Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[usends]

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

That appears to be correct; this solves a long-standing mystery.  It would also be interesting if we could find documentation specifying US 4 being cut back to the Bypass.

[NE2]

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, which had been annexed in 1946).

[NE2]

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

That appears to be correct; this solves a long-standing mystery.  It would also be interesting if we could find documentation specifying US 4 being cut back to the Bypass.

As of 1950 it still seems to have still ended downtown (last page of Correspondence (797) from 1951).

[NE2]

Correspondence (23) from 1956:

This 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.

[CNGL-Leudimin]

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.

[Max Rockatansky]

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.

[NE2]

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").

[CNGL-Leudimin]

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.

[ftballfan]

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)

[citrus]

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.

[NE2]

The description of the change in US 33 in the 1981 agenda is horribly wrong:

Beginning 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:

In 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.

[Mapmikey]

The description of the change in US 33 in the 1981 agenda is horribly wrong:

Beginning 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:

In 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.

[TheStranger]

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)

[NE2]

The maps in Application (95) from 1982 confirm that the post-renumbering Nevada state route numbers were FAS designations.

[usends]

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?

[Mapmikey]

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:

[NE2]

Hiding out in Application_GA_1985_19_US:

Dear 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.

[US 89]

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.

[CNGL-Leudimin]

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).

[Hot Rod Hootenanny]

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.

[Dirt Roads]

Hiding out in Application_GA_1985_19_US:

<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.

[kenarmy]

Wait why was the US 78 extension denied??

[NE2]

In the 1989 log, I-35 overlaps I-10 and I-37 around the east side of downtown San Antonio. Any idea why?

[NE2]

From Application_IA_1989_139_US:

On 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.

[kphoger]

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