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

[Scott5114]

Well, part of the problem is that online petitions can be signed by anyone, whether or not they live in the affected area, so they don't really carry a lot of weight with people. I would contact the Chambers of Commerce and local governments directly (by phone if at all possible), citing the 191 example as necessary. Try not to let on that you're from Utah; that might raise their guard. Legislators, too, may be unwilling to work with you if you are not one of their constituents, which is why I recommend going through the local governments. Legislators are a lot more willing to listen to "here's 16 local and county governments, one out-of-state legislator, and 5 chambers of commerce wanting me to do something" versus "here's one guy with an internet petition".

[corco]

I'd probably avoid the internet petition entirely. I can't think of a single instance where an internet petition has actually worked- if anything I'd argue it detracts from the credibility of the proposal.

Your absolute best bet is to convince those that are actually affected (you are not) that there is a true need for it to happen and get them riled up about it. Pointing to US-191 as needed while contacting every single community along the proposed routing is probably your best bet. The best you can hope to do is convince the local communities that this is something they really want-you'll have to kick into full-on salesman mode here and then having those communities contact their legislator to have him fight the battle. That said, I wouldn't go emailing towns all willy-nilly either- you've basically got one shot to appear credible, and after that you'll just be ignored. I also wouldn't send a blanket email- try to tailor each one so it sounds like you know something about each individual community and you're not just some guy from Utah who wants to see US-60 moved to a road he's never driven on (you'd be amazed what a couple sentences that show some semblance of local awareness can do).

Your biggest challenge is going to be establishing a true sense of need- cold calling for sales is pretty difficult, especially when it's not entirely clear that the change is necessary (so much as "it would be cool to see"). You have the US-191 example- I'd make sure I go in armed with good numbers and possibly testimonial from some of those towns along the 191 corridor (you may email them to find out how they feel that redesignation has helped business), and maybe try to find other examples.

On the bright side, this is a fairly inexpensive proposition- it's not like you're asking for new road construction, so I do see it as something that is actually possible if you just get the locals marginally riled up.

As an aside, one of the arguments I can see just by looking at the map, and I'm not sure if it's one you've thought about, is that at least from the California side the addition of a US Route designation may convince more people to take (proposed) 60 to get to the tourist destination of Lake Havasu instead of using I-10/Arizona 95 or I-40/Arizona 95. If it were me, and I were arguing the case on the California side, I'd try to get the proposed 60 corridor pimped out as the "Fastest Way to Havasu" in much the same way Wyoming 89 is proudly billed as the fastest route from Yellowstone to Salt Lake (official WyDOT signage directs folks down 89 to get to Salt Lake from Yellowstone, and lots of billboards and the like say "Exit Here for Joe's Motel along Highway 89, the fastest route to Yellowstone!"). That's one tangible way to convince the towns along the route that there's legitimate money to be made by such a redesignation. Now, it is a clear violation of AASHTO policy to take a US Route designation just to make money off of it, but technically that routing would be the shortest and most direct  (if not the fastest) and would facilitate interstate commerce, so it is a legitimate claim.