Utah and US 163

[US 89]

US 163 has had a long, confusing history in Utah. Let me explain...

The highway was created in 1970 from Kayenta AZ to Crescent Jct UT. Then in the early 1980s, US 191 was extended through the region, and Utah truncated US 163 to Bluff UT, but without AASHTO approval.

Then a few years after that, the road east from Bluff was numbered SR-163, in hopes of an extension of US 163 east into Colorado. The legislature designated both 163s as one Route 163, with a concurrency through Bluff. There were also some signage issues in and near Bluff, which concerned whether US 163 ended southwest of Bluff or continued east to the SR-163 junction.

By the early 2000s, Utah abandoned its plans to extend US 163 east, and SR-163 was renumbered to 162. The Utah definition of 163 was changed to match the AASHTO definition, including the overlap between Bluff and Crescent Jct. A few years later in 2008, UDOT and AASHTO both finally agreed to truncate US 163 to southwest of Bluff.

But here's the thing. The UDOT list of concurrent routes, last updated in 2015, still shows a 163/191 concurrency between Bluff and Crescent Jct! This overlap is not reflected in any maps or signage, but it appears that even though AASHTO has officially truncated 163, UDOT still has an internally defined concurrency for 163/191 all the way to I-70.

[Mapmikey]

Also, in 1971, AASHTO rejected a proposed extension of US 163 north to Yellowstone NP, following mostly today's US 191 (except would use WY 530).  Not so unusual I suppose but they also proposed US 163E and US 163W.

163E would use current US 191 from I-80 north to US 189-191 jct while 163W would use US 30 to Kemmerer and US 189 north to 189-191 jct...

[Max Rockatansky]

Wasn't there some crazy proposal UDOT was throwing out there at one point about US 666 being routed on UT 95/UT 24 around the same time US 163 was becoming a thing?

[US 89]

Wasn't there some crazy proposal UDOT was throwing out there at one point about US 666 being routed on UT 95/UT 24 around the same time US 163 was becoming a thing?

There was. In the 1980s UDOT petitioned to extend US 666 west on UT 95, 24, and 119, with a concurrency on US 191 to connect the two segments. That was rejected primarily because there were segments on UT 24 that didn't meet US Highway standards.

At the same time, UDOT also had plans to extend US 163 west, although they never got around to proposing them to AASHTO. They wanted to extend it west to Cedar City using US 160, AZ 98, US 89, and UT 14, in addition to the proposed eastward extension on today's UT 162/CO 41.

Also, in 1971, AASHTO rejected a proposed extension of US 163 north to Yellowstone NP, following mostly today's US 191 (except would use WY 530).  Not so unusual I suppose but they also proposed US 163E and US 163W.

163E would use current US 191 from I-80 north to US 189-191 jct while 163W would use US 30 to Kemmerer and US 189 north to 189-191 jct...

That would have been pretty interesting to see. If that had been done, the entire route could have been easily renumbered to US x89 early on, and 191 may never have been extended south. The part of 191 south of Bluff UT could have ended up as another x89 route.

Also, why did they even bother proposing 163W, given it was entirely concurrent with other US routes?

[Max Rockatansky]

I always found the UT 24 argument interesting, was it not surfaced at the time?   UT 24 today seems perfectly viable or at least up to the standards of most US Routes in Utah.  I'd put 24 on the same level with US 191 north of US 40 in terms of maintenance and design quality. 

[US 89]

UT 95 wasn't paved until 1976, and I'm pretty sure 24 had been paved before then. The issues were probably in the section just east of Fruita, and while it may be about the same as what's on 191 north of 40, it looks like those parts last longer than those segments of 191. Plus, 191 carries about four times the traffic of 24. But I'd be curious to know exactly what about UT 24 wasn't up to standard.

I'm not sure there's actually that much of a difference between rural US and state highways in Utah, aside from some of the more traveled US highways like 6 and 40. There's very little difference (if any at all) between, say US 6/50 and UT 21 or UT 56 crossing the west deserts.

[Max Rockatansky]

Either way 24 wouldn't have made a good routing for US 666 considering it was primarily a north/south (directional numbering violation) highway.  If 666 were routed on any part of 24 it ought to have been directly north from Hanksville towards I-70/US 50/US 6 towards Green River.  Either way 666 would have likely would have had to been heavily realigned so it could enter Utah via the CO 41/UT 162 for such a plan to work.  I'd be curious to find what "US Route" standards supposedly are though, I was always under the impression that there really wasn't much of anything aside from maybe having a hard surface.  Personally I would think the large swathes of open range on UT 95 would be far more problematic

[Rover_0]

Wasn't there some crazy proposal UDOT was throwing out there at one point about US 666 being routed on UT 95/UT 24 around the same time US 163 was becoming a thing?

There was. In the 1980s UDOT petitioned to extend US 666 west on UT 95, 24, and 119, with a concurrency on US 191 to connect the two segments. That was rejected primarily because there were segments on UT 24 that didn't meet US Highway standards.

At the same time, UDOT also had plans to extend US 163 west, although they never got around to proposing them to AASHTO. They wanted to extend it west to Cedar City using US 160, AZ 98, US 89, and UT 14, in addition to the proposed eastward extension on today's UT 162/CO 41.

Also, in 1971, AASHTO rejected a proposed extension of US 163 north to Yellowstone NP, following mostly today's US 191 (except would use WY 530).  Not so unusual I suppose but they also proposed US 163E and US 163W.

163E would use current US 191 from I-80 north to US 189-191 jct while 163W would use US 30 to Kemmerer and US 189 north to 189-191 jct...

That would have been pretty interesting to see. If that had been done, the entire route could have been easily renumbered to US x89 early on, and 191 may never have been extended south. The part of 191 south of Bluff UT could have ended up as another x89 route.

Also, why did they even bother proposing 163W, given it was entirely concurrent with other US routes?

It's fascinating to see how this northern US-163 extension could've changed the US Route landscape along the current general US-191 route.

Of course, later proposals for the east-west extension of 163 had it splitting from US-89 in Kanab and following US-89A, AZ-389/UT-59, and UT-9 to endat I-15 near St. George. All of which becomes incredibly ironic considering that 163 wound up with its oddball number because it ran north-south.

XT1710-02

[US 89]

It's fascinating to see how this northern US-163 extension could've changed the US Route landscape along the current general US-191 route.

It really is. If US 163 had been extended north to Yellowstone, it would have intersected several north-south routes: US 89, US 189, and US 287 (I assume this extension would have replaced US 187). That would have given the route a chance to be renumbered to an x87 like 387 (as it was replacing US 187, and intersected US 287) or an x89 like 289 since it would have junctioned US 89 and 189. Alternatively, the new route might have been treated as a southern extension of US 187 to absorb 163.

There would never have been a US 191 extension, which would have left US 191 as a single-state route in Montana. That might have been grounds to decommission the remaining 191 segment in Montana, or else renumber it as an extension of US 189 or the new route. On the other end, the extension through northeastern AZ may have never even happened, which would have kept 666 intact down to Douglas AZ.

And speaking of US 666, it wouldn't have been renumbered to US 491, because there would be no 191 to intersect. It would have likely ended up as another x87/x89 branch.

[Rover_0]

It's fascinating to see how this northern US-163 extension could've changed the US Route landscape along the current general US-191 route.

It really is. If US 163 had been extended north to Yellowstone, it would have intersected several north-south routes: US 89, US 189, and US 287 (I assume this extension would have replaced US 187). That would have given the route a chance to be renumbered to an x87 like 387 (as it was replacing US 187, and intersected US 287) or an x89 like 289 since it would have junctioned US 89 and 189. Alternatively, the new route might have been treated as a southern extension of US 187 to absorb 163.

There would never have been a US 191 extension, which would have left US 191 as a single-state route in Montana. That might have been grounds to decommission the remaining 191 segment in Montana, or else renumber it as an extension of US 189 or the new route. On the other end, the extension through northeastern AZ may have never even happened, which would have kept 666 intact down to Douglas AZ.

And speaking of US 666, it wouldn't have been renumbered to US 491, because there would be no 191 to intersect. It would have likely ended up as another x87/x89 branch.

Given how prominent US-89 is, I'm surprised how it doesn't have another branch or two.

XT1710-02

[skluth]

Either way 24 wouldn't have made a good routing for US 666 considering it was primarily a north/south (directional numbering violation) highway. 

I didn't think three digit US routes meant anything but spurs off the original two digit highway. Examples include US 522 and the retired US 666 both running N/S. And given the large number of diagonal US routes from the beginning, I've never been too worked up over any US route grid violation.

[US 89]

Either way 24 wouldn't have made a good routing for US 666 considering it was primarily a north/south (directional numbering violation) highway. 

I didn't think three digit US routes meant anything but spurs off the original two digit highway. Examples include US 522 and the retired US 666 both running N/S. And given the large number of diagonal US routes from the beginning, I've never been too worked up over any US route grid violation.

That is technically true, but the vast majority of 3dus routes ending in an odd number run N/S, and the vast majority of even 3dus routes run E/W. Exceptions include US 550, US 220, and historic US 666.

In fact, IIRC, this was how 163 got its number in the first place. It was originally going to be 164, but then someone said it had to be an odd number, so they subtracted one to get 163.

[Max Rockatansky]

Just did my own take on US 163 on the Surewhynotnow blog.  The photos I used date from 2013 through 2016, the 2015 photos were during the resurfacing:

https://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2019/01/2016-fall-mountain-trip-part-19-us.html

Suffice to say Monument Valley was about the perfect place to have to since in a highly scenic flag zone back in 2015.

[The Ghostbuster]

If I was in charge of the US Highway numbering system, I would have numbered US 163 (II) as US 260 (II).

[Rover_0]

If I was in charge of the US Highway numbering system, I would have numbered US 163 (II) as US 260 (II).

Going with US-260 isn't a bad idea, though I probably would've gone with the original plan of a N/S US-164, given that most of the U.S Routes in the area that aren't 1- or 2-digit begin with a 1. Another option that comes to mind is to use a x06 or x50 number, stemming from US-163's original north end at Crescent Junction.