For every US 4xx, there exists or used to exist a xx, 1xx, 2xx, and 3xx. Same with other numbers. For example, for US 730 to exist, there had to be a 30, 130, 230, 330, 430, 530, and 630. The only exceptions are US 400, US 425, and US 491. 400 and 425 are oddballs anyway, but this leaves 491 as a bit strange, as there was never a 291 or 391. I have two questions:
1. Why was 491 chosen and not 291?
2. Were there any violations of this rule in the past that have been resolved now?
Colorado has SH 291 and SH 391 and requested US 491 so as not to conflict.
Quote from: NE2 on January 06, 2019, 10:00:34 AM
Colorado has SH 291 and SH 391 and requested US 491 so as not to conflict.
New Mexico also has state route 291.
There's also a short, unsigned SR 291 in Utah.
When US 666 was initially decided to be renumbered, New Mexico suggested the route become US 393...which of course was in total violation of the numbering system. AASHTO basically said "uh, no" to that and suggested 491 instead.
As a lifelong heavy metal fan, I'm still very sad that they decided to rename US666.
Quote from: US 89 on January 06, 2019, 11:02:29 AM
There's also a short, unsigned SR 291 in Utah.
When US 666 was initially decided to be renumbered, New Mexico suggested the route become US 393...which of course was in total violation of the numbering system. AASHTO basically said "uh, no" to that and suggested 491 instead.
Was it completely on the route of US 491 or was there some weird far flung idea to get that over towards US 93 somehow? I seem to recall UDOT once pushed for a US Route on UT 95 and 24 which was meant to be part of US 666?
Quote from: US 89 on January 06, 2019, 11:02:29 AM
When US 666 was initially decided to be renumbered, New Mexico suggested the route become US 393...which of course was in total violation of the numbering system. AASHTO basically said "uh, no" to that and suggested 491 instead.
NMDoT didn't just throw out 393 as a random suggestion, and I don't think AASHTO was involved in choosing the number 491. When I first became aware of the US 393 proposal in 2003, naturally I was not a big fan of that nonsensical number. As a Colorado resident, I thought my best bet would be to contact CDoT. I got connected to one of the agency's Southwest District managers in Durango, and following is my recollection of what I learned during that conversation:
NMDoT was the main driver in changing US 666's number, but they knew they needed buy-in from the other two states (Colorado and Utah) before submitting a request to AASHTO. Conceptually NMDoT thought of the road as a branch of US 191, so they wanted an x91 designation. They already had SH 291, so initially they suggested US 391. But then CDoT pointed out that they already had SH 391. NMDoT was under the impression that a north-south route needed to be an odd number, so they suggested the next odd number up from 391, which was 393.
I explained to the CDoT manager why that number was not appropriate, and I pointed out that 491 would make a lot more sense. He basically said, "I really don't care what the number is, as long as we can get rid of 666". I asked why, and he said they were literally unable to keep the shields posted on the highway due to chronic sign theft. After that conversation I think he went back to NMDoT with the 491 idea, and that is the proposal that ended up getting submitted to AASHTO.
Quote from: usends on January 06, 2019, 02:45:29 PM
Quote from: US 89 on January 06, 2019, 11:02:29 AM
When US 666 was initially decided to be renumbered, New Mexico suggested the route become US 393...which of course was in total violation of the numbering system. AASHTO basically said "uh, no" to that and suggested 491 instead.
NMDoT didn't just throw out 393 as a random suggestion, and I don't think AASHTO was involved in choosing the number 491. When I first became aware of the US 393 proposal in 2003, naturally I was not a big fan of that nonsensical number. As a Colorado resident, I thought my best bet would be to contact CDoT. I got connected to one of the agency's Southwest District managers in Durango, and following is my recollection of what I learned during that conversation:
NMDoT was the main driver in changing US 666's number, but they knew they needed buy-in from the other two states (Colorado and Utah) before submitting a request to AASHTO. Conceptually NMDoT thought of the road as a branch of US 191, so they wanted an x91 designation. They already had SH 291, so initially they suggested US 391. But then CDoT pointed out that they already had SH 391. NMDoT was under the impression that a north-south route needed to be an odd number, so they suggested the next odd number up from 391, which was 393.
I explained to the CDoT manager why that number was not appropriate, and I pointed out that 491 would make a lot more sense. He basically said, "I really don't care what the number is, as long as we can get rid of 666". I asked why, and he said they were literally unable to keep the shields posted on the highway due to chronic sign theft. After that conversation I think he went back to NMDoT with the 491 idea, and that is the proposal that ended up getting submitted to AASHTO.
That explains why the same AASHTO that gave us 412 and 400 (and more) didn't somehow save the day to keep us from another U.S. route number travesty.
Quote from: 1 on January 06, 2019, 09:44:15 AM
For every US 4xx, there exists or used to exist a xx, 1xx, 2xx, and 3xx... Were there any violations of this rule in the past that have been resolved now?
Here are a few similar examples:
-There is a US 209, but never a US 109. 109 was included in the preliminary 1925 plan, but it ended up as US 9E in the final numbering. US 209 was not in the prelim plan, so one could argue that the number 109 should have been used for it.
-US 641 was commissioned in 1955. By that time, both US 241 and 541 were gone, so one could argue that one of those numbers should have been reused instead.
-There was a US 250 in the prelim plan, but no US 250 in the final 1926 numbering. So one could argue that US 350, 450, 550, and 650 should have been renumbered. (The current US 250 was commissioned in 1928.)
-US 264 was commissioned in 1932. By that time, the first US 164 was gone, so that number was available. (Since that time a second US 164 has come and gone.)
Triple six may have extended southward from I-40 on today 191 also, at one time. There is an AZ 266 and 366 south of Safford, which may have been branches of it. 191 goes all the way to the southern border at Douglas, AZ eventually.
Quote from: DJStephens on January 07, 2019, 09:27:17 AM
Triple six may have extended southward from I-40 on today 191 also, at one time. There is an AZ 266 and 366 south of Safford, which may have been branches of it. 191 goes all the way to the southern border at Douglas, AZ eventually.
266 and 366 are definirely branches of 666. Arizona was big on creating family 3D Routes of 2ds before the Interstate era. US 666 connected AZ 266 and 366 by proxy to US 66. Take a look at some of the 1950s era highway maps on David Ramsey and the convention is immediately apparent state wide.
Quote from: DJStephens on January 07, 2019, 09:27:17 AM
Triple six may have extended southward from I-40 on today 191 also, at one time. There is an AZ 266 and 366 south of Safford, which may have been branches of it. 191 goes all the way to the southern border at Douglas, AZ eventually.
May have? It did, for over 50 years -- from the late 1930s (it shows up on a 1938 map, but not one from 1935) until it was changed to US 191 in 1992. Prior to that, the southern leg of the road was AZ 81 and the northern leg was AZ 61.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 07, 2019, 10:09:21 AM
Quote from: DJStephens on January 07, 2019, 09:27:17 AM
Triple six may have extended southward from I-40 on today 191 also, at one time. There is an AZ 266 and 366 south of Safford, which may have been branches of it. 191 goes all the way to the southern border at Douglas, AZ eventually.
266 and 366 are definirely branches of 666. Arizona was big on creating family 3D Routes of 2ds before the Interstate era. US 666 connected AZ 266 and 366 by proxy to US 66. Take a look at some of the 1950s era highway maps on David Ramsey and the convention is immediately apparent state wide.
They were big into that even for state route designations -- like AZ 64, which was given five x64 state route branches. Many of those (plus much of the 64 mainline itself) would end up later as extended US routes. Compared to nearby states like Utah, the Arizona state highway network's numbering is remarkably organized, and clearly was even more so in the past.
Quote from: US 89 on January 07, 2019, 03:40:30 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 07, 2019, 10:09:21 AM
Quote from: DJStephens on January 07, 2019, 09:27:17 AM
Triple six may have extended southward from I-40 on today 191 also, at one time. There is an AZ 266 and 366 south of Safford, which may have been branches of it. 191 goes all the way to the southern border at Douglas, AZ eventually.
266 and 366 are definirely branches of 666. Arizona was big on creating family 3D Routes of 2ds before the Interstate era. US 666 connected AZ 266 and 366 by proxy to US 66. Take a look at some of the 1950s era highway maps on David Ramsey and the convention is immediately apparent state wide.
They were big into that even for state route designations -- like AZ 64, which was given five x64 state route branches. Many of those (plus much of the 64 mainline itself) would end up later as extended US routes. Compared to nearby states like Utah, the Arizona state highway network's numbering is remarkably organized, and clearly was even more so in the past.
It's interesting to see what the original route numbers proposals were before when US 66 was supposed to be US 60. You had weird differences like the Apache Trail being numbered AZ 66. Personally I loved how consistent the state network really was, it was shame that it wasn't kept up with during the Interstate era. Washington State now uses a similar convention to what Arizona once did with their numbering's.
The number doesn't bother me any, although I don't see why 666 had to be renumbered in the first place. Just because US 66 was decommissioned in 1985 doesn't mean it was an obsolete numbering.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 08, 2019, 03:21:08 PM
The number doesn't bother me any, although I don't see why 666 had to be renumbered in the first place. Just because US 66 was decommissioned in 1985 doesn't mean it was an obsolete numbering.
It wasn't renumbered because 66 was gone. It was because keeping the route number as 666 had become too much of a headache for all parties involved. 166 and 266 are still around.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on January 08, 2019, 03:36:15 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 08, 2019, 03:21:08 PM
The number doesn't bother me any, although I don't see why 666 had to be renumbered in the first place. Just because US 66 was decommissioned in 1985 doesn't mean it was an obsolete numbering.
It wasn’t renumbered because 66 was gone. It was because keeping the route number as 666 had become too much of a headache for all parties involved. 166 and 266 are still around.
Exactly-there's plenty of precedent for 3dus routes whose parents no longer exist (see also US 138, 199, and more). The primary reason for renumbering was that sign theft got to a point where none of the three involved DOTs could actually keep the US 666 signs up.
For the same reason, I'm sure AZ was happy when they got to renumber their US 666 segment as US 191.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on January 08, 2019, 03:36:15 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 08, 2019, 03:21:08 PM
The number doesn't bother me any, although I don't see why 666 had to be renumbered in the first place. Just because US 66 was decommissioned in 1985 doesn't mean it was an obsolete numbering.
It wasn't renumbered because 66 was gone. It was because keeping the route number as 666 had become too much of a headache for all parties involved. 166 and 266 are still around.
There's the massive sign theft problem mentioned above. I saw both many sign assemblies from which 666 markers were stolen, and in other locations some of the stolen signs.
Also, some in New Mexico blamed the "devil's number" for the high fatality rate along its part of the highway. My hunch is that liquor stores with drive-thru windows might've been a bigger factor.
Quote from: oscar on January 08, 2019, 03:48:13 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on January 08, 2019, 03:36:15 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 08, 2019, 03:21:08 PM
The number doesn't bother me any, although I don't see why 666 had to be renumbered in the first place. Just because US 66 was decommissioned in 1985 doesn't mean it was an obsolete numbering.
It wasn't renumbered because 66 was gone. It was because keeping the route number as 666 had become too much of a headache for all parties involved. 166 and 266 are still around.
There's the massive sign theft problem mentioned above. I saw both many sign assemblies from which 666 markers were stolen, and in other locations some of the stolen signs.
Also, some in New Mexico blamed the "devil's number" for the high fatality rate along its part of the highway. My hunch is that liquor stores with drive-thru windows might've been a bigger factor.
On the Arizona side the Coronado Trail of 666 sure helped give it the "Devil's Highway" reputation. The Coronado Trail is right up there with US 550 on the San Juan Skyway and US 212 on the Beartooth Highway in terms of challenging US Routes.
and by "challenging" you mean super awesome :cool:
How did the number 666 become the number for "The Devil's Highway?" Does anyone know? I sure don't.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 09, 2019, 03:43:14 PM
How did the number 666 become the number for "The Devil's Highway?" Does anyone know? I sure don't.
There's a passage in Revelations that might be of help in answering that question. Or the third Iron Maiden album (first with Bruce Dickinson as lead singer.)
I'm not religious, that's why I didn't know the meaning behind 666. I do understand 420 a little better.
Quote from: kwellada on January 09, 2019, 01:54:46 PM
and by "challenging" you mean super awesome :cool:
I do, the Coronado Trail is a complete blast to drive.
Enough of a blast that we featured it on Surewhynotnow a while back:
https://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2017/11/throwback-thursday-us-191-coronado.html
Quote from: hbelkins on January 09, 2019, 03:48:21 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 09, 2019, 03:43:14 PM
How did the number 666 become the number for "The Devil's Highway?" Does anyone know? I sure don't.
There's a passage in Revelations that might be of help in answering that question. Or the third Iron Maiden album (first with Bruce Dickinson as lead singer.)
And the Iron Maiden song probably has far more to do with why those US 666 signs kept getting stolen. That would be a killer souvenir for any metal fan to have
I can live with 491 being chosen, since it meets up with 191 at Monticello, UT.
Even when 666 still existed, I'd take a hard pass on it, given its reputation as the Devil's Number, and I do not miss it at all.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 09, 2019, 03:50:49 PM
I do understand 420 a little better.
Along with 13 and 69...
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 09, 2019, 03:50:49 PM
I'm not religious, that's why I didn't know the meaning behind 666.
Ancient peoples tended to find more significance in numbers than we do in our society. In Judaism, the number 7 was perhaps the most significant, indicating completeness. God created the heavens and the earth in seven days (including the day of rest), for example. The number 6, therefore, came to mean
not complete. 7 = good, 6 = bad. So, although the number 666 does not appear in the Jewish scriptures, if it did it would have a most decidedly negative connotation.
Fast-forward to the 1st Century AD. Judaism held a special place under Roman rule, meaning that the Jews were often exempted from laws requiring adherence to the state religion, but that special relationship was becoming strained. Part of the reason it was becoming strained is that Christians were considered to be trouble-makers, and Christianity was still seen by many as a cult within Judaism. Christian churches therefore found themselves ostracized by the Jews and persecuted by the Romans. It was in this religious environment that a letter was written by a Christian leader named John, to be delivered and read to various churches in Asia Minor. In the letter, there was a small section devoted to specific encouragement or chastisement for each congregation, but the bulk of the letter was written as general encouragement to persevere in the faith in the face of heavy persecution. It's possible–though debated–that the letter was written by the same John as wrote the Gospel of John, and also that it was written from exile on the island of Patmos.
At any rate, the letter is an example of apocalyptic literature. The chief thing that sets apocalyptic literature apart is its heavy use of symbolism. Generally, nothing in an apocalypse should be taken at its literal face value. I like to explain this kind of symbolism to people by comparing it to a political cartoon of an elephant fighting a donkey. We naturally understand those symbols because we're part of this current society, but someone from 17th-century Spain would likely have no clue what the cartoon was about. This letter came to be known as the "Book of Revelation" or the "Revelation to Saint John."
One of the symbols used in the letter was to refer to the Emperor by number rather than name. To do this, the author employed the use of gematria, in which each letter is assigned a numerical equivalent. The reader would then un-translate the number to find its meaning. Depending on which of the surviving manuscript copies you look at, this number was either 616 or 666. For reasons perhaps related to the connotation of the number 6 outlined above, or perhaps unrelated, 666 came to be regarded as the correct original. Either way, though, the number works out in gematria to mean "Caesar Nero" (the difference between 616 and 666 being explained by either including or dropping a final
n from Nero's name, in that the Greek form is
Neron and the Latin form is
Nero).
Apocalyptic literature also generally focuses on end-of-the-world stuff and the final triumph of good over evil. The Book of Revelation does touch on this subject but, in my opinion, far less than most modern readers assume it does. In my estimation, the majority of the symbolism referred to current events and people and places and situations of the day, rather than to things yet to come. Whenever the subject matter would move to things of the"end times, the author would do a sort of "reset" and start a new "cycle" again, beginning with current events of the day. But such is not the only interpretation of Revelation, and a great many scholars over the years have understood this "Beast," whose number is 666, to be a great Antichrist to come on the scene at any time and wreak havoc on the Church.
With all of this put together–the one whom the number identifies being in opposition to God, the digits of the number connoting something imperfect or even evil, the fact that it comes from a type of literature focused on the grand spiritual battle between good and evil–it's easy to understand how the number came to be associated with the devil. A lot of people even today are superstitious about the number 666, and it's common for a hotel to skip from room 665 to 667 in order to avoid booking guests into a room with that number.
Back when I drove on US-666 (Cortez to Monticello), I only saw a single route shield, and that was way up on a stoplight mast arm in Monticello–too high up for vandals to get to, I imagine.
Quote from: kphoger on January 10, 2019, 02:18:21 PM
The number 6, therefore, came to mean not complete. 7 = good, 6 = bad. So, although the number 666 does not appear in the Jewish scriptures, if it did it would have a most decidedly negative connotation.
The relevant number is 666, not just three sixes in a row. It has nothing to do with digits.
Quote from: 1 on January 10, 2019, 02:21:04 PM
Quote from: kphoger on January 10, 2019, 02:18:21 PM
The number 6, therefore, came to mean not complete. 7 = good, 6 = bad. So, although the number 666 does not appear in the Jewish scriptures, if it did it would have a most decidedly negative connotation.
The relevant number is 666, not just three sixes in a row. It has nothing to do with digits.
Except that 666 = 600 + 60 + 6. This matters. For example...
Genesis 4:24 – If Cain is avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy-sevenfold.
Matthew 18:22 – Jesus said to him, "I do not say to you seven times, but seventy times seven."
That is, if 7 is a complete number, then 77 is a super-complete number.
OK: The decimal/base 10 system was in widespread use 2K years ago -- and since -- so breaking down 666 (prime factoring) we get (37)(3 squared)(2). For those scholars out there, since divisibility by 2 or 3 is commonplace with wide application -- does 37, a medium-high prime number, have any historical or religious significance?
BTW, both of the numbers used to replace US 666 (191, 491) are prime: not evenly divisible by any lower numbers but themselves and 1. I'd sure like to see anyone attach any significance to those numbers (although some charlatans might take a stab at it!).
Quote from: sparker on January 10, 2019, 06:21:53 PM
does 37, a medium-high prime number, have any historical or religious significance?
This thread is close to derailing into gematria and theology, but...
Yes, according to gematria, 37 is the number for
"Word" (ρημα) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhema)–that is, the living Word of God.
^^^^^^^^
Hmmm.....that indeed might be applicable; it may well be appropriate to say a prayer before venturing onto the 2-lane section of CA 37, K-rail or not (and more so in foul weather like we've been having for a couple of weeks).
Quote from: sparker on January 11, 2019, 03:53:33 PM
^^^^^^^^
Hmmm.....that indeed might be applicable; it may well be appropriate to say a prayer before venturing onto the 2-lane section of CA 37, K-rail or not (and more so in foul weather like we've been having for a couple of weeks).
That was true years ago of IN 37 between Bloomington and Martinsville (now the newest section of I-69), between its opening in 1950 and when it was finally 4-laned in 1972. It was one of the most dangerous highways in the state when it was a 2-lane road.
Quote from: Henry on January 10, 2019, 10:25:22 AM
I can live with 491 being chosen, since it meets up with 191 at Monticello, UT.
Even when 666 still existed, I'd take a hard pass on it, given its reputation as the Devil's Number, and I do not miss it at all.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 09, 2019, 03:50:49 PM
I do understand 420 a little better.
Along with 13 and 69...
Another curious thought...why was 491 chosen instead of an x64 designation (I think 364 would be the next available number), given that it would have intersected its parent route in Shiprock had a x64 designation been selected?
Quote from: abqtraveler on January 11, 2019, 09:31:42 PM
Another curious thought...why was 491 chosen instead of an x64 designation (I think 364 would be the next available number), given that it would have intersected its parent route in Shiprock had a x64 designation been selected?
Probably because it’s a N/S route. While the directional numbering conventions don’t technically apply to 3dus routes, for the most part they’re followed. So overall, the x91 designation was likely seen as preferable to an x60 or x64 designation.
Quote from: US 89 on January 11, 2019, 11:34:35 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on January 11, 2019, 09:31:42 PM
Another curious thought...why was 491 chosen instead of an x64 designation (I think 364 would be the next available number), given that it would have intersected its parent route in Shiprock had a x64 designation been selected?
Probably because it's a N/S route. While the directional numbering conventions don't technically apply to 3dus routes, for the most part they're followed. So overall, the x91 designation was likely seen as preferable to an x60 or x64 designation.
There are plenty of even numbered 3-digit US routes that run N-S. For example: US Routes 220, 550, 130, and 206 to name a few. It wouldn't be completely unprecedented if x64 was selected instead of 491.
Quote from: abqtraveler on January 12, 2019, 04:52:12 PM
There are plenty of even numbered 3-digit US routes that run N-S. For example: US Routes 220, 550, 130, and 206 to name a few. It wouldn't be completely unprecedented if x64 was selected instead of 491.
Sure, there are a few. But as US 89 said, for the most part N/S routes have been assigned odd numbers (see the maps on this page (https://www.usends.com/numbering.html)).
Possibly for that reason, NMDoT had the (perhaps mistaken) idea that the replacement number for 666 needed to be odd (see post #7 in this thread).
Quote from: US 89 on January 08, 2019, 03:46:56 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on January 08, 2019, 03:36:15 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 08, 2019, 03:21:08 PM
The number doesn't bother me any, although I don't see why 666 had to be renumbered in the first place. Just because US 66 was decommissioned in 1985 doesn't mean it was an obsolete numbering.
It wasn't renumbered because 66 was gone. It was because keeping the route number as 666 had become too much of a headache for all parties involved. 166 and 266 are still around.
Exactly-there's plenty of precedent for 3dus routes whose parents no longer exist (see also US 138, 199, and more). The primary reason for renumbering was that sign theft got to a point where none of the three involved DOTs could actually keep the US 666 signs up.
For the same reason, I'm sure AZ was happy when they got to renumber their US 666 segment as US 191.
There's a fire and brimstone preacher at testament Baptist Church in Safford. His church is on the old US 666. Imagine he was very happy.
I thought I already posted in this topic before, and while I understand the rationale for going with 491 (so not as to duplicate 291 or 391 in New Mexico, Colorado, or Utah), I've got bump this topic and ask: Why didn't those states and AASHTO go with another unused (albeit orphaned) child of US-66 not already used on a state route in any of those states, like US-366 or US-766, to keep former 666's ties to US-66 intact?
Quote from: Rover_0 on March 05, 2019, 02:36:24 PM
I thought I already posted in this topic before, and while I understand the rationale for going with 491 (so not as to duplicate 291 or 391 in New Mexico, Colorado, or Utah), I've got bump this topic and ask: Why didn't those states and AASHTO go with another unused (albeit orphaned) child of US-66 not already used on a state route in any of those states, like US-366 or US-766, to keep former 666's ties to US-66 intact?
I have two guesses: one is that US 66 didn't exist anymore, so a new x66 designation would have been technically incorrect, similar to the modern US 121. The other is that it was a N/S route, so decision makers may have incorrectly assumed it had to be an odd number.
Quote from: US 89 on March 05, 2019, 03:13:24 PM
Quote from: Rover_0 on March 05, 2019, 02:36:24 PM
I thought I already posted in this topic before, and while I understand the rationale for going with 491 (so not as to duplicate 291 or 391 in New Mexico, Colorado, or Utah), I've got bump this topic and ask: Why didn't those states and AASHTO go with another unused (albeit orphaned) child of US-66 not already used on a state route in any of those states, like US-366 or US-766, to keep former 666's ties to US-66 intact?
I have two guesses: one is that US 66 didn't exist anymore, so a new x66 designation would have been technically incorrect, similar to the modern US 121. The other is that it was a N/S route, so decision makers may have incorrectly assumed it had to be an odd number.
Those are probably right, but I wished that there would be more of an effort to preserve/repurpose orphaned routes and keep the occasional "Wrong direction" US Route (particularly 3-digit US Routes) intact where reasonable in such a renumbering.
New Mexico could add to US 491 and make it even more "logical" by extending it south of I-40 upon NM 602, and then turning west on NM 53 to Zuni. Arizona then could have US 491 conclude by running on AZ 61. Make it the Zuni Cultural Highway, and support Zuni tourism, and give an alternate non-interstate N-S routing to taking I-40 west to return to US 191 (former US 666 in Arizona south of I-40).
They could have just renumbered it to US 766 and put a seven over the six. That would have saved some money.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on August 05, 2019, 05:11:53 PM
They could have just renumbered it to US 766 and put a seven over the six. That would have saved some money.
But I'm sure people would still have stolen signs, then popped off the 7.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on August 05, 2019, 05:11:53 PM
They could have just renumbered it to US 766 and put a seven over the six. That would have saved some money.
I'm sure the labor + materials to rework a 666 to 766 sign is far greater than simply making a new 491 sign.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on August 05, 2019, 05:11:53 PM
They could have just renumbered it to US 766 and put a seven over the six. That would have saved some money.
Except for the fact there were few 666 signs left in the field to modify. They'd been stolen about as quickly as they were put back.
.
By changing it completely, theft issues are reduced to almost nil. At least until someone decides 491 means something bizarre!
Quote from: sturmde on August 10, 2019, 08:57:41 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on August 05, 2019, 05:11:53 PM
They could have just renumbered it to US 766 and put a seven over the six. That would have saved some money.
Except for the fact there were few 666 signs left in the field to modify. They'd been stolen about as quickly as they were put back.
.
By changing it completely, theft issues are reduced to almost nil. At least until someone decides 491 means something bizarre!
491's just a run-of-the-mill standard issue high prime number, with nothing attached to it to render it notable in any way, shape, or form.
Quote from: US 89 on March 05, 2019, 03:13:24 PM
Quote from: Rover_0 on March 05, 2019, 02:36:24 PM
I thought I already posted in this topic before, and while I understand the rationale for going with 491 (so not as to duplicate 291 or 391 in New Mexico, Colorado, or Utah), I've got bump this topic and ask: Why didn't those states and AASHTO go with another unused (albeit orphaned) child of US-66 not already used on a state route in any of those states, like US-366 or US-766, to keep former 666's ties to US-66 intact?
I have two guesses: one is that US 66 didn't exist anymore, so a new x66 designation would have been technically incorrect, similar to the modern US 121. The other is that it was a N/S route, so decision makers may have incorrectly assumed it had to be an odd number.
I realize I'm responding to a March comment, but this hasn't sufficiently been answered.
US 89's first guess is correct. US 666 was renumbered in 2003...18 years after US 66 was decommissioned.