentially was built as C/D roads for 101)
The maps in Application (95) from 1982 confirm that the post-renumbering Nevada state route numbers were FAS designations.
Quote from: Mapmikey on November 28, 2020, 09:42:20 PM
Regrettably, Richmond signed US 33 to end at the MLK Bridge when this change came through.
Is it possible that AASHTO's botched description caused Richmond to sign US 33 differently than they would have if AASHTO had gotten it correct?
Quote from: usends on November 29, 2020, 08:48:28 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on November 28, 2020, 09:42:20 PM
Regrettably, Richmond signed US 33 to end at the MLK Bridge when this change came through.
Is it possible that AASHTO's botched description caused Richmond to sign US 33 differently than they would have if AASHTO had gotten it correct?
Possible but hard to say, since US 33 was fully posted east of US 360 to where VA 33 used to leave US 60 at 25th.
These two Virginia Commonwealth Univ Library Photos are from 1979:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Fmapscans%2F213_N_25th_St-1979close.jpg&hash=791b13af461a4048693d28e0d4fc0afe15d36a24)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Fmapscans%2F200_Block_N_18th_St-1979.jpg&hash=924239dfe0da339ab666f9753cbd53400c8dd569)
Hiding out in Application_GA_1985_19_US:
QuoteDear Mr. Moreland;
Your letter of February 1 to Division Administrator D. J. Altobelli requested the future addition of SR 316 and SR 8 between 1-85 northeast of Atlanta and SR 15A in Athens to the Interstate System under the provisions of 23 U.S.C. 139(b).
We find these routes are logical additions to the Interstate System. Enclosed is a copy of an executed agreement for the future addition to the Interstate System of SR 316 and SR 8.
We call your attention to the limitations contained in the last sentence of Section 139(b) which states;
"No law, rule, regulation, map, document, or other record of the United States, or of any State or political subdivision thereof, shall refer to any highway under this section, nor shall any such highway be signed or marked, as a highway on the Interstate System until such time as such highway is constructed to the geometric and construction standards for the Interstate System and has been designated as a part of the Interstate System."
We also advise that the designation of a highway under Section 139(b) creates no Federal financial responsibility for the highway.
It looks like in 1988, Utah applied to reroute the south end of US 189. It would still end at I-15, but instead of heading south into Provo on University Avenue, they wanted it to turn west into Orem on 800 North (SR 52).
Obviously this never happened, but per the documents AASHTO never officially approved or rejected the request. It looks like UDOT's main justification was that SR 52 had a shorter travel time to I-15 and was built to a higher standard than US 189 into Provo. Apparently at the time a little more than half of US 189 south of 52 wasn't yet four-laned.
But 189 is now all 4 or even 6 lanes throughout Utah County, and travel time just to I-15 shouldn't be a deciding factor anyway since a lot of 189's utility is as a southeastern bypass of Salt Lake City. It'd be silly for northbound traffic to go all the way northwest on 15 to Orem and then come back east on 800 North, instead of just following the shorter University Avenue north through Provo.
Another corridor that was once proposed for an US Route: OK 33, which at the time of the proposal ran all the way to Arkansas. I found it on a 1964 application by Oklahoma for "US 201", obviously a machine reading of US 281 (the middle line of the 8 faded out).
Evidently there was an attempt to route either US 322 or US 46 (conflicting correspondences between AASHTO and Ohio as to which number was going to be used) from NYC to Cleveland in the mid 30s. For whatever the reason, PennDOT wasn't going along with the plan.
Quote from: NE2 on November 30, 2020, 02:53:37 PM
Hiding out in Application_GA_1985_19_US:
Quote
<snipped>
We call your attention to the limitations contained in the last sentence of Section 139(b) which states;
"No law, rule, regulation, map, document, or other record of the United States, or of any State or political subdivision thereof, shall refer to any highway under this section, nor shall any such highway be signed or marked, as a highway on the Interstate System until such time as such highway is constructed to the geometric and construction standards for the Interstate System and has been designated as a part of the Interstate System."
We also advise that the designation of a highway under Section 139(b) creates no Federal financial responsibility for the highway.
This explains the mysterious paste-overs on US-70 throughout Eastern North Carolina. These mid-size green signs (MGSs?) originally said "Future" over "Interstate" over an neutered I-42 shield. The word "Interstate" got pasted over.
Wait why was the US 78 extension denied??
In the 1989 log, I-35 overlaps I-10 and I-37 around the east side of downtown San Antonio. Any idea why?
From Application_IA_1989_139_US:
QuoteOn April 4, 1977, the Iowa Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration executed an agreement in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 139(b) to construct a section of Route 61 between 1-80 at Davenport and Dubuque to Interstate standards and designated the section as a future part of the Interstate System of highways.
The agreement and 23 U.S.C. 139(b) requires that the highway section must be constructed to meet all the standards of a highway on the Interstate System within 12 years of the date of the agreement. The 12 years has expired and the designation of this section of Route 61 as a future part of the Interstate System is removed.
NE2: Are these documents your new bathroom reading material? Like, when you're "doing the cool", do you take a laptop in with you? Because I've never seen you so active in any thread since I joined the forum.
(I'm only partly joking. It comes from knowing that digging into this sort of historical detail is right up your alley*.)
* not a poo reference
Do realignments to parallel streets in urban areas have to be approved by AASHTO when a two way street is turned one way and one alignment must relocate?
I ask because in Florida you have two cities along US 17, that FDOT built from scratch parallel roadways so the original one can become one way. In Arcadia SB US 17 is built upon an abandoned rail grade while in Zolfo Springs to widen US 17 to four lanes without taking away properties, FDOT built a new NB road to the east of the old US 17 (now SB) so all the businesses that front the east side of US 17 are in the middle of the highway. So I was wondering if FDOT (or other states that do this) have to get approval from AASHTO to do this kind of thing.
If a full realignment, then yes. But if one direction still follows the original street, then no.
Oklahoma is probably the only state that submits that sort of relocation.
I just clicked on that link and was able to call up a states' list of documents...
Almost anything from Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Michigan between 1926 and 1933 seems to be missing. Every other state has the log AASHO compiled in late 1926 and sent for corrections.
U.S. 313 was actually a proposal in Maryland. :hmmm:
The June 8, 1931 AASHO Addenda Minutes Executive Committee minutes references the route, though with it crossed out:
QuoteU.S. 313, Maryland. U.S. 313 in Maryland is extended from Eldorado to Mardelia Springs.
I have not found anything else related to U.S. 313 so far.
Quote from: Alex on February 11, 2021, 01:22:44 PM
U.S. 313 was actually a proposal in Maryland. :hmmm:
The June 8, 1931 AASHO Addenda Minutes Executive Committee minutes references the route, though with it crossed out:
QuoteU.S. 313, Maryland. U.S. 313 in Maryland is extended from Eldorado to Mardelia Springs.
I have not found anything else related to U.S. 313 so far.
The appearance of US 313 in the 1931 AASHO minutes is an erroneous description of something that happened to US 213.
In the 1930 scan below, US 213 ran Rhoadsdale-Eldorado-Mardela Springs. Maryland requested changing US 213 to run via Vienna instead and extending MD 313 which ended in Eldorado to instead continue south over old US 213 to Mardela Springs. Whoever translated that into the approved minutes mistated this as US 313 (or the Maryland request, which is not currently available, did)
If it's any consolation, US 313 was officially proposed by NC/SC to run on today's SC/NC 41 from the Charleston area to Elizabehtown NC
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Fmd313-1930.jpg&hash=45ad58519f95c3705538e68c986626f77a0d1db1)
I found some interesting ones from Mississippi:
Biloxi to Jackson, TN All of MS 15 (it would've followed other routes to connect with its southern segment), TN 125, and TN 18 to end at US 45. There was also a proposal for a slightly different route that would instead go to Pascagoula, MS.
Hollandale to Homerville, GA. It would've used MS 12, MS 19, AL 10, and GA 37. When this was rejected, it was reapplied for only MS 19, AL 10, GA 37 from Philadelphia, MS. I've actually proposed making this corridor as a US route, I had no idea it was done in real life.
Avondale, LA to Crystal Springs MS 27 from Crystal Springs, LA 25, the Lake Pontchartrain Causeway(!), 90 BUS. (!!) to end at US 90.
It's conventional wisdom that US 44 and US 202 were conceived in 1934 to promote tourism. Were there other routes created with that same explicit goal?
I seem to recall that was the purpose of US-412, but I might be wrong.
Quote from: kurumi on April 03, 2021, 01:53:48 PM
It's conventional wisdom that US 44 and US 202 were conceived in 1934 to promote tourism. Were there other routes created with that same explicit goal?
I seem to remember it being explicitly stated in these records that 202 was an inland bypass of 1.
US 202 should be replaced with a northern extension of either US 13 (the segment of US 13 in PA to US 1 can be renumbered as an SR) or US 301.
Quote from: Lyon Wonder on April 14, 2021, 02:15:55 AM
US 202 should be replaced with a northern extension of either US 13 (the segment of US 13 in PA to US 1 can be renumbered as an SR) or US 301.
I know I've advocated for a US 202 - US 301 merger before, but had never considered US 13 as an alternative. This is a GREAT idea, because it would evoke the Thirteen Colonies. We could get this done proposed and made to happen for the sesquibicentennial (or quartermillenial, choose your Latin) in 2026!
.
I'd alter it just a bit though: US 13 would stay on its current routing but then join US 1 up to PA 32, running along PA 32 through the historic (Thirteen Colonies) site of Washington Crossing, crossing the Delaware and then running on NJ 29 up to and then picking up US 202 all the way to Bangor, Maine. Add on ME 9 and the new crossing into New Brunswick for a full extension north of US 13.
.
The routing of 202 north out of Wilmington could be done as a northern extension of US 301, running along with the new US 13 and then ending at I-287 whereas US 13 would continue.
.
To make it full US 13 through the Thirteen Colonies, you'd need a southern extension at least to SC and GA. Take over US 301 from Wilmington NC to Sarasota FL?
Quote from: sturmde on April 15, 2021, 02:36:26 PM
Quote from: Lyon Wonder on April 14, 2021, 02:15:55 AM
US 202 should be replaced with a northern extension of either US 13 (the segment of US 13 in PA to US 1 can be renumbered as an SR) or US 301.
I know I've advocated for a US 202 - US 301 merger before, but had never considered US 13 as an alternative. This is a GREAT idea, because it would evoke the Thirteen Colonies. We could get this done proposed and made to happen for the sesquibicentennial (or quartermillenial, choose your Latin) in 2026!
.
I'd alter it just a bit though: US 13 would stay on its current routing but then join US 1 up to PA 32, running along PA 32 through the historic (Thirteen Colonies) site of Washington Crossing, crossing the Delaware and then running on NJ 29 up to and then picking up US 202 all the way to Bangor, Maine. Add on ME 9 and the new crossing into New Brunswick for a full extension north of US 13.
.
The routing of 202 north out of Wilmington could be done as a northern extension of US 301, running along with the new US 13 and then ending at I-287 whereas US 13 would continue.
.
To make it full US 13 through the Thirteen Colonies, you'd need a southern extension at least to SC and GA. Take over US 301 from Wilmington NC to Sarasota FL?
Take it to Fictional Highways, please
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 04, 2021, 10:06:11 PM
I seem to recall that was the purpose of US-412, but I might be wrong.
US 412 was a creation (including apparently the number) of various Chambers of Commerce within Arkansas, Missouri and Tennessee.
See pg. 6 here - http://www.ahtd.state.ar.us/minute_orders/MO80-89.pdf
The mystery remains why '412', though. Was this the lowest number that none of the 3 states had in use at the time?
Quote from: Mapmikey on April 25, 2021, 11:12:38 AM
US 412 was a creation (including apparently the number) of various Chambers of Commerce within Arkansas, Missouri and Tennessee.
See pg. 6 here - http://www.ahtd.state.ar.us/minute_orders/MO80-89.pdf
The mystery remains why '412', though. Was this the lowest number that none of the 3 states had in use at the time?
*1980: AR, MO, and TN request US 412 (AASHTO approves).
*1989: AR and LA request US 425 (AASHTO approves).
*1994: AR and LA request US 427 (AASHTO approves but changes number to 371).
Clearly it wasn't AASHTO coming up with these 4xx numbers (further debunking the hypothesized "12.5 rule"). The common thread in each request? Arkansas. And we've
documented (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=2425.50) how (long after most states had kind of soured on US routes) Arkansas has been quite actively requesting new ones. All this leads me to suspect it was someone at AHTD who was coming up with these 4xx numbers. But that still doesn't answer your question: I can't perceive a methodology in their choice of numbers (other than even numbers for E-W routes and odd numbers for N-S routes).
Quote from: usends on April 26, 2021, 12:35:48 PM
Clearly it wasn't AASHTO coming up with these 4xx numbers (further debunking the hypothesized "12.5 rule"). The common thread in each request? Arkansas. And we've documented (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=2425.50) how (long after most states had kind of soured on US routes) Arkansas has been quite actively requesting new ones. All this leads me to suspect it was someone at AHTD who was coming up with these 4xx numbers. But that still doesn't answer your question: I can't perceive a methodology in their choice of numbers (other than even numbers for E-W routes and odd numbers for N-S routes).
Somewhere in this, you neglected to mention US 400. Is Kansas just Arkansas with the "AR" crossed out?
Quote from: route56 on May 03, 2021, 12:04:33 PM
Somewhere in this, you neglected to mention US 400. Is Kansas just Arkansas with the "AR" crossed out?
Despite its similar 4xx number, US 400 is not really related to the three others I listed. We know that Kansas wanted an interstate across its southern tier, but when that didn't happen, they were thrown a bone and given the opportunity to unify their desired corridor with a new US route number. In 1994, reportedly AASHTO gave KDoT a list of options,
and they chose 400 (https://www.usends.com/blog/us-400-its-number-is-not-the-only-error). That's different than the three other recent 4xx routes with weird numbers, which came prior to US 400 and were suggested by (I suspect) AHTD.
^ Do you have a source for the point that AASHTO offered KDOT a list of possible numbers? I didn't see a source listed in your article, nor did I see the list (I'm a bit curious what KDOT passed over).
Quote from: froggie on May 03, 2021, 10:33:28 PM
^ Do you have a source for the point that AASHTO offered KDOT a list of possible numbers? I didn't see a source listed in your article, nor did I see the list (I'm a bit curious what KDOT passed over).
I'd like to know the answers to those questions too. I don't have a source for the info (hence the word "reportedly"), but I've been hearing that little factoid for years from multiple people in the roadgeek community, including a couple in
this thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=1363.msg34122#msg34122). I privately asked some people about it, but so far I have not found proof. (Then again maybe some troll on MTR just fabricated it years ago, and we've all been quoting him ever since!)
A variant of the story is not that AASHTO offered KDoT a list, but rather that KDoT asked AASHTO if the number 400 was available. Regardless, it seems likely that Kansas chose the number, even more so in light of the fact that very same year (1994) AASHTO disallowed the US 427 designation in AR/LA. So if AASHTO was getting back to following its own numbering guidelines, then why wouldn't they have rejected the 400 designation as well? Maybe their hands were tied because the request from KDoT had already been granted.
Quote from: usends on May 06, 2021, 12:06:11 PM
Quote from: froggie on May 03, 2021, 10:33:28 PM
^ Do you have a source for the point that AASHTO offered KDOT a list of possible numbers? I didn't see a source listed in your article, nor did I see the list (I'm a bit curious what KDOT passed over).
I'd like to know the answers to those questions too. I don't have a source for the info (hence the word "reportedly"), but I've been hearing that little factoid for years from multiple people in the roadgeek community, including a couple in this thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=1363.msg34122#msg34122). I privately asked some people about it, but so far I have not found proof. (Then again maybe some troll on MTR just fabricated it years ago, and we've all been quoting him ever since!)
A variant of the story is not that AASHTO offered KDoT a list, but rather that KDoT asked AASHTO if the number 400 was available. Regardless, it seems likely that Kansas chose the number, even more so in light of the fact that very same year (1994) AASHTO disallowed the US 427 designation in AR/LA. So if AASHTO was getting back to following its own numbering guidelines, then why wouldn't they have rejected the 400 designation as well? Maybe their hands were tied because the request from KDoT had already been granted.
++
Write to the various Chambers of Commerce and ask why they proposed US 412.
Looks like US 31A in TN was requested to be either numbered as 31A or 31E if acceptable. Looks like AASHTO opted for US 31A. Letter date 6/10/47.
I found another tidbit: There were plans for US-163 (nee US-164) to be designated along AZ-98 to Page AZ, and some planners in Utah wanted to send it west via (US-89) and then UT-15 (today's UT-9).
https://na4.visualvault.com/app/AASHTO/Default/documentviewer?DhID=b37982f6-52e6-ea11-a98a-ff9beffbfef8&hidemenu=true
Another one I stumbled across: There was some chatter about extending US-84 to Oregon, supplanting US-26 from Bliss ID west.
https://na4.visualvault.com/app/AASHTO/Default/documentviewer?DhID=8cc0faab-07d5-ea11-a98a-ff9beffbfef8&hidemenu=true
US 84 to Oregon would have prevented I-80N from being renumbered to I-84 :sombrero:. And the Interstates were already under construction by the time of that letter (1959).
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on September 13, 2021, 02:44:54 PM
US 84 to Oregon would have prevented I-80N from being renumbered to I-84 :sombrero:. And the Interstates were already under construction by the time of that letter (1959).
Ha!
If I were a betting man, I'd say that I-80N would've become I-82 and I-82 something else--maybe I-86 (as this was during the time of the suffixed Interstates)?
US-84 to Oregon is definitely one of the more out-there proposals. Crescent Junction was mentioned in those documents, so I can't help but try to connect the dots for US-84 between there and Bliss; it'd probably go something like this:
US-6 Overlap to Spanish Fork
US-91 Overlap to Brigham City
US-30S Overlap to US-30N/30S split
US-30 Overlap to Bliss
The timing may have worked out as well, given that 91 and 30S were on their way out within 15-20 years, with US-84 possibly supplanting 91 to Brigham City and 30S back to 30 once Interstates 15 and 80N were being built. Of course, US-84 would've been overlapping 80N once it was completed.
Also another tidbit: IIRC part of former US-91, after it was decommissioned south of Brigham City in 1974 and before Utah's 1977 renumbering, was numbered UT-84. (Correct me if I'm wrong, though.)
Quote from: Rover_0 on September 14, 2021, 12:06:51 AM
Also another tidbit: IIRC part of former US-91, after it was decommissioned south of Brigham City in 1974 and before Utah's 1977 renumbering, was numbered UT-84. (Correct me if I'm wrong, though.)
Yep - specifically the part of old 91 between I-15/Main St in Layton and 1900 West/Riverdale Rd in Roy was part of SR 84. That was renumbered to SR 126 in 1977.
Had I-80N been renumbered to I-84 just a few years earlier, the two 84s would have intersected at Hot Springs Jct.
Quote from: Rover_0 on September 14, 2021, 12:06:51 AM
If I were a betting man, I'd say that I-80N would've become I-82 and I-82 something else--maybe I-86 (as this was during the time of the suffixed Interstates)?
Until 1958, I-82 in fact was assigned to the Portland-SLC corridor (source (https://www.newspapers.com/clip/21148174/interstate-82n-becomes-interstate-80n/)), while I-82N was assigned to what is now I-86.
Is cool :) to see scans of old documents and explanations with approvals, etc. As someone posted "like Christmas". :popcorn:
I-90 re-routing in Chicago made sense, to make more direct. And remove superfluous route numbers, like IL-194.
Quote from: cl94 on September 22, 2020, 11:25:23 PM
Merry Christmas, everyone!
I found an early NY 3DI numbering plan (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yomEpGIUfi7BuSYhRYXYCACMEzeBYGqT/view?usp=sharing). This has some stuff we never knew existed.
Very Interesting that I-87 was planned to end at a 2di instead of its current 3di, i've always made ideas to make I-87 end at a 2di
There is a 1973 document discussing the elimination of (most of them are in here) suffixed interstates. Some stuff floated in here that was news to me.
Apologies if this is on the forum elsewhere...
Some nuggets...
I-80N out west was supposed to become I-86 (I-11 and I-13 were floated if duplication was not desired)
I-80S to Denver was supposed to be I-78 (or I-23)
I-275 tampa area was supposed to be I-75W or I-175
I-57 to Green Bay was supposed to become I-39
I-30 was supposed to replace I-35E southwest; I-645 was supposed to come into existence...
Go to the AASHO database - https://grmservices.grmims.com/vsearch/portal/public/na4/aashto/default
search "other" and 1973 (don't select a state). 2 items appear...it is the one that is NOT the DC one.
Also I-31 and I-231 were to be things.
And I-94 on the Crosstown? No way!
Quote from: Mapmikey on February 25, 2022, 09:47:31 PM
There is a 1973 document discussing the elimination of (most of them are in here) suffixed interstates. Some stuff floated in here that was news to me.
This was a neat find. Other new numbers proposed in the doc:
I-216 Macon, GA
I-230, I-245 Dallas
I-31, I-231 Wichita
I-274 Quad Cities
I-215 Pocatello
One of the suggestions to go in tandem with renumbering 35E/W in the Twin Cities was making 494/694 into one number, possibly as a navigation aid but doesn't specify a reason (something Beltway often complained about when he posted here was its alleged uselessness for I-35 traffic).
I have to wonder if the SHC/KDOT had objections to the proposed I-31/I-231. Had this proposal been implemented, K-31 would need to be renumbered (the change of I-35W to I-135 did result in K-135 being redesignated K-152)
Don't see this anywhere in here, so...
New York was going to request the Southern Tier Expwy become I-92...
Appears in the 1974 application to truncate US 15.
https://na4.visualvault.com/app/AASHTO/Default/documentviewer?DhID=36c21256-50e6-ea11-a98a-ff9beffbfef8&hidemenu=true
I don't see anything suggesting they actually did.
In the vein of the proposal by Kentucky and Illinois to extend US-58 to East St. Louis, here's a document that mentions a plan by a "Mr. Hawks" to extend 58 all the way to the Pacific Coast. No specific route is mentioned, but it's interesting to think about. Under "US 58," "DC," and "1952."
https://na4.visualvault.com/app/AASHTO/Default/documentviewer?DhID=f7f5fddd-c5d5-ea11-a98a-ff9beffbfef8&hidemenu=true
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on September 23, 2020, 08:05:54 AM
US 241 (the second) was proposed to run all the way up to Michigan City. US 131 was proposed to run all the way down to the Gulf coast, although I haven't seen where exactly because the last pages of that discussion failed to load (I suspect down what is now US 231 and US 331 in Alabama and Florida, ending at Santa Rosa Beach). Not bad.
On re-examination of this, I've found out most of this ended up being approved as different routes. The US 241 changes were approved, but the route itself was renumbered to US 431. North of Owensboro, it was taken over by US 231 and US 421 instead. US 231 itself would be extended along the proposed US 131 extension up to Scottsville KY, then northwestwards to rejoin the US 241 proposal at Owensboro; while the southernmost part would be christened as US 331. Only the proposed US 131 route across Indiana, which would have used IN 15, 9, 7 and 3; wasn't approved, and that route would still end abruptly at the Michigan/Indiana state line until 1980 (it would be shifted from IN 15 to IN 13 in 1959).
The California files from 1957 classified under INTERSTATE has the weird numbers California was proposing for their chargeable Interstates. For example, the Division of Highways wanted I-13 for what is now I-605 and I-3 for what is now I-280.
I think I may have broken the database. Today I can't pull up any documents, not even ones that I viewed yesterday. I just get a weird error message. Anyone else having the same issue?
Quote from: usends on March 12, 2023, 10:25:39 AM
I think I may have broken the database. Today I can't pull up any documents, not even ones that I viewed yesterday. I just get a weird error message. Anyone else having the same issue?
Pulled up for me when I tried it on my phone.
Works for me, too.
Missouri apparently tried once to renumber I-44 as I-66 per the December 1962 meeting.
Something I put together for the poorly planned proposal to extend US Route 90 to Gila Bend, Arizona. I'm amused that the Arizona State Highway Engineer tried to pull a fast one of the AASHO Executive Secretary using the Interstate system as an excuse/rationale:
https://www.gribblenation.org/2023/07/paper-highways-us-route-90-to-gila-bend.html
It's worth noting that the Interstates were not yet numbered in 1955. So having portions of Interstates not part of the U.S. Route system is a perfectly good rationale when it wasn't yet clear that there would be separate numbering.
I believe I have solved a mystery as to why US 143 was shown to have ended in Centerville TN instead of Nashville.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Ftn-annex%2Fmapscans%2F143_1934.jpg&hash=bd6daea026b0abb013652ccb7ee87cf7bbc7d4d3)
When AASHO floated their solutions to suffixed routes, maps and route logs all showed US 43 running from Florence AL to Columbia, Nashville, then Clarksville.
However, AASHO actually wanted US 43 to run due north out of Florence to reach Clarksville. Tennessee was adamantly opposed to this and AASHO relented. But they never addressed US 143's now-orphaned route from Nashville to Centerville.
The proof of AASHO's intent with US 43 was found in a 1934 document in the Alabama folder of the database:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Ftn-annex%2Fmapscans%2F43_1934.jpg&hash=4c19494b7a51913e99697a4751f94136e1ae4325)