Decomissonings that suprised you the most.

Started by dvferyance, August 04, 2018, 07:03:14 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

dvferyance

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.


hbelkins

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.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

Max Rockatansky

#2
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. 

Great Lakes Roads

INDOT's decomissoning all of the state routes through Lafayette and West Lafayette surprised me the most!!  :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

TheStranger

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.
Chris Sampang

dvferyance

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.

Beltway

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?
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

Beltway

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.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

sparker

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. 

MNHighwayMan

#9
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).

TheStranger

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.)
Chris Sampang

CNGL-Leudimin

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).
Supporter of the construction of several running gags, including I-366 with a speed limit of 85 mph (137 km/h) and the Hypotenuse.

Please note that I may mention "invalid" FM channels, i.e. ending in an even number or down to 87.5. These are valid in Europe.

sparker

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.   


Max Rockatansky

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. 

DandyDan

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.
MORE FUN THAN HUMANLY THOUGHT POSSIBLE

Beltway

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.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

Mapmikey

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.


Max Rockatansky

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. 

hotdogPi

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?
Clinched, minus I-93 (I'm missing a few miles and my file is incorrect)

Traveled, plus US 13, 44, and 50, and several state routes

I will be in Burlington VT for the eclipse.

mrcmc888

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.

Mapmikey

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

wanderer2575

M-107 in Michigan (entrance into Porcupine Mountains Wilderness State Park) -- that decommissioning came out of nowhere.

sparker

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!

csw

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.

Kulerage

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.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.