My Proposal for US-60's Re-extension in California

[Rover_0]

OK, so I sent an email with a proposal to extend US-60 (back) into California by rerouting it along AZ-72, CA-62, I-10, and CA-60 (highlighted in green):



I got an email from someone at Caltrans that said:

"According to AASHTO's Special Committee on Route Numbering, the U.S. Route Numbering System hasbeen decommissioned and no new routes are to be added and no existing U.S.road shall be extended."

When I wrote back saying that this wasn't the case and the case was more about whether the AZ-72/CA-62 route would be an adequate US Route than whether the US Route System is not to be expanded (essentially), he basically wrote back, pointing back at the AASHTO "rule":

"I would also like to point out AASHTO Policy # 4 from the web link belowthat states........No additional roads shall be added.........no existing U.S. road shall be extended........"

The problem here is that he's not seeing the "except" part in Policy #4 on Page 5 in the link:

http://downloads.transportation.org/USRN_Policies.pdf

He called me (I did give him my number to talk about this in person), but I'll be calling him next week about this.  What would you say I say?  What are your thoughts about US-60 being rerouted along AZ-72, CA-62, I-10, and CA-60?  I just wish that he'd listen and not try to run this under-no-circumstances-can-an-existing-US-Route-be-extended rhetoric on me.  

[Revive 755]

There's not a California prohibition against US route creations or extensions he's mixing up with the AASHTO rules is there?

The route over AZ 72/CA 62 looks good to me, though I wouldn't have that dip down to Hope, AZ if an alternative existed.  From just a view glances via GSV, I'm not sure though that AZ 72 will meet AASHTO standards.

Maybe try to sell it as providing another easy to follow route in case I-10 requires closure.

[xonhulu]

Sounds a lot like you're getting the run-around, but keep at it -- it is a good idea.

It's kind of interesting that California's very active in signing historic US Routes when the state's so averse to actual US Routes!

[corco]

I think his point that you mentioned earlier that such a bill has to get through legislature is really the hard part- Even if Caltrans WANTS to do it, they have to have legislative approval- they just carry out orders from the legislature. Caltrans can't just go put up US 60 signs (even with AASHTO approval), it has to be passed as a matter of law. I think you have to call your local California congressman (and you're in Utah, so that complicates things) if you want to get anywhere with it.

If I were you, I'd call whatever congressman represents the most sparsely populated district your proposed alignment runs through, and propose it to him as something that would be a boon for businesses in the area and spur growth

That said, I love the idea

[roadfro]

The specific AASHTO policy being quoted by the AASHTO official would appear to be the following:

4. No additional road shall be added to the U.S. numbered road system, and no existing U.S. road shall be extended except where there is a definite showing of an adequately improved highway carrying an established and necessary line of interstate traffic not otherwise provided for by existing U.S. routes and for which traffic adequate service cannot be provided by State route numbers.

Extension of present U.S. numbered routes may be made only when the proposed extension is in the general direction of the present route.

Proposed extensions shall not be made when, to do so, it is necessary to duplicate U.S. routes already established, unless the duplication is for a short distance and the routes then diverge, ending in different terminal points.

I'm not completely familiar with the state highways that the proposed extension of US 60 entails. But from what I can make out on the map above, it appears that this extension would seem to have a tough sell. Surely, the DOT and/or AASHTO will likely lump consider Interstate highways in the definition of "U.S. routes". Thus, this proposed extension is facing a tough sell on the following points:

* The extension corridor doesn't seem to serve any really major population centers that aren't adequately served by existing state routes.
* Interstate traffic is better served by following existing I-10 than the proposed routing.

To sell the idea, you've got to be able to prove (or at least reasonably infer) that there is a need for the continuous highway along the proposed routing. What would be the tangible benefits of this extension? Why should the state spend money to resign this highway as a new route? Right now, from my casual observation, this proposal just provides a new route that's somewhat circuitous for through traffic in rural areas and revives an old highway number in Riverside and LA...that won't sway the decision makers.

[Rover_0]

From just a view glances via GSV, I'm not sure though that AZ 72 will meet AASHTO standards.

So, what exactly, are the AASHTO standards?

The specific AASHTO policy being quoted by the AASHTO official would appear to be the following:

4. No additional road shall be added to the U.S. numbered road system, and no existing U.S. road shall be extended except where there is a definite showing of an adequately improved highway carrying an established and necessary line of interstate traffic not otherwise provided for by existing U.S. routes and for which traffic adequate service cannot be provided by State route numbers.

Extension of present U.S. numbered routes may be made only when the proposed extension is in the general direction of the present route.

Proposed extensions shall not be made when, to do so, it is necessary to duplicate U.S. routes already established, unless the duplication is for a short distance and the routes then diverge, ending in different terminal points.

I'm not completely familiar with the state highways that the proposed extension of US 60 entails. But from what I can make out on the map above, it appears that this extension would seem to have a tough sell. Surely, the DOT and/or AASHTO will likely lump consider Interstate highways in the definition of "U.S. routes". Thus, this proposed extension is facing a tough sell on the following points:

* The extension corridor doesn't seem to serve any really major population centers that aren't adequately served by existing state routes.
* Interstate traffic is better served by following existing I-10 than the proposed routing.

To sell the idea, you've got to be able to prove (or at least reasonably infer) that there is a need for the continuous highway along the proposed routing. What would be the tangible benefits of this extension? Why should the state spend money to resign this highway as a new route? Right now, from my casual observation, this proposal just provides a new route that's somewhat circuitous for through traffic in rural areas and revives an old highway number in Riverside and LA...that won't sway the decision makers.

Good points, though the reason I would have this proposal would be to use a continuous route for the areas that I-10 doesn't serve:  Parker, 29 Palms, etc.  People coming east from Los Angeles would use the route to get to the Colorado River resorts, as it would do the same for those coming from Phoenix westward.  Also found in the AASHTO policies, if you look at the bottom paragraph of page 3, it says "that the US-Interstate systems compliment each other."  I had this in mind when I thought up this extension.

From what I'm getting from these quotes, I think that I need to prove why this route should be US-60 and not AZ-72/CA-62/I-10/CA-60 and why it's necessary (serving areas not served by I-10, complimenting east-west travel between Phoenix and LA).  Is this correct (in a nutshell)?

[roadfro]

Good points, though the reason I would have this proposal would be to use a continuous route for the areas that I-10 doesn't serve:  Parker, 29 Palms, etc.  People coming east from Los Angeles would use the route to get to the Colorado River resorts, as it would do the same for those coming from Phoenix westward.  Also found in the AASHTO policies, if you look at the bottom paragraph of page 3, it says "that the US-Interstate systems compliment each other."  I had this in mind when I thought up this extension.

From what I'm getting from these quotes, I think that I need to prove why this route should be US-60 and not AZ-72/CA-62/I-10/CA-60 and why it's necessary (serving areas not served by I-10, complimenting east-west travel between Phoenix and LA).  Is this correct (in a nutshell)?

In a nutshell, yes.

Some additional questions to consider:
* Why is a continuous route between Parker, 29 Palms, etc. necessary? Is there currently a significant amount of traffic between these communities that would warrant the extension of a single route?
* Where are the Colorado River Resorts that you're referring to, and how do people from LA or Phoenix get there now? Depending on where one is going, I would still think that I-10 (at least part of the way) might be a more direct route.

[xonhulu]

I think many of the preceding points are very valid.  I would agree that there is no need for this route to be US 60.  I'm not necessarily sure the resistance would come from AASHTO.  If CalTrans and ADOT submitted this proposal, I'm pretty sure it would go through.  You probably need to convince the authorities at the state level.

However, when I read these AASHTO policies and consider many of the recent extensions/creations of US Routes, I scratch my head. 

Example: "Proposed extensions shall not be made when, to do so, it is necessary to duplicate U.S. routes already established, unless the duplication is for a short distance and the routes then diverge, ending in different terminal points."   Really?  US 412's and US 400's western extensions and US 63's southern extensions were all approved with duplexes to their termini.

Point being, a lot of this language seems to be philosophical guidance but isn't necessarily followed in the actual decision-making.

[Riverside Frwy]

No!!!! keep California 60.I'm sorry but I just can't see CA-60 with a US 60 shield.Although, California could use some more US Routes.

[TheStranger]

No!!!! keep California 60.I'm sorry but I just can't see CA-60 with a US 60 shield.

I can.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Beaumont,+CA&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=35.219929,54.84375&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Beaumont,+Riverside,+California&ll=33.932518,-116.987582&spn=0.004504,0.006695&z=17&layer=c&cbll=33.932449,-116.98746&panoid=A-NVtFqmhknPbayciN7Rpg&cbp=12,331.25,,0,7.88

[xonhulu]

No!!!! keep California 60.I'm sorry but I just can't see CA-60 with a US 60 shield.Although, California could use some more US Routes.

There aren't too many other logical US Routes to bring into California besides this one.

I'm a little more nostalgic for the US Routes; even though I understand they've been largely replaced by interstates, I still think it's a shame they aren't still around.  So as impractical as it may be, I'd be happy to see US 60 bump CA 60.

Another thought:  there aren't very many transcontinental routes of any kind these days.  At the height of the US Routes, we had US 10, 30, 20, 40, 50, 6, 60, 70 and 80 -- nine routes.  Now there are only really five to seven, depending on your definition of trans-continental: interstates 10, 80, and 90, and US 30, 20, 50, and sort of 6.  Bringing US 60 back into California would restore another sea-to-sea route.

[Scott5114]

No!!!! keep California 60.I'm sorry but I just can't see CA-60 with a US 60 shield.Although, California could use some more US Routes.

You are aware that California 60 already has US 60 shields, right? They're just patched over with CA-60 shields...

[leifvanderwall]

Your proposal for a new US 60 is good with me. I think California's view is similiar to Michigan's on the US routes: If an interstate is on the US highway corridor it takes the route over like I-94 replacing the original US 12, I-96 replacing US 16, I-75 replacing US 25 and US 10 and I-69 taking over US 27. In the southern states like Florida,Georgia, South Carolina, and Alabama the US routes run next to the Interstates. To me it's interesting how regions in different parts of the country handle its roads in contrast to other areas.

[TheStranger]

I'm a little more nostalgic for the US Routes; even though I understand they've been largely replaced by interstates, I still think it's a shame they aren't still around.  So as impractical as it may be, I'd be happy to see US 60 bump CA 60.

Not to mention that the most direct routing isn't necessarily required for a route extension (as witnessed with Arkansas's continuing additions of former state highways into the US route system over the last few decades - some of which provided a parallel, but longer corridor alongside existing US routes!).

[Bickendan]

Consider this point: If the HIST US 66 shield is proving to be a boon to California, by promoting history, business, tourism, etc, bringing US 60 back might help in similar ways, particularly if it supplants AZ 72 and CA 62. TwentyNine Palms and Parker may benefit from having a US shield, much like an Interstate shield supposedly benefits a city.

[TheStranger]

Consider this point: If the HIST US 66 shield is proving to be a boon to California, by promoting history, business, tourism, etc, bringing US 60 back might help in similar ways, particularly if it supplants AZ 72 and CA 62. TwentyNine Palms and Parker may benefit from having a US shield, much like an Interstate shield supposedly benefits a city.

Honestly, this could be used as an argument for reconsituting several other US routes, 66 included, considering how many independent segments exist outside of freeway milage.

One of the issues with signage in California is that it is almost always tied to whether CalTrans maintains the road or not via legislative definition, regardless of the practical value of having one continuous number on a road (thus explaining why in one example...Route 39 has, save for a few years, had a gap between Fullerton and Azusa, or why specific wording in route maintenance relinquishment is required to guarantee continued signage in certain municipalities).  I don't think that system will ever be done away with, but if this was a simple matter of CalTrans deciding to number something (regardless of who maintains it) without the need of legislative redefinition, this probably would be a much easier process.

With regards to Route 66 out here: After traversing the segment from Hesperia to Santa Monica this weekend, the signage for Historic 66 hasn't quite matched the "trailblazer-constant" level of the past, but several communities in the San Gabriel Valley have put up signs (including some nice cutouts west of Monrovia) marking the route.  Certainly it's much better signed as Historic Route 66 in some form, than as "State Route 66" (which is CalTrans's officially maintaned segment between San Dimas and San Bernardino, of which the State Route 66 signs are only found near I-215 and Route 210).  Los Angeles has even been putting up some Historic US 99 signage along San Fernando Road east of Chinatown too...

[Riverside Frwy]

Yes, I know CA-60 came from US 60 in the first place.I just would take the sexiness of a California State Route Shield over the US Route shield any day of the week.

[TheStranger]

Yes, I know CA-60 came from US 60 in the first place.I just would take the sexiness of a California State Route Shield over the US Route shield any day of the week.

I've always guessed that part of the rationale for the 1964 renumbering/mass truncation wasn't just to reduce four-way cosigning, but also to maintain the "importance" of standalone US routes, particularly US 395 south of Hesperia (at the time not an Interstate) and US 101 north of Los Angeles - as noted by leifvanderwall, very much the opposite approach of states further east that maintain the old US route as a surface alternate or frontage road.

(This doesn't then explain why 466 and 99 - both still vitally important to this day - weren't retained, but I digress.)

Considering that California's only real additions to the network post-1964 are the unofficial US 50A and the southward extension of US 95, I'm not so sure the argument entirely holds water...but at least this concept of US 60 would not be a revival of a completely supplanted corridor, and in many ways would be similar to how US 95 grew in this state. 

[Riverside Frwy]

Heck, if you are going to bring back US 60, why not bring back US 91 and kill CA 91 while you are at it?Perhaps extend US 60 further into California, but California 60 stays.Period.

[xonhulu]

I've always guessed that part of the rationale for the 1964 renumbering/mass truncation wasn't just to reduce four-way cosigning, but also to maintain the "importance" of standalone US routes, particularly US 395 south of Hesperia (at the time not an Interstate) and US 101 north of Los Angeles - as noted by leifvanderwall, very much the opposite approach of states further east that maintain the old US route as a surface alternate or frontage road.

Good point, as the US Routes remaining in California are mostly pretty important routes, almost treated like mini-Interstates.  Which brings up your parenthetical comment:

(This doesn't then explain why 466 and 99 - both still vitally important to this day - weren't retained, but I digress.)

Agreed.  Given the prominence of 99, retaining it as a US Route would've made more sense.  Not as sure about 466's importance, but it may be a moot point if I-40 is extended over CA 58.

Considering that California's only real additions to the network post-1964 are the unofficial US 50A and the southward extension of US 95, I'm not so sure the argument entirely holds water...but at least this concept of US 60 would not be a revival of a completely supplanted corridor, and in many ways would be similar to how US 95 grew in this state. 

According to usends.com, US 95 was already to Blythe in 1940, and the extension to Mexico took place in 1961, so there have actually been no additions to California's US Route system since 1964.

[xonhulu]

Heck, if you are going to bring back US 60, why not bring back US 91 and kill CA 91 while you are at it?Perhaps extend US 60 further into California, but California 60 stays.Period.

Impossible: California doesn't allow route duplication, so you couldn't have both US 60 and CA 60 as distinct routes.  The only exceptions I can think of are state route extensions of interstates (CA 15, 710, 110) and the odd I-238/CA 238 situation.

And there's no parallel between 60 and 91 -- US 60 would require only a short duplex with I-10 under Landry's plan, while returning US 91 to California would require hundreds of miles of duplexing with I-15 from its current terminus in northern Utah just to take over the relatively brief CA 91 freeway.

[TheStranger]

Which brings up your parenthetical comment:

(This doesn't then explain why 466 and 99 - both still vitally important to this day - weren't retained, but I digress.)

Agreed.  Given the prominence of 99, retaining it as a US Route would've made more sense.  Not as sure about 466's importance, but it may be a moot point if I-40 is extended over CA 58.

For 99, I think California wanted to get rid of all single-state US routes - but if there is one road that is justified in being a single-state US route, it would be this one (and considering Oregon's usage of State Route 99 as a recurring, state-long parallel surface corridor to I-5, a two-state 99 probably would have remained had California philosophy been different in 1964).  US 290 in Texas is another lengthy single-state US route that still is important to this day.

It certainly is much longer than US 46 in New Jersey...

There are several reasons I've conjectured why 466 was renumbered in 1964, despite the continuing importance of the Bakersfield-Barstow route:

1. The segment that connected back to US 66 in Arizona existed entirely as multiplexes (US 93 between Kingman and Las Vegas, US 91/I-15 between Barstow and Las Vegas) - though IIRC, US 466 was the original designation for the Kingman-Las Vegas route before US 93 was extended southward to Wickenburg.

2. California has, for some reason, a reluctance to use high state route numbers, with the 300s being the lowest numbered routes that were not future/current/past Interstates, and all of the 300 routes being former routings of state routes (371, 330).   It is notable that a significant portion of what was US 466 from Route 41 east to Route 99 in Famoso has a similar number - Route 46.

Considering that California's only real additions to the network post-1964 are the unofficial US 50A and the southward extension of US 95, I'm not so sure the argument entirely holds water...but at least this concept of US 60 would not be a revival of a completely supplanted corridor, and in many ways would be similar to how US 95 grew in this state. 

According to usends.com, US 95 was already to Blythe in 1940, and the extension to Mexico took place in 1961, so there have actually been no additions to California's US Route system since 1964.

I do wish US 50A became "official" so to speak, I've never been that far into the Sierras to see if it is still signed.  Before US 50A in 1999 or so, California has avoided the usage of the alternate banner, despite it being much more common pre-1964 (US 66A in Los Angeles, US 101A along the PCH, US 40A from Davis through Marysville and the Feather River area to Reno).

[xonhulu]

For 99, I think California wanted to get rid of all single-state US routes - but if there is one road that is justified in being a single-state US route, it would be this one (and considering Oregon's usage of State Route 99 as a recurring, state-long parallel surface corridor to I-5, a two-state 99 probably would have remained had California philosophy been different in 1964).  US 290 in Texas is another lengthy single-state US route that still is important to this day.

I also have the impression the legislature was trying to get rid of multiplexes and keeping US 99 would've involved a lengthy duplex with I-5 in northern California.  Also, I think Washington state also wanted to eliminate US 99.  It seemed Oregon wasn't as eager but went along; they also got rid of single-state US 126 at about the same time, also a mistake, IMO.

I do wish US 50A became "official" so to speak, I've never been that far into the Sierras to see if it is still signed.  Before US 50A in 1999 or so, California has avoided the usage of the alternate banner, despite it being much more common pre-1964 (US 66A in Los Angeles, US 101A along the PCH, US 40A from Davis through Marysville and the Feather River area to Reno).

I just looked up the routing of ALT 50.  I wasn't sure exactly where it ran until now.  Looks like a big chunk of it isn't state-maintained, which is probably why it's unofficial.

[TheStranger]

I also have the impression the legislature was trying to get rid of multiplexes and keeping US 99 would've involved a lengthy duplex with I-5 in northern California.  Also, I think Washington state also wanted to eliminate US 99.  It seemed Oregon wasn't as eager but went along; they also got rid of single-state US 126 at about the same time, also a mistake, IMO.

I don't think it's quite the "long multiplex" that you would see with say, the past US 395/US 6 co-routing from Ridgecrest to Bishop...but more, a series of recurring coroutings like you'd see for a US route/Interstate pair elsewhere.

But if California is more than happy to do the Route 1/US 101 pair on multiple occasions (including the long co-signing from Gaviota to the beaches west of Ventura), then it makes it harder to suggest that US 99 should have been completely cut off.  I could imagine it working out like this (with the Los Angeles-Calexico segment being truncated, partially due to being supplanted by I-10 and I-5, and partially due to being a completely different corridor past LA) -

1. Wheeler Ridge to Sacramento
2. Sacramento to Red Bluff
3. Route 273 in Redding
4. Old Hwy 99 from Weed to Grenada
5. Route 263 in Yreka

Since Oregon begins their State Route 99 not too long after crossing northward...I don't see how this is any less workable than the recurring Route 1 segments off of 101.

I do wish US 50A became "official" so to speak, I've never been that far into the Sierras to see if it is still signed.  Before US 50A in 1999 or so, California has avoided the usage of the alternate banner, despite it being much more common pre-1964 (US 66A in Los Angeles, US 101A along the PCH, US 40A from Davis through Marysville and the Feather River area to Reno).

I just looked up the routing of ALT 50.  I wasn't sure exactly where it ran until now.  Looks like a big chunk of it isn't state-maintained, which is probably why it's unofficial.

That's probably it.  It's a very different signing philosophy from Massachussetts (which I recall posts whether a signed route is state-maintained or not, but continues the route signage unbroken)...which I suspect has to do with the legislative nature of all highways in this state.

[Scott5114]

One of the issues with signage in California is that it is almost always tied to whether CalTrans maintains the road or not via legislative definition, regardless of the practical value of having one continuous number on a road (thus explaining why in one example...Route 39 has, save for a few years, had a gap between Fullerton and Azusa, or why specific wording in route maintenance relinquishment is required to guarantee continued signage in certain municipalities).  I don't think that system will ever be done away with, but if this was a simple matter of CalTrans deciding to number something (regardless of who maintains it) without the need of legislative redefinition, this probably would be a much easier process.

I don't understand why states unnecessarily burden their highway department with this sort of thing. States should empower their highway department (like Ohio does, making it illegal to perform speed limit changes without consulting ODOT) instead of neutering it by requiring all route number and maintenance changes to be performed through the state legislature. In Oklahoma, ODOT need not ask the legislature; the highway commission handles all of that. The only way the legislature is involved is in setting a mileage cap (which is similarly stupid but it keeps us from turning into Kentucky).

Yes, I know CA-60 came from US 60 in the first place.I just would take the sexiness of a California State Route Shield over the US Route shield any day of the week.

That is a very specific and disturbing fetish!