Has then been a route that was decommissioned in your state were you were like really surprised that it was done? There have been some routes in several states that I was surprised were decommissioned myself.
Quote from: dvferyance on August 04, 2018, 07:03:14 PM
Has then been a route that was decommissioned in your state were you were like really surprised that it was done? There have been some routes in several states that I was surprised were decommissioned myself.
Let me be the first to say US 66. Honestly, it doesn't make sense to retain routes like US 11 when 66 was axed. (Personally, I'd axe 11 because only that section northeast of Watertown has not been supplanted as a through route by the interstates.)
All of Kentucky's decommissionings/truncations make sense -- US 227 (intrastate and shorter than 300 miles), the truncation of the redundant concurrency of US 641, the truncation of US 431 inside the Owensboro bypass, the redundant concurrency of US 68 into downtown Paducah, and so on. None are surprising.
US 27 in Michigan and largely being replaced by US 127 surprised me. In the Lansing Area US 27 northward was a big deal to get to the UP. I still remember when the US 127 Freeway opened it got a ton of traffic off US 27 between I-69 and St John's. I lived about a tenth of a mile of US 27 at the time, people still refer to it by the route number or Old 27.
I was surprised that ADOT somehow managed to get AZ 153 over to the City of Phoenix. What a failure that project turned out to be. At least 143 turned out to be a somewhat adequate freeway connector to Sky Harbor.
INDOT's decomissoning all of the state routes through Lafayette and West Lafayette surprised me the most!! :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
The "at least 300 miles" intrastate US route rule seems to be tailor made for the independent section of former US 99 in California...that became a state route. I recall a thread about five years ago discussing that, where it seemed 99 may have been demoted to state route status as part of California wanting to use the white-on-green shield marker (which they felt was more legible) on a broader basis statewide.
Otherwise, the route decommissionings California has chosen since 1964 primarily relate to giving urban arterials to local control (especially when near parallel freeways, i.e. Route 19 near Lakewood), so very few of those are surprising - even if those changes create possible issues with navigation.
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on August 04, 2018, 08:23:19 PM
INDOT's decomissoning all of the state routes through Lafayette and West Lafayette surprised me the most!! :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
Lots of decommissionings in Indiana have been surprising. IN-44 in Franklin is another example. As far as Wisconsin goes the ones that surprised me the most were WI-149 and WI-163 leaving huge gaps with no state highways I don't get it.
Quote from: dvferyance on August 04, 2018, 07:03:14 PM
Has then been a route that was decommissioned in your state were you were like really surprised that it was done? There have been some routes in several states that I was surprised were decommissioned myself.
I'm trying to think about how many U.S. highways have been decommissioned in Virginia.
The decommissioning of the overlap of US-211 over US-29 between Warrenton and D.C. made good sense.
Any others?
Quote from: hbelkins on August 04, 2018, 07:10:49 PM
Let me be the first to say US 66. Honestly, it doesn't make sense to retain routes like US 11 when 66 was axed. (Personally, I'd axe 11 because only that section northeast of Watertown has not been supplanted as a through route by the interstates.)
The US-66 decommissioning probably began with all the route decommissionings in California. The growing Interstate system caused so many confusing overlaps in a state that was exacerbated by its coastal position and north-south length and coverage all the way between I-8 and I-80, and US-40 and US-90, that massive decommissionings of US highways were undertaken. Once that happened there was a ripple effect where those highways were left dangling at the state border, then many other states decommissioned highways such as US-80, US-90, US-66, US-99, etc.
The sporadic decommissioning of segments of CA 1's southern section is surprising; I always figured that the value of that route re providing a continuous facility to expedite coastal recreational traffic in the three counties it traverses was great enough to overcome the Caltrans bean-counters' desire to shed surface facilities. Obviously, my confidence was mistaken; the route is rife with unsigned gaps. As I've insinuated in other posts, Caltrans in general and D7 in particular just doesn't seem to be concerned with such trivia as continuity and navigation. One of the problems of pushing 70 is that I can remember a time when proper signage was taken for granted.
Since I really started paying attention only within the last ten years, (and close attention within the last couple) for me it's MN-112. Unlike almost all the other routes MnDOT wants to be rid of, 112 isn't a spur state route/hanging end to some small, sub-1000 population city. It connected Le Sueur and points west to Faribault and I-35.
The MN-110 renumbering was also out of left field, but that's not a true decommissioning (aside from the number itself).
Quote from: sparker on August 05, 2018, 02:01:39 AM
The sporadic decommissioning of segments of CA 1's southern section is surprising; I always figured that the value of that route re providing a continuous facility to expedite coastal recreational traffic in the three counties it traverses was great enough to overcome the Caltrans bean-counters' desire to shed surface facilities.
For that matter, localities generally like decommissionings because they can then redesign the road to standards different from the state highway standards (i.e. putting in traffic calming). With that in mind, I wonder if CalTrans even maintains US 101's surface street routing in SF at all - the MUNI bus lanes project obviously being a project of the city itself!
If something like that can be still retained as a very well signed US route, then it really calls into question why urban control of streets that have or had route numbers should then result in the sporadic signage of the present day; Route 1 in Orange and Los Angeles Counties in particular is a standalone corridor that has not been supplanted by a freeway. (Unless the logic is that 405 and 73 did that, as a parallel freeway to the PCH surface streets.)
Quote from: Beltway on August 04, 2018, 10:30:13 PM
The US-66 decommissioning probably began with all the route decommissionings in California. The growing Interstate system caused so many confusing overlaps in a state that was exacerbated by its coastal position and north-south length and coverage all the way between I-8 and I-80, and US-40 and US-90, that massive decommissionings of US highways were undertaken. Once that happened there was a ripple effect where those highways were left dangling at the state border, then many other states decommissioned highways such as US-80, US-90, US-66, US-99, etc.
AFAIK US 90 never reached California. It stopped at US 80 in Western Texas (and still stops at the same point, now replaced by I-10).
Quote from: TheStranger on August 05, 2018, 04:13:05 AM
Quote from: sparker on August 05, 2018, 02:01:39 AM
The sporadic decommissioning of segments of CA 1's southern section is surprising; I always figured that the value of that route re providing a continuous facility to expedite coastal recreational traffic in the three counties it traverses was great enough to overcome the Caltrans bean-counters' desire to shed surface facilities.
For that matter, localities generally like decommissionings because they can then redesign the road to standards different from the state highway standards (i.e. putting in traffic calming). With that in mind, I wonder if CalTrans even maintains US 101's surface street routing in SF at all - the MUNI bus lanes project obviously being a project of the city itself!
If something like that can be still retained as a very well signed US route, then it really calls into question why urban control of streets that have or had route numbers should then result in the sporadic signage of the present day; Route 1 in Orange and Los Angeles Counties in particular is a standalone corridor that has not been supplanted by a freeway. (Unless the logic is that 405 and 73 did that, as a parallel freeway to the PCH surface streets.)
Caltrans still owns & maintains both Van Ness and Lombard along their historic US 101 sections in S.F., although they have functionally ceded street design efforts to city planners with the stipulation that 2 general-purpose lanes be maintained in either direction. Maintaining continuity for US 101 between the stub of the Central Freeway and the approaches to the Golden Gate Bridge is considered important to the city -- despite the continued use of the Gough/Franklin couplet to the west as an unofficial localized alternate, the goal is to keep small-scale commercial traffic (local delivery, etc.) headed toward Marin County on the Van Ness/Lombard composite signed US 101 route and off other city streets. With local restrictions in place, everything larger than a small "bobtail" truck is effectively shunted over to I-80 east and I-580 west across the Richmond-San Rafael bridge. The effective "road diet" within S.F., jointly planned and deployed by both Caltrans' D4 and the city, is intended to enhance that commercial rerouting concept.
As far as the L.A. situation goes, the relinquishment of CA 1 in the Venice area was done as a similar concept -- to take as much commercial traffic off Lincoln Blvd. as possible and shunt traffic that may have used it as a "shortcut" between Santa Monica and the LAX area over to the I-10/I-405 combination (not that either of those routes has any excess capacity at present!). Implied in the relinquishment is that the city of L.A. will implement some sort of capacity reduction for the former CA 1 alignment. This is a similar arrangement to that with the relinquished portion of CA 2 (Santa Monica Blvd.) through West Hollywood; after the relinquishment of that segment took place, that city reconfigured the facility for slower (20-25 mph) speeds by expanding sidewalks, adding bicycle lanes, and changing signal timing to coordinate with the new criteria. Over time this will likely occur on Lincoln Blvd. -- although that facility has always featured considerably less in the way of retail business that would benefit from enhanced bike/walking access than was arrayed along the former CA 2 in West Hollywood. Here, the goal was to reroute the commercial PCH-based traffic over to the freeway if possible, largely to alleviate Lincoln Blvd. congestion in Venice and adjoining Marina Del Rey to the immediate south.
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on August 05, 2018, 04:39:46 AM
Quote from: Beltway on August 04, 2018, 10:30:13 PM
The US-66 decommissioning probably began with all the route decommissionings in California. The growing Interstate system caused so many confusing overlaps in a state that was exacerbated by its coastal position and north-south length and coverage all the way between I-8 and I-80, and US-40 and US-90, that massive decommissionings of US highways were undertaken. Once that happened there was a ripple effect where those highways were left dangling at the state border, then many other states decommissioned highways such as US-80, US-90, US-66, US-99, etc.
AFAIK US 90 never reached California. It stopped at US 80 in Western Texas (and still stops at the same point, now replaced by I-10).
US 90 never has gone west of Texas.
The 2003 Iowa decommissionings surprised me in the sense that the state would give up so many highways at once. Most of them make sense, though.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 05, 2018, 07:26:43 AM
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on August 05, 2018, 04:39:46 AM
Quote from: Beltway on August 04, 2018, 10:30:13 PM
The US-66 decommissioning probably began with all the route decommissionings in California. The growing Interstate system caused so many confusing overlaps in a state that was exacerbated by its coastal position and north-south length and coverage all the way between I-8 and I-80, and US-40 and US-90, that massive decommissionings of US highways were undertaken. Once that happened there was a ripple effect where those highways were left dangling at the state border, then many other states decommissioned highways such as US-80, US-90, US-66, US-99, etc.
AFAIK US 90 never reached California. It stopped at US 80 in Western Texas (and still stops at the same point, now replaced by I-10).
US 90 never has gone west of Texas.
OK, but the point remains that CA decommissionings of major east-west U.S. routes, including US-66, caused a ripple effect of decommissionings that went east of the state.
Quote from: Beltway on August 04, 2018, 10:23:12 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on August 04, 2018, 07:03:14 PM
Has then been a route that was decommissioned in your state were you were like really surprised that it was done? There have been some routes in several states that I was surprised were decommissioned myself.
I'm trying to think about how many U.S. highways have been decommissioned in Virginia.
The decommissioning of the overlap of US-211 over US-29 between Warrenton and D.C. made good sense.
Any others?
US 21, which I am surprised was truncated to the extent it has been overall.
The only other US route in Virginia that was truncated/decommissioned for non-trivial lengths was US 421 which used to follow US 58 to Cumberland Gap. Everything else has been renumberings.
Trivial truncations/decommissioinings: US 25E (moved to a tunnel that avoids Virginia entirely); US 33 (truncated less than a mile in Richmond); US 60 (used to go to Camp Pendleton); US 219 (truncated 2 miles to Rich Creek); US 240 (removed from its 0.25 mile incursion into Virginia); US 250 (truncated a few blocks); US 360 (used to go slightly further into Reedville); US 501 (briefly went to Lexington); US 411 (may have briefly ended at Euclid Ave in Bristol). US 258 may also have been truncated out of Ft Monroe.
US 89 being truncated to Flagstaff is puzzling and doesn't make a ton of sense when Wickenburg was a better terminus. I can under decommissioning US 89A more so given the weird alignments not exactly being straight forward.
How could 421 be truncated or decommissioned in Virginia if it exists in states both north (well, northwest) and south of Virginia, and there's no gap?
US 6 in California always surprised me, as it served an Inland Empire-Long Beach corridor no other route did. I understand the others being replaced by interstates, but if 101 can still exist, 6 should be able to as well.
Quote from: 1 on August 05, 2018, 09:04:40 AM
How could 421 be truncated or decommissioned in Virginia if it exists in states both north (well, northwest) and south of Virginia, and there's no gap?
US 421 ended in Cumberland Gap 1935-45; ended in Bristol 1945-50; extended into Kentucky and beyond in 1950
http://www.vahighways.com/route-log/us421.htm
M-107 in Michigan (entrance into Porcupine Mountains Wilderness State Park) -- that decommissioning came out of nowhere.
Quote from: mrcmc888 on August 05, 2018, 09:39:45 AM
US 6 in California always surprised me, as it served an Inland Empire-Long Beach corridor no other route did. I understand the others being replaced by interstates, but if 101 can still exist, 6 should be able to as well.
One of the main rationales behind the CA '64 renumbering was to get rid of multiplexes; the "one route, one number" credo was in the forefront at that time (and well publicized in the late, lamented state publication CH&PW). 6/395 was, after the combined mileage of 60/70, the longest multiplex in the state; one of those routes had to go. It would have been enlightening to have been a fly on the wall at the Division of Highways back in '63 when the designation change discussions took place -- to see how the decision about which of the routes to truncate came about. If US 395 had been selected as the one shortened, the chances are that US 6 would have still seen
some truncation, probably back to its junction with I-5 in Newhall Pass, with US 395 from Hesperia to Inyokern getting a state highway number; that would have dealt with
both the US 6 multiplexes in L.A. metro as well as the US 395 multiplex in the San Bernardino-Riverside area. But the deciding factor was likely the fact that at the time US 395 was still extending all the way down to San Diego; truncation wasn't in the cards until I-15 was extended in '68. Fancifully, it's also possible that Division folks also held out some inkling of hope of a connection between the sections of CA 168 over the top of the Sierras -- that could have at some point been a place to re-extend US 6 to Fresno and possibly over to the coast from there -- after all, the current short section of US 6 in CA was, pre-1937, signed as
SSR 168!
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on August 04, 2018, 08:23:19 PM
INDOT's decomissoning all of the state routes through Lafayette and West Lafayette surprised me the most!! :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
I think the decommissioning of McCormick and Stadium were reasonable, but I still cannot for the life of me figure out why they rerouted US 52 south of Lafayette instead of keeping it on Sagamore Parkway.
Well, this isn't what the thread is about, but I'm surprised that US 11 and 31 remain wholy intact as routes, unlike US 21.
NC 6 (Patterson St./TRFKALS)
*TRFKALS Stands for The Road Formerly Known as Lee St.
US 61 in Minnesota
US 75 in Texas
US 89 in Arizona
US 40 rerouting in Lawrence, Kansas
Nexus 5X
Quote from: dvferyance on August 04, 2018, 10:09:20 PM
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on August 04, 2018, 08:23:19 PM
INDOT's decomissoning all of the state routes through Lafayette and West Lafayette surprised me the most!! :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
Lots of decommissionings in Indiana have been surprising. IN-44 in Franklin is another example. As far as Wisconsin goes the ones that surprised me the most were WI-149 and WI-163 leaving huge gaps with no state highways I don't get it.
Those didn't surprise me, they operated as glorified minor county highways.
There are other in the state that I am surprised that WisDOT still hangs onto (ie, WI 152).
One decommissioning in Wisconsin that did kind of surprise me was when US 41 was removed from S 27 St in Milwaukee and most of it was not reflagged as WI 241, instead being turned over to the city to be downgraded into a boulevard street.
Mike
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 04, 2018, 08:19:16 PM
US 27 in Michigan and largely being replaced by US 127 surprised me. In the Lansing Area US 27 northward was a big deal to get to the UP. I still remember when the US 127 Freeway opened it got a ton of traffic off US 27 between I-69 and St John’s. I lived about a tenth of a mile of US 27 at the time, people still refer to it by the route number or Old 27.
I was surprised that ADOT somehow managed to get AZ 153 over to the City of Phoenix. What a failure that project turned out to be. At least 143 turned out to be a somewhat adequate freeway connector to Sky Harbor.
MDOT reflagged that part of US 27 to US 127 for route number continuity purposes. It was a totally logical northward continuation of US 127 while being completely disjointed from US 27. US 27 to the south was also majorly supplanted by I-69 and cut back to Fort Wayne, IN.
I fully agreed with MDOT when they did that.
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on August 06, 2018, 09:44:27 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 04, 2018, 08:19:16 PM
US 27 in Michigan and largely being replaced by US 127 surprised me. In the Lansing Area US 27 northward was a big deal to get to the UP. I still remember when the US 127 Freeway opened it got a ton of traffic off US 27 between I-69 and St John's. I lived about a tenth of a mile of US 27 at the time, people still refer to it by the route number or Old 27.
I was surprised that ADOT somehow managed to get AZ 153 over to the City of Phoenix. What a failure that project turned out to be. At least 143 turned out to be a somewhat adequate freeway connector to Sky Harbor.
MDOT reflagged that part of US 27 to US 127 for route number continuity purposes. It was a totally logical northward continuation of US 127 while being completely disjointed from US 27. US 27 to the south was also majorly supplanted by I-69 and cut back to Fort Wayne, IN.
I fully agreed with MDOT when they did that.
Mike
Yes in retrospect it makes sense given US 27 had huge overlaps with I-69. That said I was in high school when US 27 was decomissioned and given that there wasn't a ton of press on it happening it definitely caught me off guard.
Non-freeway NJ 24 west of Morristown (to NJ 57). If they continued it as NJ 124, I would understand, though providing continuity of 24 proper via a brief multiplex with I-287 wouldn't hurt anyone either. But handing it over to the counties is a step too far. Also, the locals insist on the county routes "route 24" anyway.
Quote from: mgk920 on August 06, 2018, 09:35:49 AM
One decommissioning in Wisconsin that did kind of surprise me was when US 41 was removed from S 27 St in Milwaukee and most of it was not reflagged as WI 241, instead being turned over to the city to be downgraded into a boulevard street.
Mike
Apparently the city balked at the state plans for reconstruction of that segment (didn't like the proposed lane widths, etc). As a result it was decided to turn over that segment to the city, reroute US 41 and create WI 241 and 341 for the remaining segments where the state still maintained.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 06, 2018, 10:01:41 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on August 06, 2018, 09:44:27 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 04, 2018, 08:19:16 PM
US 27 in Michigan and largely being replaced by US 127 surprised me. In the Lansing Area US 27 northward was a big deal to get to the UP. I still remember when the US 127 Freeway opened it got a ton of traffic off US 27 between I-69 and St John's. I lived about a tenth of a mile of US 27 at the time, people still refer to it by the route number or Old 27.
I was surprised that ADOT somehow managed to get AZ 153 over to the City of Phoenix. What a failure that project turned out to be. At least 143 turned out to be a somewhat adequate freeway connector to Sky Harbor.
MDOT reflagged that part of US 27 to US 127 for route number continuity purposes. It was a totally logical northward continuation of US 127 while being completely disjointed from US 27. US 27 to the south was also majorly supplanted by I-69 and cut back to Fort Wayne, IN.
I fully agreed with MDOT when they did that.
Mike
Yes in retrospect it makes sense given US 27 had huge overlaps with I-69. That said I was in high school when US 27 was decomissioned and given that there wasn't a ton of press on it happening it definitely caught me off guard.
It should have had an even
longer overlap, IMHO, as I-69 should have continued north along the path of US (1)27 to its
logical terminus at I-75 south of Grayling. The east-west freeway from Lansing to Port Huron via Flint should've either been called I-98 or have been given a 3-di (perhaps I-694 to blend 69 with 94). Having an odd 2-di change cardinal directions from N-S to E-W should have
never been permitted!
Quote from: mgk920 on August 06, 2018, 09:35:49 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on August 04, 2018, 10:09:20 PM
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on August 04, 2018, 08:23:19 PM
INDOT's decomissoning all of the state routes through Lafayette and West Lafayette surprised me the most!! :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
Lots of decommissionings in Indiana have been surprising. IN-44 in Franklin is another example. As far as Wisconsin goes the ones that surprised me the most were WI-149 and WI-163 leaving huge gaps with no state highways I don't get it.
Those didn't surprise me, they operated as glorified minor county highways.
There are other in the state that I am surprised that WisDOT still hangs onto (ie, WI 152).
One decommissioning in Wisconsin that did kind of surprise me was when US 41 was removed from S 27 St in Milwaukee and most of it was not reflagged as WI 241, instead being turned over to the city to be downgraded into a boulevard street.
Mike
That's not true at all most of it became WI-241 except the the mile gap between Forest Home and National which made no sense to have that gap the whole thing plus the 27th street portion of WI-57 should have all become WI-241 At least WI-152 serves mt Morris a popular resort community I think WI 127 and WI 134 are more surprising especially that latter the town it's serves as spur London is not even incorporated and who even goes there? Yet they agreed to the idiotic request by Menomonee Falls to decommission 74 despite it being a major route connecting Brown Deer Rd the main E W route in northern Milwaukee County to the Sussex Pewaukee area. That is going to cause major problems as semi trucks now have to take long detours to get to that area which is a major industrial area in Waukesha County including the big Quad Graphics plant all just so we could make the downtown falls more pedestrian friendly so dumb communities make such laws all in the name of appeasement.
The original VA 167. Of all the long-standing state primary routes in Hampton Roads, why was it the only one to be decommissioned? (Yeah, I know 408/409/410/411/414 were a few years later...)
Quote from: Takumi on August 06, 2018, 10:22:30 PM
The original VA 167. Of all the long-standing state primary routes in Hampton Roads, why was it the only one to be decommissioned? (Yeah, I know 408/409/410/411/414 were a few years later...)
Per pdf pg 6 of http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/meetings/minutes_pdf/CTB-11-1995-01.pdf, VA 167 was deleted at the request of the Cities of Hampton and Newport News (but did not get into why they wanted that)
Quote from: wanderer2575 on August 05, 2018, 11:15:01 AM
M-107 in Michigan (entrance into Porcupine Mountains Wilderness State Park) -- that decommissioning came out of nowhere.
That area of the state is dying. MI has decommissioned some state park highways (M-110 and M-209 come to mind), but has kept others such as M-211 and M-212. Michigan hasn't really had that many surprising decommissionings (except possibly the western section of M-42)
Quote from: Mapmikey on August 07, 2018, 06:18:59 AM
VA 167 was deleted at the request of the Cities of Hampton and Newport News (but did not get into why they wanted that)
If I remember correctly it was specifically the residents along Chesapeake Ave in Hampton that drove the city to drop the designation, they wanted it to become a minor street. Naturally Newport News went along with it as there would've been no point hanging on to their little piece.
Does the Robert Moses State Parkway being changed to Niagara Scenic Parkway count as decommissioning? :D
That change surprises you? A whole carriageway sat in disuse for years.
Quote from: Takumi on August 06, 2018, 10:22:30 PM
The original VA 167. Of all the long-standing state primary routes in Hampton Roads, why was it the only one to be decommissioned? (Yeah, I know 408/409/410/411/414 were a few years later...)
My guess is there were enough state routes in Newport News. The mystery to me is why was VA-104 decommissioned? The US 17 reroute makes no sense at all.
Having lived in Minnesota, any road that just ends at the county line (US 52, MN 65, MN 101, MN 88 at one time); MN 7; MN 5; MN 50 near Farmington; US 169 becoming MN 252 when the road got a lot bigger
More surprised about how many have not. I've heard US 61 north of St Paul, MN 120, MN 65 south of 694 for over 10 years and they are still there;
Quote from: dvferyanceThe mystery to me is why was VA-104 decommissioned? The US 17 reroute makes no sense at all.
Makes perfect sense when you consider (or were aware of) the PITA that the Deep Creek Drawbridge is.
Quote from: texaskdogUS 169 becoming MN 252 when the road got a lot bigger
169 was moved off of 252 several years before 252 got widened. 169 was moved to what was then a concurrency with US 52 in 1981. Widening of 252 (and the reroute to connect to 610) didn't occur until 1987.
QuoteMore surprised about how many have not. I've heard US 61 north of St Paul, MN 120, MN 65 south of 694 for over 10 years and they are still there;
Doesn't surprise me. MnDOT only has the funding to upgrade a few miles of state highway a year that they want to turn back.
MN 120 decommissioning rumors are like 15 years old now.
Quote from: Rothman on August 07, 2018, 12:55:53 PM
That change surprises you? A whole carriageway sat in disuse for years.
Not really, but it is rare for someone's name to be taken off of a roadway. Usually it's vice versa.
Quote from: dvferyance on August 07, 2018, 06:37:47 PM
MN 120 decommissioning rumors are like 15 years old now.
They're not really rumors. The state legislature has repealed the LR for MN-120, which becomes effective upon agreement of turnback–it's this agreement that
still hasn't been reached. Part of the problem, I suspect, is the fact that it runs along a county line, in addition to the funding problem.
Edit: I also wouldn't be surprised if upgrades to the road aren't in the mix somewhere, for a turnback agreement–MN-120 is a pretty busy two-lane road nowadays–or possibly even the construction of an interchange at MN-36. Neither of those are cheap propositions.
Quote from: ftballfan on August 07, 2018, 09:00:53 AM
Quote from: wanderer2575 on August 05, 2018, 11:15:01 AM
M-107 in Michigan (entrance into Porcupine Mountains Wilderness State Park) -- that decommissioning came out of nowhere.
That area of the state is dying. MI has decommissioned some state park highways (M-110 and M-209 come to mind), but has kept others such as M-211 and M-212. Michigan hasn't really had that many surprising decommissionings (except possibly the western section of M-42)
MDOT can't unilaterally decommission a highway though. The county road commission, or a city/village, has to accept the transfer. The department wanted to extend M-553 and divest itself of M-554, but until the City of Marquette agreed, MDOT was stuck. At the same time, Marquette wanted control over the business loop back, so Bus. US 41 was transferred and decommissioned. So the question is, who wanted M-107 transferred and initiated the negotiations that resulted in the transfer? Did the county want it, or did the state entice the county to take it?
VA 168 north of the HRBT! VDOT went through the trouble of renumbering it to VA 143 when the put it on I-64, but as soon as the arterial section of it got upgraded to freeway in the early 80's, they truncated it to Willouby Spit in Norfolk.
It made no sense to transfer the route to only decommission it later.
US 113 in Delaware, especially that it does not connect anymore to its parent and dangles not connecting at all to the rest of the US highway network at its north end. This was all so DelDOT did not have a concurrency between Milford and Dover with DE 1. IMO being US 301 is being tolled when its freeway is completed, US 113 could have been the DE 1 Turnpike instead.
Still US 99 in California is probably the biggest surprise overall.
Quote from: dvferyance on August 04, 2018, 10:09:20 PM
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on August 04, 2018, 08:23:19 PM
INDOT's decomissoning all of the state routes through Lafayette and West Lafayette surprised me the most!! :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
Lots of decommissionings in Indiana have been surprising. IN-44 in Franklin is another example. As far as Wisconsin goes the ones that surprised me the most were WI-149 and WI-163 leaving huge gaps with no state highways I don't get it.
Those actually ran close to my hometown. Both of these routes existed in Manitowoc County.
VA 31 in Williamsburg. It used to travel with VA 5 all the way to VA 143. I would figure that VA 5 would be truncated as VA 31 was the straight through route and it would eliminate a wrong way concurrency with US 60 on Paige Street.
VA 162, through Colonial and Downtown Williamsburg along Lafayette Street and Richmond Road. VA 162 was originally as it is now, that short connector to VA 143 from US 60/VA 5. Then it was extended when VA 132 was realigned to continue south along Henry Street to VA 199 as that went west on Lafayette and then west on Richmond Road to end at US 60 after that US 60Z route was eliminated. VA 162 went the wrong way on US 60 along Paige, then west on Lafayette (with VA 5 and now truncated VA 31) and went along old VA 132 to Richmond Road, then west and terminated at US 60 where it takes over Richmond Road.
Quote from: dvferyance on August 06, 2018, 09:49:12 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on August 06, 2018, 09:35:49 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on August 04, 2018, 10:09:20 PM
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on August 04, 2018, 08:23:19 PM
INDOT's decomissoning all of the state routes through Lafayette and West Lafayette surprised me the most!! :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
Lots of decommissionings in Indiana have been surprising. IN-44 in Franklin is another example. As far as Wisconsin goes the ones that surprised me the most were WI-149 and WI-163 leaving huge gaps with no state highways I don't get it.
Those didn't surprise me, they operated as glorified minor county highways.
There are other in the state that I am surprised that WisDOT still hangs onto (ie, WI 152).
One decommissioning in Wisconsin that did kind of surprise me was when US 41 was removed from S 27 St in Milwaukee and most of it was not reflagged as WI 241, instead being turned over to the city to be downgraded into a boulevard street.
Mike
That's not true at all most of it became WI-241 except the the mile gap between Forest Home and National which made no sense to have that gap the whole thing plus the 27th street portion of WI-57 should have all become WI-241 At least WI-152 serves mt Morris a popular resort community I think WI 127 and WI 134 are more surprising especially that latter the town it's serves as spur London is not even incorporated and who even goes there? Yet they agreed to the idiotic request by Menomonee Falls to decommission 74 despite it being a major route connecting Brown Deer Rd the main E W route in northern Milwaukee County to the Sussex Pewaukee area. That is going to cause major problems as semi trucks now have to take long detours to get to that area which is a major industrial area in Waukesha County including the big Quad Graphics plant all just so we could make the downtown falls more pedestrian friendly so dumb communities make such laws all in the name of appeasement.
Yeah what's the point of WI 127? It's literally just a lame bypass of WI 16 that goes through no towns or anywhere of importance.
I was also surprised when WI 123 (between Baraboo and Devil's Lake State Park) was decommissioned and became an extension of county highway DL.
Quote from: roadman65 on August 07, 2018, 11:28:28 PM
VA 168 north of the HRBT! VDOT went through the trouble of renumbering it to VA 143 when the put it on I-64, but as soon as the arterial section of it got upgraded to freeway in the early 80's, they truncated it to Willouby Spit in Norfolk.
It made no sense to transfer the route to only decommission it later.
Too much overlapping, and redundant after the last section of I-64 was opened in 1979 to replace the VA-168 segment just west of Williamsburg. Certainly no need for the overlap on the HRBT.
Quote from: Beltway on August 08, 2018, 12:01:34 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 07, 2018, 11:28:28 PM
VA 168 north of the HRBT! VDOT went through the trouble of renumbering it to VA 143 when the put it on I-64, but as soon as the arterial section of it got upgraded to freeway in the early 80's, they truncated it to Willouby Spit in Norfolk.
It made no sense to transfer the route to only decommission it later.
Too much overlapping, and redundant after the last section of I-64 was opened in 1979 to replace the VA-168 segment just west of Williamsburg. Certainly no need for the overlap on the HRBT.
Which more the reason to have kept both Jefferson Avenue and Merrimac Trail as VA 168 instead of resigning it VA 143.
Quote from: roadman65 on August 07, 2018, 11:28:28 PM
US 113 could have been the DE 1 Turnpike instead.
This actually wouldn't be a bad idea... never thought about that. Although there's certainly importance in the DE 1 number, I don't see why both designations can't run to I-95. If anything it would further solidify US 113's status as the alternate to US 13.
Quote from: roadman65 on August 08, 2018, 12:03:21 AM
Quote from: Beltway on August 08, 2018, 12:01:34 AM
Too much overlapping, and redundant after the last section of I-64 was opened in 1979 to replace the VA-168 segment just west of Williamsburg. Certainly no need for the overlap on the HRBT.
Which more the reason to have kept both Jefferson Avenue and Merrimac Trail as VA 168 instead of resigning it VA 143.
Probably didn't want two disjoint sections of the same route number.
Quote from: roadman65 on August 07, 2018, 11:28:28 PM
VA 168 north of the HRBT! VDOT went through the trouble of renumbering it to VA 143 when the put it on I-64, but as soon as the arterial section of it got upgraded to freeway in the early 80's, they truncated it to Willouby Spit in Norfolk.
It made no sense to transfer the route to only decommission it later.
This was a 22-year long process.
I assume the reason they did this was because north of Williamsburg VA 168 had routing that was not in the path of I-64 plus I-64 was built/upgraded from east to west making it more logical to hold onto 168. Had they built I-64 from west to east they might have renumbered the northern section over to VA 33-249 sooner and just dropped 168 altogether as sections of 64 opened.
I also assume that 168 was not kept on 143 because it was likely touted as the fastest way to Williamsburg since its inception and by moving it to the freeway segments that statement would still be true.
As for VA 162, it is even stupider than you think. VA 162 does not connect to US 60 anymore either. It ends at the Williamsburg CL just 0.17 miles from VA 143.
OK-74A in Norman, mostly because I had no idea it was happening until I drove past the crew that was taking the signs down before my very eyes.
One decomissioning I'm surprised it has not yet happened is that of I-894, which is now totally redundant to I-41.
Quote from: MantyMadTown on August 07, 2018, 11:56:13 PM
Yeah what's the point of WI 127? It's literally just a lame bypass of WI 16 that goes through no towns or anywhere of importance.
WI 127 is the US 16 'old road' on that segment. Yes, I'm a bit surprised that it wasn't turned over to Columbia County when the current US (now 'WI') 16 road was first built.
I was also a bit surprised when 'US 16' became 'WI 16' when I-90 was completed farther west, seeing as most of the interstate-supplanted US highways in Wisconsin retained their 'US' highway numbers (only US 141 south of Green Bay did not). OTOH, had it stayed 'US 16', US 16 would have then had to have been combined with I-90 between just SW of Rochester, MN and Rapid City, SD.
Mike
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on August 08, 2018, 08:14:26 AM
One decomissioning I'm surprised it has not yet happened is that of I-894, which is now totally redundant to I-41.
Here we go again it's I-41 that is redundant and should be truncated to the zoo.
Quote from: mgk920 on August 08, 2018, 10:02:54 AM
Quote from: MantyMadTown on August 07, 2018, 11:56:13 PM
Yeah what's the point of WI 127? It's literally just a lame bypass of WI 16 that goes through no towns or anywhere of importance.
WI 127 is the US 16 'old road' on that segment. Yes, I'm a bit surprised that it wasn't turned over to Columbia County when the current US (now 'WI') 16 road was first built.
I was also a bit surprised when 'US 16' became 'WI 16' when I-90 was completed farther west, seeing as most of the interstate-supplanted US highways in Wisconsin retained their 'US' highway numbers (only US 141 south of Green Bay did not). OTOH, had it stayed 'US 16', US 16 would have then had to have been combined with I-90 between just SW of Rochester, MN and Rapid City, SD.
Mike
Yeah WI-127 should become a county highway. I don't see any point for it to stay commissioned by the state.
Quote from: dvferyance on August 08, 2018, 10:55:52 AM
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on August 08, 2018, 08:14:26 AM
One decomissioning I'm surprised it has not yet happened is that of I-894, which is now totally redundant to I-41.
Here we go again it's I-41 that is redundant and should be truncated to the zoo.
Nah, it's logical to keep it as I-41 all the way to where it breaks off from US 41 just south of the Illinois state line. It also makes sense to designate the segment of highway between Milwaukee and Illinois as a north-south road.
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on August 08, 2018, 08:14:26 AM
One decomissioning I'm surprised it has not yet happened is that of I-894, which is now totally redundant to I-41.
I thought it had been explained many times, but as I think about it perhaps not as much in the general board as the regional ones which I understand you may not read (or read as much) not living in the US.
There are two (valid, in my view) reasons I-894 still exists. The first one was provided by WisDOT itself, the second one is more speculation by me.
1. Local familiarity for Milwaukee drivers.
2. To maintain a clear marked Milwaukee bypass for I-94, which I-41 on its own may not effectively communicate.
This is why 894 exists and is not going away.
Quote from: MantyMadTown on August 08, 2018, 04:34:18 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on August 08, 2018, 10:02:54 AM
Quote from: MantyMadTown on August 07, 2018, 11:56:13 PM
Yeah what's the point of WI 127? It's literally just a lame bypass of WI 16 that goes through no towns or anywhere of importance.
WI 127 is the US 16 'old road' on that segment. Yes, I'm a bit surprised that it wasn't turned over to Columbia County when the current US (now 'WI') 16 road was first built.
I was also a bit surprised when 'US 16' became 'WI 16' when I-90 was completed farther west, seeing as most of the interstate-supplanted US highways in Wisconsin retained their 'US' highway numbers (only US 141 south of Green Bay did not). OTOH, had it stayed 'US 16', US 16 would have then had to have been combined with I-90 between just SW of Rochester, MN and Rapid City, SD.
Mike
Yeah WI-127 should become a county highway. I don't see any point for it to stay commissioned by the state.
Quote from: dvferyance on August 08, 2018, 10:55:52 AM
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on August 08, 2018, 08:14:26 AM
One decomissioning I'm surprised it has not yet happened is that of I-894, which is now totally redundant to I-41.
Here we go again it's I-41 that is redundant and should be truncated to the zoo.
Nah, it's logical to keep it as I-41 all the way to where it breaks off from US 41 just south of the Illinois state line. It also makes sense to designate the segment of highway between Milwaukee and Illinois as a north-south road.
Still have US 41 which is north and south. Illinois will never extend I-41 south of the stateline. You don't need that many routes. The zoo is as far south as I-41 goes without being duplexed with another interstate it makes way more sense to end it there.
Quote from: mgk920 on August 06, 2018, 09:35:49 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on August 04, 2018, 10:09:20 PM
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on August 04, 2018, 08:23:19 PM
INDOT's decomissoning all of the state routes through Lafayette and West Lafayette surprised me the most!! :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
Lots of decommissionings in Indiana have been surprising. IN-44 in Franklin is another example. As far as Wisconsin goes the ones that surprised me the most were WI-149 and WI-163 leaving huge gaps with no state highways I don't get it.
Those didn't surprise me, they operated as glorified minor county highways.
They may have been underutilized but I am not a fan of leaving huge holes with no state highways. I probably would have modified the routing of 149 a little bit as it was much of a stair step route.
Quote from: dvferyance on August 09, 2018, 10:52:03 AM
Still have US 41 which is north and south. Illinois will never extend I-41 south of the stateline. You don't need that many routes. The zoo is as far south as I-41 goes without being duplexed with another interstate it makes way more sense to end it there.
Agreed. Overlaps where one route is concurrent with another where it ends should be eliminated where possible (which it isn't always; US 44/NY 55 is one such case, at least without renumbering half of NY 55, though it could be minimized by truncating US 44 to US 9W).
Quote from: vdeane on August 09, 2018, 12:51:22 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on August 09, 2018, 10:52:03 AM
Still have US 41 which is north and south. Illinois will never extend I-41 south of the stateline. You don't need that many routes. The zoo is as far south as I-41 goes without being duplexed with another interstate it makes way more sense to end it there.
Agreed. Overlaps where one route is concurrent with another where it ends should be eliminated where possible (which it isn't always; US 44/NY 55 is one such case, at least without renumbering half of NY 55, though it could be minimized by truncating US 44 to US 9W).
US 44 should be decommissioned anyway as its not in the grid perfectly and is surpassed by the interstates. Considering it was an alternate to US 6 it should have been numbered that way in the first place.
I-495 along the east end of the Beltway around DC was decommissioned and then reinstated due to whiners who did not want to refer to the road as simply I-95 just as Massachusetts people not wanting to relinquish calling Yankee Division Highway Route 128 even when it was truncated to Dedham.
Quote from: roadman65 on August 09, 2018, 06:52:47 PM
I-495 along the east end of the Beltway around DC was decommissioned and then reinstated due to whiners who did not want to refer to the road as simply I-95 just as Massachusetts people not wanting to relinquish calling Yankee Division Highway Route 128 even when it was truncated to Dedham.
Not a good explanation. One circumferential highway with one number, then later changed to two separate numbers.
Many regional motorists never fully adjusted to having a full-circle beltway with halves with two different numbers (I-95 and I-495). In 1989, the I-495 designation was applied back to the eastern portion of the beltway, so the whole beltway is again I-495, and the eastern portion is I-95 also.
Quote from: Beltway on August 09, 2018, 08:57:25 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 09, 2018, 06:52:47 PM
I-495 along the east end of the Beltway around DC was decommissioned and then reinstated due to whiners who did not want to refer to the road as simply I-95 just as Massachusetts people not wanting to relinquish calling Yankee Division Highway Route 128 even when it was truncated to Dedham.
Not a good explanation. One circumferential highway with one number, then later changed to two separate numbers.
Many regional motorists never fully adjusted to having a full-circle beltway with halves with two different numbers (I-95 and I-495). In 1989, the I-495 designation was applied back to the eastern portion of the beltway, so the whole beltway is again I-495, and the eastern portion is I-95 also.
Driver confusion was indeed the impetus for the change which was pushed by Virginia and approved in 1991. Here is a 1991 article discussing the change - https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/1991/06/11/vote-on-numbering-will-mean-a-less-loopy-beltway/62bd03d3-91a6-4aa2-a01b-4367e1226204/?utm_term=.e258f0f29c2a
Note that the article talks about continued confusion because the mileposts and exit numbers were not consistent around the beltway. It took another 10 years to get that aspect completely changed to today's more sensible scheme.
I also found that the Aug 1991 CTB reference to add 495 back to the eastern beltway did nt state any reason for the change except to say Virginia was who proposed it.
Quote from: Mapmikey on August 09, 2018, 09:16:23 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 09, 2018, 08:57:25 PM
Many regional motorists never fully adjusted to having a full-circle beltway with halves with two different numbers (I-95 and I-495). In 1989, the I-495 designation was applied back to the eastern portion of the beltway, so the whole beltway is again I-495, and the eastern portion is I-95 also.
Driver confusion was indeed the impetus for the change which was pushed by Virginia and approved in 1991. Here is a 1991 article discussing the change -https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/1991/06/11/vote-on-numbering-will-mean-a-less-loopy-beltway/62bd03d3-91a6-4aa2-a01b-4367e1226204/?utm_term=.e258f0f29c2a
Note that the article talks about continued confusion because the mileposts and exit numbers were not consistent around the beltway. It took another 10 years to get that aspect completely changed to today's more sensible scheme.
I also found that the Aug 1991 CTB reference to add 495 back to the eastern beltway did nt state any reason for the change except to say Virginia was who proposed it.
With the hope of ending 16 years of confusion for drivers, the entire 64-mile Capital Beltway will be numbered as Interstate 495 by fall, a national group of transportation officials decided yesterday.
Meeting in Georgia, the executive committee of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials approved a request by the Maryland, Virginia and District highway departments to renumber the Beltway so the 32-mile section designated as I-95 also will be marked I-495 in Maryland and Virginia.The article quotes a whole list of officials from both sides of the river, supporting the change.
My parents used to live in Old Town Alexandria, and the Beltway interchange for that is US-1. Suppose a trip to Vienna, you use one Beltway but both I-95 and I-495. A trip to Silver Spring, you use one Beltway but both I-95 and I-495. That is an example of what was common all around the Beltway, and not just for local trips. That is not efficient.
Dude. What's with the unreadable font color?
Quote from: Rothman on August 09, 2018, 11:32:22 PM
Dude. What's with the unreadable font color?
What are you using? Works in Google Chrome and Microsoft Edge.
Quote from: Beltway on August 09, 2018, 11:43:41 PM
Quote from: Rothman on August 09, 2018, 11:32:22 PM
Dude. What's with the unreadable font color?
What are you using? Works in Google Chrome and Microsoft Edge.
That particular post might be appearing on the green shaded part of the thread (as it alternates white & green) on his screen. That would be a problem if the quote is also green.
Quote from: plain on August 10, 2018, 12:37:03 AM
Quote from: Beltway on August 09, 2018, 11:43:41 PM
Quote from: Rothman on August 09, 2018, 11:32:22 PM
Dude. What's with the unreadable font color?
What are you using? Works in Google Chrome and Microsoft Edge.
That particular post might be appearing on the green shaded part of the thread (as it alternates white & green) on his screen. That would be a problem if the quote is also green.
Mine alternates white and green backgrounds and that post has white. I used italics and green for the quoted text. I'll try a different color.
Brown seems to work well.
For Indiana and Illinois, I was surprised that they both decommissioned US 460 the minute I-64 was completed. Of all the US highway routes replaced with an interstate, US 460 probably strayed the farthest from the interstate, serving places like Carmi, Boonville, etc.
US 54 across Illinois seems a little odd as well, since it seems to be a primary route.
IMO, US 150 should have been decommissioned in both states, well before both 54 and 460. It straddles I-74 anywhere that it would have any relevancy, and multiplexes the rest of the way with more significant routes. No one from Terre Haute has ever said take 41-150 to Vincennes. It is strictly 41. And I am pretty certain no one there in the last 40-50 years has taken 150 to go to Peoria or Louisville.
Quote from: Captain Jack on August 11, 2018, 12:01:45 PM
IMO, US 150 should have been decommissioned in both states, well before both 54 and 460. It straddles I-74 anywhere that it would have any relevancy, and multiplexes the rest of the way with more significant routes. No one from Terre Haute has ever said take 41-150 to Vincennes. It is strictly 41. And I am pretty certain no one there in the last 40-50 years has taken 150 to go to Peoria or Louisville.
Actually, I did last year. I was in the process of clinching 150 and needed the stretch between Danville and Paris to complete the route in all three states it traverses. Once I got to Paris, I was looking for the shortest and best route home. That involved IL 1, I-70, the new IN 641 (I wanted to check out the route since I was in the area), and then US 150 from south of Terre Haute to Louisville, including the concurrencies with US 41 and 50. I certainly didn't want to have to deal with Indianapolis. so that ruled out taking I-70 to either I-65 or I-74 (thus dealing with two cities, Indy and either Cincy or Louisville). Staying on 41 to I-64 was too far out of the way south. So US 150 it was. Louisville starts showing up as a destination where 50 and 150 split.
In Maryland we have the opposite problem: I'm more surprised that more decommissioning of minor state routes hasn't happened.
The one historic decommissioning that has always surprised me was with US 140 because it was only partially replaced by interstate with I-795 outside Baltimore. The annoying thing is that MD did not renumber their whole segment (from Baltimore to Westminster north through Union Mills to the line) as MD 140. They instead moved 140 from Baltimore to Westminster to Emmitsburg to the line and renumbered the portion North through Union Mills to the line as MD 97. PA renumbered their portion as PA 97 to match, causing there to be 2 route 97s in the state (the other is out near Erie).
US 264 leading to Whalebone Jct. NC where it now ends where it used to begin concurrency with its parent.
US 206 in PA! It was not even a mile thus making it a true child of what its supposed to be.
Speaking of US 206, NJ not downgrading its 3 in state US routes to state routes. Even if US 46 was to become NJ 46 locals would not be confused at all as people from the Garden State call all designations "Route." Even I-80 is called "Route 80" and US 22 is "Route 22." etc.
I'm surprised at the wide scope of state route turnbacks/downloads/whatever in California. In Riverside County, I have been inconvenienced by the poor marking of the former routes of 111, 74, and 79. I guess I understand why cities might want to take control over a route through their territory, but the state obviously does not enforce the statutory requirement that the continuation of these routes be adequately marked. As an example, old CA-111 is simply marked by maintaining the street name "Highway 111" along the decommissioned portion through Palm Desert and surrounding cities.
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on August 13, 2018, 05:47:58 PM
I'm surprised at the wide scope of state route turnbacks/downloads/whatever in California. In Riverside County, I have been inconvenienced by the poor marking of the former routes of 111, 74, and 79. I guess I understand why cities might want to take control over a route through their territory, but the state obviously does not enforce the statutory requirement that the continuation of these routes be adequately marked. As an example, old CA-111 is simply marked by maintaining the street name "Highway 111" along the decommissioned portion through Palm Desert and surrounding cities.
130 might be the grand champion of a relinquished Route not being signed when part of the agreement was for San Jose to do so. Even worse Caltrans in their infinite wisdom decided to remove the BGS for 130 at the exit for Alum Rock Avenue along US 101. At minimum at least Bakersfield seems to care about signing 178 through downtown still.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 13, 2018, 08:36:18 PM
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on August 13, 2018, 05:47:58 PM
I'm surprised at the wide scope of state route turnbacks/downloads/whatever in California. In Riverside County, I have been inconvenienced by the poor marking of the former routes of 111, 74, and 79. I guess I understand why cities might want to take control over a route through their territory, but the state obviously does not enforce the statutory requirement that the continuation of these routes be adequately marked. As an example, old CA-111 is simply marked by maintaining the street name "Highway 111" along the decommissioned portion through Palm Desert and surrounding cities.
130 might be the grand champion of a relinquished Route not being signed when part of the agreement was for San Jose to do so. Even worse Caltrans in their infinite wisdom decided to remove the BGS for 130 at the exit for Alum Rock Avenue along US 101. At minimum at least Bakersfield seems to care about signing 178 through downtown still.
Damn straight! Functionally, CA 130 is an orphan -- essentially about 2/3 of Mt. Hamilton Road. Once it hits Alum Rock Ave., it simply vanishes into thin air. To say that the City of San Jose doesn't give a rat's ass about signed surface streets is an understatement -- the term would be more like "active ignorance"! Even though there's about four blocks of The Alameda that's technically still signed CA 82 north of I-880 (it now legally terminates at that interchange), no one (Caltrans D4 or the city) can seem to be bothered to put up even one reassurance shield NB at the interchange or an "END 82" shield assembly SB -- and besides Mt. Hamilton Road, that's the sole remaining surface-street state highway within the city limits. SJ's attitude is more or less "don't pay attention to it and it'll just go away" when it comes to state routes that aren't freeways. And lack of signage is just the start -- it seems there's an ongoing effort to make traversal of the city by car as onerous as humanly possible. The city is becoming famous/notorious for its many "road diets" (some actually work well) -- but other less obvious methods such as mis-timing signal sequences, prohibiting through movements at the periphery of some neighborhoods, and programming left turn signals to only function
every other cycle, and their newest "toy": bolt-on speed bumps -- make it obvious that traffic calming does
not entail
driver calming! They have yet to try ridiculously low speed limits; there's not enough cops in the city to make that tactic work. Driving in this town every day makes me wonder just what they'll think of next!
Quote
programming left turn signals to only function every other cycle
Any examples of this?
(In Cupertino, a "helpful" intersection at Stevens Creek and Saich Way accommodates EB left-turners
twice per cycle if the pedestrian signal is triggered)
Quote from: sparker on August 16, 2018, 05:05:22 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 13, 2018, 08:36:18 PM
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on August 13, 2018, 05:47:58 PM
I'm surprised at the wide scope of state route turnbacks/downloads/whatever in California. In Riverside County, I have been inconvenienced by the poor marking of the former routes of 111, 74, and 79. I guess I understand why cities might want to take control over a route through their territory, but the state obviously does not enforce the statutory requirement that the continuation of these routes be adequately marked. As an example, old CA-111 is simply marked by maintaining the street name "Highway 111" along the decommissioned portion through Palm Desert and surrounding cities.
130 might be the grand champion of a relinquished Route not being signed when part of the agreement was for San Jose to do so. Even worse Caltrans in their infinite wisdom decided to remove the BGS for 130 at the exit for Alum Rock Avenue along US 101. At minimum at least Bakersfield seems to care about signing 178 through downtown still.
Damn straight! Functionally, CA 130 is an orphan -- essentially about 2/3 of Mt. Hamilton Road. Once it hits Alum Rock Ave., it simply vanishes into thin air. To say that the City of San Jose doesn't give a rat's ass about signed surface streets is an understatement -- the term would be more like "active ignorance"! Even though there's about four blocks of The Alameda that's technically still signed CA 82 north of I-880 (it now legally terminates at that interchange), no one (Caltrans D4 or the city) can seem to be bothered to put up even one reassurance shield NB at the interchange or an "END 82" shield assembly SB -- and besides Mt. Hamilton Road, that's the sole remaining surface-street state highway within the city limits. SJ's attitude is more or less "don't pay attention to it and it'll just go away" when it comes to state routes that aren't freeways. And lack of signage is just the start -- it seems there's an ongoing effort to make traversal of the city by car as onerous as humanly possible. The city is becoming famous/notorious for its many "road diets" (some actually work well) -- but other less obvious methods such as mis-timing signal sequences, prohibiting through movements at the periphery of some neighborhoods, and programming left turn signals to only function every other cycle, and their newest "toy": bolt-on speed bumps -- make it obvious that traffic calming does not entail driver calming! They have yet to try ridiculously low speed limits; there's not enough cops in the city to make that tactic work. Driving in this town every day makes me wonder just what they'll think of next!
The irony is that the mentality is definitely not shared with Santa Clara County which went out of it's way to sign CA 130 all the way east of Mount Hamilton to the Stanislaus County Line. The real shame was those button-copy CA 130 BGSs on US 101, I'm glad that I grabbed some photos the month before they were removed:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4747/25108648987_bf315d3f58_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/EfLoza)130CAb (https://flic.kr/p/EfLoza) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4661/26106648148_6a932338e6_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/FLXoXf)130CAa (https://flic.kr/p/FLXoXf) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
Unfortunately, the disregard for signage definitely extends to Caltrans D4. In Gilroy, WB CA 152 west of US 101 is largely unfollowable due to missing signs/shield assemblies on Monterey Road (old US 101) north of downtown, onto which CA 152 "jogs" for several blocks; the signposts are there, but there's absolutely no indication CA 152 turns west from SB Monterey onto First Street, which eventually becomes Hecker Pass Road over the hill to Watsonville. I've talked to D4 about this, but get the "stock" reply: they'll look into it -- but in the past 2 years nothing has been done. Scuttlebutt has it that when and if CA 152 east from Gilroy is realigned to an expressway extending east from CA 25, CA 152 will be relocated to a southern extension of Santa Teresa Blvd., which is shown on planning maps as intersecting US 101 at or near the present CA 25 interchange; that'll take it around the southwest side of town past Gavilan College to Hecker Pass Road. That'll make the convoluted double "L" present Gilroy alignment moot.
Quote from: sparker on August 16, 2018, 07:23:36 PM
Unfortunately, the disregard for signage definitely extends to Caltrans D4. In Gilroy, WB CA 152 west of US 101 is largely unfollowable due to missing signs/shield assemblies on Monterey Road (old US 101) north of downtown, onto which CA 152 "jogs" for several blocks; the signposts are there, but there's absolutely no indication CA 152 turns west from SB Monterey onto First Street, which eventually becomes Hecker Pass Road over the hill to Watsonville. I've talked to D4 about this, but get the "stock" reply: they'll look into it -- but in the past 2 years nothing has been done. Scuttlebutt has it that when and if CA 152 east from Gilroy is realigned to an expressway extending east from CA 25, CA 152 will be relocated to a southern extension of Santa Teresa Blvd., which is shown on planning maps as intersecting US 101 at or near the present CA 25 interchange; that'll take it around the southwest side of town past Gavilan College to Hecker Pass Road. That'll make the convoluted double "L" present Gilroy alignment moot.
What's the logic with routing 152 towards 25 West from Pacheco Pass? The overwhelming majority of traffic uses 152 to get to/from San Jose. Routing 152 that far south won't pull all that many vehicles of the current route given it swings a pretty decent jog north of there.
D4 probably has the worst signage in all of Caltrans. 109 and 114 kind of bother me not being signed as well. 109 has an odd legislative definition that has the route partially under the control East Palo Alto but yet still part of route somehow. Really make take on it is that if a route is complete on the books it ought to be signed no matter who is responsible for maintenance.
On the flip side D6 seems be the gold standard for Caltrans signage these days. To my
Knowledge Bakersfield even still signs the relinquished parts of 178 in downtown just like legislative definition says it should.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 16, 2018, 07:43:54 PM
Quote from: sparker on August 16, 2018, 07:23:36 PM
Unfortunately, the disregard for signage definitely extends to Caltrans D4. In Gilroy, WB CA 152 west of US 101 is largely unfollowable due to missing signs/shield assemblies on Monterey Road (old US 101) north of downtown, onto which CA 152 "jogs" for several blocks; the signposts are there, but there's absolutely no indication CA 152 turns west from SB Monterey onto First Street, which eventually becomes Hecker Pass Road over the hill to Watsonville. I've talked to D4 about this, but get the "stock" reply: they'll look into it -- but in the past 2 years nothing has been done. Scuttlebutt has it that when and if CA 152 east from Gilroy is realigned to an expressway extending east from CA 25, CA 152 will be relocated to a southern extension of Santa Teresa Blvd., which is shown on planning maps as intersecting US 101 at or near the present CA 25 interchange; that'll take it around the southwest side of town past Gavilan College to Hecker Pass Road. That'll make the convoluted double "L" present Gilroy alignment moot.
What's the logic with routing 152 towards 25 West from Pacheco Pass? The overwhelming majority of traffic uses 152 to get to/from San Jose. Routing 152 that far south won't pull all that many vehicles of the current route given it swings a pretty decent jog north of there.
I think that is where there's available right of way for an expressway bypass of the 2-lane section near San Felipe Lake. I recall there's been some preliminary maps there showing a planned new-terrain pathway from near the 152/San Felipe Road junction west towards Route 25.
From Cahighways.org:
(https://cahighways.org/maps/152-gilroy.jpg)
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 16, 2018, 07:43:54 PM
D4 probably has the worst signage in all of Caltrans. 109 and 114 kind of bother me not being signed as well. 109 has an odd legislative definition that has the route partially under the control East Palo Alto but yet still part of route somehow. Really make take on it is that if a route is complete on the books it ought to be signed no matter who is responsible for maintenance.
In full agreement with your assertion there.
My pick for most egregiously poor signage (due to a decommissioning!) is Route 1 in Oxnard; after Rice Avenue was upgraded and the downtown Oxnard section decommissioned...Route 1 signage did not appear at all on Rice Avenue itself or off US 101 for at least 2-3 years. I haven't been down there since 2014 but Google Street View shows that the Rice Avenue exit off 101 is still not signed for Route 1:
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.2235056,-119.1522501,3a,75y,129.32h,103.23t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sL5wLFXUR0dOjjY6V6PtvOA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 16, 2018, 07:43:54 PM
On the flip side D6 seems be the gold standard for Caltrans signage these days. To my
Knowledge Bakersfield even still signs the relinquished parts of 178 in downtown just like legislative definition says it should.
IIRC back in 2013 or so there were still shields for Route 91 along Artesia Boulevard west of the Harbor Freeway, as another example of this (in a different CalTrans district!). I may have photographed a few back in the day, I don't know if any are up now.
Quote from: mgk920 on August 08, 2018, 10:02:54 AM
Quote from: MantyMadTown on August 07, 2018, 11:56:13 PM
Yeah what's the point of WI 127? It's literally just a lame bypass of WI 16 that goes through no towns or anywhere of importance.
WI 127 is the US 16 'old road' on that segment. Yes, I'm a bit surprised that it wasn't turned over to Columbia County when the current US (now 'WI') 16 road was first built.
I was also a bit surprised when 'US 16' became 'WI 16' when I-90 was completed farther west, seeing as most of the interstate-supplanted US highways in Wisconsin retained their 'US' highway numbers (only US 141 south of Green Bay did not). OTOH, had it stayed 'US 16', US 16 would have then had to have been combined with I-90 between just SW of Rochester, MN and Rapid City, SD.
Mike
Except for the part between Sioux Falls and Mitchell which is now SD-38 everything else would run with I-90. I do agree that US16 from Rapid City to Waukesha is one US highway I would bring back along with US89 from Flagstaff to Wicksburg. All other US decommissions made sense.
It was finding out that SR-99 (WA) was decommissioned from SR-599 to SR-518. Like for what reason do you create a gap in not only a major route, but the secondary route to the International Airport, and a former US Route?
I will also say that the decommissioning of OR-99W through Portland makes no sense, isn't signed in any way, and there seems to be ongoing arguments between the city, county, and state over if the route exists, doesn't exist, or where it is/isn't routed through downtown, and if it is/isn't continued along Interstate Ave.
I will agree with anyone regarding the illogical decommissioning of any State Road or US Route in or near any city in Indiana. Especially when the re-routing that is done uses roads that are far lower capacity than the previous routing (I'm looking at you Lafayette/West Lafayette)
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on August 04, 2018, 08:23:19 PM
INDOT's decomissoning all of the state routes through Lafayette and West Lafayette surprised me the most!! :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
INDOT's sheer dedication to minimizing their workload to cut costs never ceases to amaze me. The state is really trying to accomplish as little as it can by minimizing its government as much as possible.
So this is basically a blanket statement covering Indiana's decision to delete all state routes through Indianapolis, Fort Wayne, Lafayette, and other urbanized pieces of the state.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on August 20, 2018, 02:45:44 PM
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on August 04, 2018, 08:23:19 PM
INDOT's decomissoning all of the state routes through Lafayette and West Lafayette surprised me the most!! :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
INDOT's sheer dedication to minimizing their workload to cut costs never ceases to amaze me. The state is really trying to accomplish as little as it can by minimizing its government as much as possible.
So this is basically a blanket statement covering Indiana's decision to delete all state routes through Indianapolis, Fort Wayne, Lafayette, and other urbanized pieces of the state.
That still doesn't explain US 30 not being where IN 930 is.
Quote from: kurumi on August 16, 2018, 11:26:38 AM
Quote
programming left turn signals to only function every other cycle
Any examples of this?
(In Cupertino, a "helpful" intersection at Stevens Creek and Saich Way accommodates EB left-turners twice per cycle if the pedestrian signal is triggered)
Curtner Ave. and Meridian in San Jose (not too far from my home); this functions in off-peak hours only; it reverts to standard revolving-cycle (with double simultaneous lefts in both directions) from 5-10 a.m. and 3-7 p.m. Also, for a while, some "secondary" signals on Branham Lane. between Camden and Monterey Road (generally local streets rather than the main arterials) were set up in this manner about a year ago; there must have been complaints, because they reverted to every-cycle this last spring. This appears to be some sort of experimental program in SJ; I haven't had the opportunity to call the city transportation department to get any more information at this point (work issues are a bit pressing right now); will probably do so when I have the time. It would be interesting to see if they're doing this anywhere else around the city (I generally "hang around" Willow Glen, Cambrian, and Almaden, where I notice things deployed locally). I would suppose that this is part of their apparent attempt to institute general "traffic calming" by using this tactic to "meter out" traffic into the neighborhoods; for those intersections, the "2-cycle" arrangement, particularly on the previous Branham iteration, only affected the protected lefts from the arterial (there are none on crossing neighborhood streets such as Jarvis and Navarro). As far as Curtner/Meridian is concerned, traffic on Curtner has certainly increased over the past few years; it's possible that the "2-cycle" method is simply there to diminish the effects on that traffic on intersecting arterials.
Quote from: 1 on August 20, 2018, 02:49:40 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on August 20, 2018, 02:45:44 PM
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on August 04, 2018, 08:23:19 PM
INDOT's decomissoning all of the state routes through Lafayette and West Lafayette surprised me the most!! :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
INDOT's sheer dedication to minimizing their workload to cut costs never ceases to amaze me. The state is really trying to accomplish as little as it can by minimizing its government as much as possible.
So this is basically a blanket statement covering Indiana's decision to delete all state routes through Indianapolis, Fort Wayne, Lafayette, and other urbanized pieces of the state.
That still doesn't explain US 30 not being where IN 930 is.
Was literally waiting for some pedant to bring that up, so thanks for being that guy.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on August 21, 2018, 08:33:13 PM
Quote from: 1 on August 20, 2018, 02:49:40 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on August 20, 2018, 02:45:44 PM
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on August 04, 2018, 08:23:19 PM
INDOT's decomissoning all of the state routes through Lafayette and West Lafayette surprised me the most!! :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
INDOT's sheer dedication to minimizing their workload to cut costs never ceases to amaze me. The state is really trying to accomplish as little as it can by minimizing its government as much as possible.
So this is basically a blanket statement covering Indiana's decision to delete all state routes through Indianapolis, Fort Wayne, Lafayette, and other urbanized pieces of the state.
That still doesn't explain US 30 not being where IN 930 is.
Was literally waiting for some pedant to bring that up, so thanks for being that guy.
Waiting? I replied in under 4 minutes.
Isn't being a pedant a requirement for being a roadgeek?
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on August 21, 2018, 09:20:19 PM
Isn't being a pedant a requirement for being a roadgeek?
That depends, not all of us are in the hobby for hunting down non-MUTCD complaint signs, being concerned of out of grid numberings or tracking down every last possible potential Interstate corridor.
I know this is a typo, but...
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 21, 2018, 09:23:31 PM
non-MUTCD complaint signs
...where can I buy these?
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on August 21, 2018, 09:27:20 PM
I know this is a typo, but...
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 21, 2018, 09:23:31 PM
non-MUTCD complaint signs
...where can I buy these?
Damn phone...ain't the best for proof reading. :-D But, that said there are plenty of mutant signs out west here in California that don't even comply to state standards. I have a whole bunch in my garage hanging up on the walls which doesn't amuse my fiancé.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 21, 2018, 09:23:31 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on August 21, 2018, 09:20:19 PM
Isn't being a pedant a requirement for being a roadgeek?
That depends, not all of us are in the hobby for hunting down non-MUTCD complaint signs, being concerned of out of grid numberings or tracking down every last possible potential Interstate corridor.
^ This.