Decomissionings/Truncations that disapponted you?

[thspfc]

None as of now, but I would be disappointed beyond description if I-180 in Wyoming is decomissioned.

[CapeCodder]

None as of now, but I would be disappointed beyond description if I-180 in Wyoming is decomissioned.

That's a special 3di

[kphoger]

Special enough to ride the short bus.

[Hwy 61 Revisited]

Special enough to ride the short bus.

[sparker]

I'm not even opposed to gaps in US Routes, if there's a long gap between two important sections of roadway. Take US 22 in Pennsylvania, for instance - the Steubenville-Pittsburgh-Hollidaysburg section is what I'd call a "major" US Route,  Hollidaysburg-Lewistown is a minor highway where the faster way is via 99 and 322, the Lehigh Valley Thruway is major, and everything else is basically local roads. So why don't we keep the western part of US 22, demote the middle section to PA 22 (to signify its lesser importance), decommission the Lewistown-Harrisburg-Allentown routing (part is concurrent with 322, part is concurrent with 78, and part is local), and then keep US 22 on the Thruway?

I agree.  e.g. US 87 why not just have two parts of 87 instead of a several state duplex? 

From Raton, NM to Billings, MT, functionally US 87 is duplicated by I-25 and I-90.  The short "independent" segments of US 87 in WY notwithstanding (they could easily be state routes or elongated business loops), the "two 87's" would have all of two relatively large-sized states between them.  It would seem optimal to truncate US 87 at Raton and re-sign the MT segment as something like US 289, given that 87 currently strikes out in two directions from US 89 at or near Great Falls.  This may be perceived as blasphemy in some quarters, but maintaining Interstate/US multiplexing designations simply for honorific purposes seems gratuitous and wasteful.  Now I can see US 87 signed as a multiplex with I-27 in TX, since it's only 120+ miles and US 87 has value as a connector from both ends of that multiplex.   But 765 miles between Raton and Billings?  Unless the driver's one of us and wants to clinch US 87, I have serious doubts about the commonality of traffic flow between the relevant sections. 

Now -- if someone in TxDOT will consider 86'ing their rather vexing section of US 85 (or just re-designating it more appropriately) its southern terminus could effectively be a hair north of Castle Rock (CO).  Conversely and closer to home -- Caltrans/DOH could have "saved" US 99 within the state, seeing that the northern part of the state route (Sacramento-Red Bluff vicinity) brings the total in-state independent mileage up to about 418, well over the 300 needed for in-state route retention.  But in their infinite wisdom (cough) they didn't do so; it's likely that the thinking at the time was that if it didn't cross state lines under the renumbering plan, it wouldn't remain a US route.  Now US 99 is more than just gratuitously historic -- it's the effective "last leg" of the '30's "dust bowl" migration out to CA!  But since Caltrans has now effectively decided that the only numbering change to be applied to that route will be, at some point in the future, I-7 or I-9 -- period,  the best one can hope for is the posting of "historic" US 99 signage along the route -- even if it's along a newly-anointed Interstate.  If I'm still around, and health permitting, I'd be out there (if it weren't 100+ degrees!) with a power wrench, bolts, and straps to help get it done!   

[kphoger]

Special enough to ride the short bus.

[capt.ron]

Title.

For me, it's US 66. I understand why they did it, but why 66 and not say, US 11? or US 5? I'm even bummed out they got rid of US 99.

This is pretty much Fictional Highways territory, but I'm disappointed they didn't just use the 66 number for the Interstate upgrade of the whole route.  It would have fit the grid just fine, but I guess they were married to the perceived importance of I-15, 40, and 55.  They could have even extended it along either what's now I-80 or the string of tollways from IL to NJ, and people probably would have been cool with that, because then you'd have a single, well known number for an LA-Chicagoland-New York-area Interstate.

A younger me would have wished they had kept US 66 and allowed it to run concurrently with the Interstates, but these days, I'd say that's a needless doubling of route shields, and now I lean toward the opinion that it's better to just let the US Highway system be gradually phased out.

It will be a very long time, if ever, if the US highway system would be phased out. A lot of US highways fill in voids still left by the interstate system. For example in both Mississippi and Alabama, US 49 fills the gap between Jackson and Gulfport if one is traveling to Florida (avoiding the 2 lane section of US 98 in Alabama next to the AL/MS border). In Alabama, US 231 is a good link between Montgomery and Dothan, and then to I-10 (and eventually Panama City) in Florida...I-65 shunts the drivers all the way to Mobile.
Getting back on topics of decommissioning of highways, the decommissioning US 66 is by far the worst thing that could have happened. Truncation is one thing and it makes sense to truncate the west end to El Reno, OK where it juts off from I-40 and the east end would be Joplin, MO. But to nix the whole thing, I think someone at FHWA just wanted US 66 gone.
There is a ton of truck traffic on US 72 and with more warehouses being built in northwest MS along the route, there will be even more in the future.
US 99 is another one that should have been truncated instead of being axed.

[Hwy 61 Revisited]

Title.

For me, it's US 66. I understand why they did it, but why 66 and not say, US 11? or US 5? I'm even bummed out they got rid of US 99.

This is pretty much Fictional Highways territory, but I'm disappointed they didn't just use the 66 number for the Interstate upgrade of the whole route.  It would have fit the grid just fine, but I guess they were married to the perceived importance of I-15, 40, and 55.  They could have even extended it along either what's now I-80 or the string of tollways from IL to NJ, and people probably would have been cool with that, because then you'd have a single, well known number for an LA-Chicagoland-New York-area Interstate.

A younger me would have wished they had kept US 66 and allowed it to run concurrently with the Interstates, but these days, I'd say that's a needless doubling of route shields, and now I lean toward the opinion that it's better to just let the US Highway system be gradually phased out.

It will be a very long time, if ever, if the US highway system would be phased out. A lot of US highways fill in voids still left by the interstate system. For example in both Mississippi and Alabama, US 49 fills the gap between Jackson and Gulfport if one is traveling to Florida (avoiding the 2 lane section of US 98 in Alabama next to the AL/MS border). In Alabama, US 231 is a good link between Montgomery and Dothan, and then to I-10 (and eventually Panama City) in Florida...I-65 shunts the drivers all the way to Mobile.
Getting back on topics of decommissioning of highways, the decommissioning US 66 is by far the worst thing that could have happened. Truncation is one thing and it makes sense to truncate the west end to El Reno, OK where it juts off from I-40 and the east end would be Joplin, MO. But to nix the whole thing, I think someone at FHWA just wanted US 66 gone.
There is a ton of truck traffic on US 72 and with more warehouses being built in northwest MS along the route, there will be even more in the future.
US 99 is another one that should have been truncated instead of being axed.

US 209, although somewhat undeserving of having federal highway status, is still an important connector between Millersburg, Pottsville, Jim Thorpe/Lehighton, Stroudsburg, and Milford. I personally might want it downgraded to state route, but you can't have it all.

Special enough to ride the short bus.

Sorry phoger, but as an autistic person, that personally offends me.

[kphoger]

Sorry phoger, but as an autistic person, that personally offends me.

Yeah, that was sophomoric of me, evisited.  Sorry.

[LilianaUwU]

Speaking of US 61, I never understood why it was decommissioned north of I-35 up to the Canadian border. You'd think such a corridor was worthy of a US designation, no?

[Takumi]

Probably made sense at the time, but VA 44 (the second one, near Richmond) being dropped just looks silly in retrospect, given the explosive growth along its corridor within the past 30 years.

Go back much further.  When I lived in the Cloverleaf area back in the mid-1980's, SR-711 Huguenot Trail (Robious Road in Chesterfield County) was well-known as the best way west from South-of-the-James. (Think SR-711 to US-522 to I-64 west).  Things improved somewhat when VA-76 Powhite Parkway opened up, if you could afford the tolls.  It wasn't until VA-288 opened up all the way to I-64 as a Super Two in the early-2000's that SR-711 started to lose its regional importance as a major thoroughfare.  But it would have been a traffic mess if it had been trailblazed as a state route. 

(Back in those days, I was more adventuresome and often took US-60 to Lexington or US-522 to VA-6 as my primary routes west.  I-64 was still 55MPH, so anything shorter was comparable time-wise, especially for a curve-hugging hillbilly from West Virginia).

Arguably, had it still been primary at the time, it could have been four-laned earlier and further than it is now. It's four lanes all the way from 60 to 288 now, the last segment around the county line having opened earlier this year, and absolutely feels like a primary route. I think re-upgrading it to primary at least east of 288 is plausible.

[Hwy 61 Revisited]

Speaking of US 61, I never understood why it was decommissioned north of I-35 up to the Canadian border. You'd think such a corridor was worthy of a US designation, no?

I know, it's ridiculous! Instead it just got decommissioned and segmented into a US route and a state route.

[Dirt Roads]

US-21 through west-central West Virginia.  Unfortunately, two facts killed the route:  (1) I-77 in Ohio resulted in the old routing being disconnected too many times; and (2) US-21 was entirely multiplexed with other US routes south of Charleston.  But the decommissioning of US-21 north of Charleston resulted in most of the suburban growth to push down into Teays Valley (my neck of the woods).  I might be wrong, but I think that out-of-state transplants would have been equally likely to relocate north of Charleston along the I-77 corridor if it were perceived to have been a major route alongside the interstate. 

In the Charleston, West Virginia thread https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=27680.0, S. P. Cook disagrees with me (and I certainly respect his opinion on this one).  However, the dialog between us reminded me of an crazy perspective on my post:  Decommissioning US-21 north of Charleston turned Sissonville from an exoburb into "Buck Wild".

[DJ Particle]

When MN 110 was decommissioned, US 212 should have been extended and not MN 62. Or MN 110 should have taken over MN 62.

I second extending US-212.  The Crosstown is an integral part of the Twin Cities' highway network.

[Old Dominionite]

As a kid in Connecticut I was disappointed by US Routes that were either truncated or decommissioned through the state's cities. Examples include U5 5 in New Haven, US 5A in Hartford, and US 6A in both Waterbury and Meriden. A related example is rerouting US 6 onto I-84 through Hartford with the bare minimum amount of signage.

[sbeaver44]

Is there a reason US 222 has a state route 222 at either end?  It seems sort of pointless to do that.

I wish California had left US 40, 50, 60, and 6 as full cross country routes.

When I-99 does take over US 15 N of Williamsport, I certainly wish US 15 was allowed to take over its old parallel alignment.  I think it's good to have parallel alignments to major highways with numbers in case there's a detour, or for simple following from one exit to another for local traffic.

I don't like any of the Indiana truncations like US 33 where there's still state route 933, etc.

[Max Rockatansky]

Is there a reason US 222 has a state route 222 at either end?  It seems sort of pointless to do that.

I wish California had left US 40, 50, 60, and 6 as full cross country routes.

When I-99 does take over US 15 N of Williamsport, I certainly wish US 15 was allowed to take over its old parallel alignment.  I think it's good to have parallel alignments to major highways with numbers in case there's a detour, or for simple following from one exit to another for local traffic.

I don't like any of the Indiana truncations like US 33 where there's still state route 933, etc.

Regarding US 50 the terminus at I-80 is very fitting.  US 40 didn't stand a chance with the long multiplex and was the driver that cut back US 6 as also.  US 60 might had made it if CA 62 had been developed earlier.  US 70 should have never been in California in the first place.  US 80 in theory could have gotten close to California given it had a somewhat viable routing in Arizona.  US 99 could have stuck around in theory but it likely was doomed because there was no way to get it to a State Line.  US 299 and US 399 never made it out of California.  US 466 only had independent utility west of I-15. 

[TheKnightoftheInterstate]

All of them.

[74/171FAN]

Is there a reason US 222 has a state route 222 at either end?  It seems sort of pointless to do that.

PA 222 exists because AASHTO would not let US 222 be extended to end at PA 145 in Allentown.

I checked MDRoads to see if there was more information on MD 222, but my best guess is that US 222 was truncated by MDSHA to keep trucks out of Port Deposit due to a low railroad bridge.  It may have fared better to make MD 222 be MD 275 north of the current MD 222/MD 275/MD 824 intersection and have US 222 follow US 1 to MD 273 to MD 276 to MD 275.  I believe that this was previously a MD 222 TRUCK, but it is just posted now as "TO I-95/US 40" SB and "TO US 222 NB" NB.

[Mapmikey]

Is there a reason US 222 has a state route 222 at either end?  It seems sort of pointless to do that.

PA 222 exists because AASHTO would not let US 222 be extended to end at PA 145 in Allentown.

I checked MDRoads to see if there was more information on MD 222, but my best guess is that US 222 was truncated by MDSHA to keep trucks out of Post Deposit due to a low railroad bridge.  It may have fared better to make MD 222 be MD 275 north of the current MD 222/MD 275/MD 824 intersection and have followed US 1 to MD 222 to MD 276 to MD 275.  I believe that this was previously a MD 222 TRUCK, but it is just posted now as "TO I-95/US 40" SB and "TO US 222 NB" NB.

The 1995 MD application to truncate US 222 to US 1 confirms this explanation.
https://na4.visualvault.com/app/AASHTO/Default/documentviewer?DhID=cfd00017-04d5-ea11-a98a-ff9beffbfef8&hidemenu=true

The 1990 PA application to extend US 222 to downtown Allentown didn't make much sense to me really.  They explicitly said they did not want to extend it all the way to US 22.
https://na4.visualvault.com/app/AASHTO/Default/documentviewer?DhID=70879896-02d5-ea11-a98a-ff9beffbfef8&hidemenu=true

[Some one]

All of them.

^

[FrCorySticha]

I agree.  e.g. US 87 why not just have two parts of 87 instead of a several state duplex? 

From Raton, NM to Billings, MT, functionally US 87 is duplicated by I-25 and I-90.  The short "independent" segments of US 87 in WY notwithstanding (they could easily be state routes or elongated business loops), the "two 87's" would have all of two relatively large-sized states between them.  It would seem optimal to truncate US 87 at Raton and re-sign the MT segment as something like US 289, given that 87 currently strikes out in two directions from US 89 at or near Great Falls.  This may be perceived as blasphemy in some quarters, but maintaining Interstate/US multiplexing designations simply for honorific purposes seems gratuitous and wasteful.  Now I can see US 87 signed as a multiplex with I-27 in TX, since it's only 120+ miles and US 87 has value as a connector from both ends of that multiplex.   But 765 miles between Raton and Billings?  Unless the driver's one of us and wants to clinch US 87, I have serious doubts about the commonality of traffic flow between the relevant sections. 

If US 87 was truncated at Raton, NM, there wouldn't be a need for a new 3dus like US 289. US 310 currently terminates in Laurel, MT, about 15 miles from where US 87 leaves the I-90 duplex. It would be trivial to duplex US 310 from its current terminus to follow current US 87 to its terminus in Havre, MT.

[Revive 755]

* NE 370 east of US 75 and all of IA 370
* US 460 west of Frankfort, KY:  While the Indiana portion stayed fairly close to I-64 and was lower quality, the Illinois portion strays a decent amount from I-64

[roadman65]

US 113 north of  ilford, DE.

[mgk920]

When MN 110 was decommissioned, US 212 should have been extended and not MN 62. Or MN 110 should have taken over MN 62.

I second extending US-212.  The Crosstown is an integral part of the Twin Cities' highway network.

A bit before my time, but I am somewhat disappointed that US 16 in Wisconsin and Minnesota had to become WI 16 and MN 16 (should that eastern part have become, let's say, 'US 116' instead?), respectively, back in the late 1970s.  I'm not disappointed at the past and near term potential future cutbacks of US 141, though.

As for US 212, I wouldn't mind seeing it being extended eastward to replace WI 29 and WI 32 to end at I-41 (Shawano Interchange) in the Green Bay, WI area.

Mike