AASHTO Route Numbering Database Documents

[US 89]

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.

[Max Rockatansky]

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. 

[bugo]

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.

[Rover_0]

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

[NE2]

Has anyone found the approvals from June 22, 1934? All I can find is in the 1935 minutes:

In 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.

[Revive 755]

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.

[Mapmikey]

Has anyone found the approvals from June 22, 1934? All I can find is in the 1935 minutes:

In 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.

[Revive 755]

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.

[NE2]

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.

[Mapmikey]

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.


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.


1935 Gen Draft

But I've also seen a document from AASHO that admits they have no enforcement over the states ignoring them.

[NE2]

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.

[citrus]

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.

[oscar]

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.

[Mapmikey]

[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...

[Max Rockatansky]

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. 

[kphoger]

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".

[Max Rockatansky]

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.

[kphoger]

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.

[Mapmikey]

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

[bugo]

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.

[bugo]

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.

[bugo]

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.

[NE2]

[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.

BE 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.

[NE2]

Per Other (81) from 1940, US 4 probably ended on Middle at State (looking north on US 1; US 4 was straight ahead).

[Highway63]

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.