Regional Boards > Pacific Southwest

Winnemucca to the Sea Highway

<< < (6/6)

Rover_0:

--- Quote from: xonhulu on October 18, 2009, 11:05:59 AM ---So I don't think 140 would be unacceptable as a number, for 2 reasons: it comes close enough to the historic routing of 40 to be a plausible branch, and (most importantly) the route already bears the designation, you're just trading in state shields for US markers.

--- End quote ---

We've seen that Oregon has much of its alignment already posted as a US Highway, so...relpace the rest of the Oregon shields. :P

xonhulu:

--- Quote from: Rover_0 on October 19, 2009, 02:38:43 PM ---We've seen that Oregon has much of its alignment already posted as a US Highway, so...relpace the rest of the Oregon shields. :P

--- End quote ---

I thought about that, too, when I went through, but there aren't that many...

andy3175:
Only comment I have is that US 140 is a free, available number as of today (2009), so if Oregon and Nevada joined together on an application to request this number, it could very well be feasible. US 371 was recycled, so I am sure 140 could be recycled as well. As for why U.S. 140 rather than U.S. 495, the objective at the time was to redirect westbound travelers from taking U.S. 40 to California ... the way to do that was to have a x40 route extend west from a logical point. Winnemucca is a perfect place, since old U.S. 40 dives southwest from there all the way to SF. Route 140 travels a bit north then mostly west into Oregon and eventually to the ocean at Crescent City. I think an east-west highway from Crescent City to at least U.S. 95 would a logical U.S. route, and a x40 route would be as good as any since there are no other nearby E-W U.S. routes, and U.S. 140 would have the spirit of old U.S. 40. Another option could be to extend U.S. 199, but I don't know if that would make sense as a long e-w highway.

Andy

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page