So according to my Rand McNally (2016) oldest US-66 went from Santa Fe to the Texas border via US-84 from Romeroville to Santa Rosa. :confused: That seems to make absolutely no sense! Just looking at a map, that route is horribly inefficient, especially considering how steep of a North/South slope US-84 takes. Obviously, they later realized and fixed the routing later, but I kinda like the idea of US-66 going through Santa Fe.
So if the route had to go through Santa Fe, why not continue to follow US-85 to Las Vegas and then follow modern-day NM-104 to Tucumcari? This routing would be much more efficient.
My two major questions: :hmmm:
1. Is Rand McNally right?
2. If yes, then why did they duplex US-66 with US-84?
Quote from: billtm on June 12, 2016, 11:32:58 PM
So according to my Rand McNally (2016) oldest US-66 went from Santa Fe to the Texas border via US-84 from Romeroville to Santa Rosa. :confused: That seems to make absolutely no sense! Just looking at a map, that route is horribly inefficient, especially considering how steep of a North/South slope US-84 takes. Obviously, they later realized and fixed the routing later, but I kinda like the idea of US-66 going through Santa Fe.
So if the route had to go through Santa Fe, why not continue to follow US-85 to Las Vegas and then follow modern-day NM-104 to Tucumcari? This routing would be much more efficient.
My two major questions: :hmmm:
1. Is Rand McNally right?
2. If yes, then why did they duplex US-66 with US-84?
Simple; the roads didn't exist like they do today and Santa Fe is the state capital. You got to understand the US Route system was replacing Auto Trails which were basically what we would call unimproved roads for the most part today. So basically you didn't necessarily have a direct route between cities, especially out west and the US Routes had to conform to the landscape and roads that were available....mostly, see the saga of US 50 in Nevada for when something totally new had to be built.
So if you're laying out roadway plans in the 1920s why wouldn't you want a major route to go through a state capitol?...especially when there was no direct route to Albuquerque yet? Governor Hannett was the one that forced the cut-off from Santa Fe to Albuquerque when he lost reelection to basically...well screw over the state legislatures. Basically the new road was called NM 6 in 1932 and eventually became the realignment of US 66 by 1937....this eliminated the Los Lunas dip south on US 66 as well. If you want to see something really crazy look up La Bajada Hill, it's almost impossible to think of a major highway using something crazy like that in the sphere of what we think of in regards to modern highways.
Thankfully Roamin Rich has some good videos on the this subject:
Another old alignment that might interest you is the Oatman Highway being part of US 66 until the 1953 instead of the easy route through Yucca. Money talked big time with the pre-WWII gold mines back in the early US Route era.
Here are some Map Scans from arizonaroads.com:
US 66 1927:
Arizona
https://www.arizonaroads.com/maps/1926-1.jpg
New Mexico
https://www.arizonaroads.com/maps/1926-2.jpg
1961 Arizona
https://www.arizonaroads.com/maps/1961-1.jpg
And some history on the end points of US 84 as it relates to US 66 alignment being moved in 1937...from USends.com:
http://www.usends.com/Focus/SantaFe/index.html
Not to mention out in California you have the Goffs cut-off that was opened in 1931 to provide a more direct alignment from Essex to Needles which in turn bypassed the town of Goffs. Even stranger is that the Goffs cut-off is now closed off while the original pre-1931 route remains open to this very day.
Now the real fun begins out west when you realize how many dirt road and derelict bridges were actually parts of US 66 or for that matter just US Routes in general. US 89 basically has an entire skeleton of it's original alignment in Arizona if you're willing to look hard enough for it.
Holy crap! :wow: I never would've guessed that LaBajada Hill was part of US-66. I just assumed that it followed modern-day I-25 up the plateau. The road must've been in much better condition back in the 20s in 30s, because I can't believe cars of that time being able to traverse that kind of road.
Where exactly is the Goffs cut-off by the way? Just looking at Google Maps, it seems like the first section of it is the road coming off of exit 115. But I can't seem to find the segment that rejoins US-66. :confused:
So after further research I found out that NM-104 wasn't established over its current routing until the 40s. But theoretically they could've put together some dirt roads in order to fix the routing, right?
Quote from: billtm on June 13, 2016, 11:38:25 AM
Holy crap! :wow: I never would've guessed that LaBajada Hill was part of US-66. I just assumed that it followed modern-day I-25 up the plateau. The road must've been in much better condition back in the 20s in 30s, because I can't believe cars of that time being able to traverse that kind of road.
Where exactly is the Goffs cut-off by the way? Just looking at Google Maps, it seems like the first section of it is the road coming off of exit 115. But I can't seem to find the segment that rejoins US-66. :confused:
So after further research I found out that NM-104 wasn't established over its current routing until the 40s. But theoretically they could've put together some dirt roads in order to fix the routing, right?
Yeah the original grade gets into the 20% plus range. Basically I would imagine trying to drive across the country in something like a Model A Ford probably would be the trip from hell back in those days. Weird to think that going out onto the road was a gamble in of itself due to the poor road conditions, not to mention you basically had to have a good mechanical know-how given the dodgy quality of vehicles at the time.
The Goffs cut-off is pretty easy to find. Here is a map link for the Goffs Cut-Off and the pre-1931 US 66 alignment:
Goffs Cut-Off
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Essex,+CA+92332/Needles,+CA/@34.8375996,-115.2101147,10z/data=!4m19!4m18!1m10!1m1!1s0x80cfc2d303d8d131:0xf934a57c11cacfb4!2m2!1d-115.2449794!2d34.7336097!3m4!1m2!1d-115.1370386!2d34.7953118!3s0x80cfc5a7376f0267:0xe3d1eea64c7b744!1m5!1m1!1s0x80ce2372e1358a33:0x205fa817e10d94f3!2m2!1d-114.6141315!2d34.8480597!3e0?hl=en
- At some point between 2012 and now this route appears to have had a wash out and was closed down. You basically come up to a big dirt mound east of Essex where you used to be able to go straight, now you need to turn north on Goffs Road or the pre-1931 alignment.
Pre-1931 route through Goffs
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Essex,+CA+92332/Needles,+CA/@34.8375996,-115.2101147,10z/data=!4m15!4m14!1m5!1m1!1s0x80cfc2d303d8d131:0xf934a57c11cacfb4!2m2!1d-115.2449794!2d34.7336097!1m5!1m1!1s0x80ce2372e1358a33:0x205fa817e10d94f3!2m2!1d-114.6141315!2d34.8480597!3e0!5i1?hl=en
- Interestingly you can see some former Santa Fe towns like Homer, Ibis and Klienfelter listed on the map. Basically US 66 followed the Santa Fe line through the California Mojave which had a town roughly every 10 miles for boiler re-watering purposes. The towns were actually in alphabetically order; Amboy, Bristol, Cadiz, Danby, Essex, Fenner, Goffs, Homer, Ibis, Jaba and Klienfelter heading east to Needles. Basically all of them are ghost towns today after 66 closed with Amboy, Cadiz, Danby, Essex, Goffs and Jaba having the only trace remains. Amboy is actually a real treat to go see since the town is basically abandoned with the exception of Roy's Cafe and Motel.
You'll find this website to be the ultimate guide to your questions about New Mexico State Highways:
http://www.steve-riner.com/nmhighways/NM101-125.htm
Not much for map data but the guy is fantastic at describing the current routes and historic ones. His page is by far the best for anything research wise you want to do on New Mexico Highways. He has the entire history on current NM 104 that you're looking for.
Remember that the roads were a little better than what you see today after 60 years of zero maintenance:
(https://c4.staticflickr.com/8/7379/27603705091_a20851dbf9.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/J4fcPR)
Although I still wouldn't want to drive it even back then.
Looks like the Moki Dugway
I was really impressed by this site:
http://pumpedupkicksonroute66.com/Websites/Route66/
Another view of La Bajada Hill:
(https://c3.staticflickr.com/8/7758/27643918586_a2f7b52db2.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/J7NiTY)
That site is fantastic, I use it a lot for when I want to find something or just know the back story about a part of 66. They even go into full detail about the Auto Trails and how they led up the US Route system. La Bajada is one of my favorite stories relating to 66 along with the Oatman Highway and Californian Mojave. I think it's unfathomable today what it must have been like to travel between Chicago and Los Angeles back in the heyday before the Intestate. Back then you really never went too far from where you grew up and basically it would have been like going to a different planet. My Mom and Grand Parents had some great stories from 1957 when they took US 10 across from Michigan to Seattle, US 101 down to L.A. and 66 back to the midwest by of Chicago one summer. The biggest detail that any of them could remember was having to strap silk water bags to the front of the car to get across the desert safely just in case the car overheated. Granted this was all in a 55 Chevy that didn't even have AC or any of the features we're so accustomed too nowadays.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 13, 2016, 10:43:49 PM
The Goffs cut-off is pretty easy to find. Here is a map link for the Goffs Cut-Off and the pre-1931 US 66 alignment:
Goffs Cut-Off
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Essex,+CA+92332/Needles,+CA/@34.8375996,-115.2101147,10z/data=!4m19!4m18!1m10!1m1!1s0x80cfc2d303d8d131:0xf934a57c11cacfb4!2m2!1d-115.2449794!2d34.7336097!3m4!1m2!1d-115.1370386!2d34.7953118!3s0x80cfc5a7376f0267:0xe3d1eea64c7b744!1m5!1m1!1s0x80ce2372e1358a33:0x205fa817e10d94f3!2m2!1d-114.6141315!2d34.8480597!3e0?hl=en
- At some point between 2012 and now this route appears to have had a wash out and was closed down. You basically come up to a big dirt mound east of Essex where you used to be able to go straight, now you need to turn north on Goffs Road or the pre-1931 alignment.
Oh, I assumed I-40 was too modern in its construction style to be part of the goffs cutoff. So I assume its back open again?
Some (there are more) Historic US66 signs on the Santa Fe route:
In Albuquerque where the other US66 Historic route runs (yes, all directions have a Hist 66 shield!):
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@35.0845365,-106.6515998,3a,75y,350.24h,80.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJizehKuYc7aK16wtxRD3Yw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
Coming off I-25 at exit 278:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@35.5997374,-106.0456239,3a,40.3y,85.6h,82.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUIeugtqT_9In2lYkOOEnaA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
This one on Galisto St is missing the shield: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@35.6864366,-105.9410521,3a,75y,57.48h,80.05t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJMJfdI3C5pYiiRBhp0BzpA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
On the ramp at the I-25/US84 junction:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@35.5198896,-105.2496674,3a,75y,67.08h,72.23t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAFPhnbMpkQgg27GT-6g_Yw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
Quote from: english si on June 15, 2016, 09:42:34 AM
Some (there are more) Historic US66 signs on the Santa Fe route:
In Albuquerque where the other US66 Historic route runs (yes, all directions have a Hist 66 shield!):
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@35.0845365,-106.6515998,3a,75y,350.24h,80.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJizehKuYc7aK16wtxRD3Yw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
Coming off I-25 at exit 278:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@35.5997374,-106.0456239,3a,40.3y,85.6h,82.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUIeugtqT_9In2lYkOOEnaA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
This one on Galisto St is missing the shield: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@35.6864366,-105.9410521,3a,75y,57.48h,80.05t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJMJfdI3C5pYiiRBhp0BzpA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
On the ramp at the I-25/US84 junction:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@35.5198896,-105.2496674,3a,75y,67.08h,72.23t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAFPhnbMpkQgg27GT-6g_Yw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
That first link is the junction where the Pre-1937 and post 1937 routes meet.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 15, 2016, 09:47:16 AMThat first link is the junction where the Pre-1937 and post 1937 routes meet.
Hence why it's "where the other US66 Historic route runs" :)
Quote from: english si on June 15, 2016, 01:44:07 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 15, 2016, 09:47:16 AMThat first link is the junction where the Pre-1937 and post 1937 routes meet.
Hence why it's "where the other US66 Historic route runs" :)
How does a street intersect with itself?...must be the nexus of the universe!
Thanks for the YouTube videos of driving La Bajada. We have a 4WD full size pickup and found our way to the base of La Bajada, north of the historic Santa Fe River bridge. But, when I saw the road heading for the hill and realized that I could find myself in a situation of having to back down a dangerous incline, I passed on the opportunity. The cows grazing in the field where the road headed for the base of the hill told me I was out of my mind. Now if I'd had a drone...
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on June 15, 2016, 10:36:41 PM
Thanks for the YouTube videos of driving La Bajada. We have a 4WD full size pickup and found our way to the base of La Bajada, north of the historic Santa Fe River bridge. But, when I saw the road heading for the hill and realized that I could find myself in a situation of having to back down a dangerous incline, I passed on the opportunity. The cows grazing in the field where the road headed for the base of the hill told me I was out of my mind. Now if I'd had a drone...
The guy who did those videos actually has some really great off-roading clips from various points along Old 66. He did one to the Desert Trade Post out west of Petrified Forest National Park, the Padre Canyon Bridge in Arizona, Canyon Diablo and even a dirt section somewhere near Las Vegas, NM. Dude has some guts to try some of the things he's done but it seems like he has a lot of backup with him.
Seems like you could at least walk it in very little time
Quote from: texaskdog on June 15, 2016, 11:32:19 PM
Seems like you could at least walk it in very little time
If things pan out this year I'll be through 45 of the 47 national parks in the lower 48. That would leave me an opportunity to do a full 66 road trip on the old alignments in maybe May next year. I'm figuring that I could try a fast hike where I would basically be more or less running up the hill on the new alignment and down on the old one.
I posted on Facebook a scan of part of the 1932 Conoco New Mexico highway map, showing detail of the Albuquerque-Santa Fe area. This is the year U.S. 66-85 was routed onto a new alignment over La Bajada, very close to the current alignment of I-25. I hope you can access this.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=969038776519352&set=gm.1006892326066322&type=3&theater
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on June 16, 2016, 01:13:44 PM
I posted on Facebook a scan of part of the 1932 Conoco New Mexico highway map, showing detail of the Albuquerque-Santa Fe area. This is the year U.S. 66-85 was routed onto a new alignment over La Bajada, very close to the current alignment of I-25. I hope you can access this.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=969038776519352&set=gm.1006892326066322&type=3&theater
I wasn't able to access it... :no:
Quote from: billtm on June 16, 2016, 02:33:53 PM
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on June 16, 2016, 01:13:44 PM
I posted on Facebook a scan of part of the 1932 Conoco New Mexico highway map, showing detail of the Albuquerque-Santa Fe area. This is the year U.S. 66-85 was routed onto a new alignment over La Bajada, very close to the current alignment of I-25. I hope you can access this.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=969038776519352&set=gm.1006892326066322&type=3&theater
I wasn't able to access it... :no:
That's a negative for me also. Maybe try copying the URL of the image location and see if it populates here?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 15, 2016, 09:56:23 PMHow does a street intersect with itself?
There's a car dealership in SE Mich that advertises "at the corner of Commerce and Commerce in Commerce Twp."
I was afraid that Facebook privacy settings would keep the image from being viewed. Here it is from Flickr, 1932 enlarged area of Albuquerque-Santa Fe. Note U.S. 66-85 is now on the approximate alignment of I-25, with the former La Bajada roadway shown to its west.
(https://c4.staticflickr.com/8/7340/27714488995_7851e3831b_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Je312a)Santa Fe 1932 (https://flic.kr/p/Je312a) by Steve Riner (https://www.flickr.com/photos/29887636@N08/), on Flickr
Interesting map. It must be before the 1937 "Straightening" which rerouted US - 66 to run more E-W thus bypassing Santa Fe. And Los Lunas. Central Avenue in Albuquerque in the map appears as US - 366. Directly overlaying the minor route that passed through Barton, Venus, and Otto. Don't believe any of those places even exist anymore. Clines Corners' on I-40 is roughly where "Tapia" appears on the map.
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on June 16, 2016, 06:54:53 PM
I was afraid that Facebook privacy settings would keep the image from being viewed. Here it is from Flickr, 1932 enlarged area of Albuquerque-Santa Fe. Note U.S. 66-85 is now on the approximate alignment of I-25, with the former La Bajada roadway shown to its west.
(https://c4.staticflickr.com/8/7340/27714488995_7851e3831b_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Je312a)Santa Fe 1932 (https://flic.kr/p/Je312a) by Steve Riner (https://www.flickr.com/photos/29887636@N08/), on Flickr
It's ironic to think that signed or not that US 85 still has managed to survive on that alignment even to today. The amount of advances that were really made in the first 15 years of the US Route system were really amazing, basically all of the US Routes on that map are showing paved by 1932.
Quote from: DJStephens on June 16, 2016, 11:32:48 PM
Interesting map. It must be before the 1937 "Straightening" which rerouted US - 66 to run more E-W thus bypassing Santa Fe. And Los Lunas. Central Avenue in Albuquerque in the map appears as US - 366. Directly overlaying the minor route that passed through Barton, Venus, and Otto. Don't believe any of those places even exist anymore. Clines Corners' on I-40 is roughly where "Tapia" appears on the map.
The 1927 map I showed earlier has even more towns that don't exist anymore. A lot of them were old rail sidings that gradually went down with the one-two combo of diesel trains and better roads coming into existence.
Quote from: DJStephens on June 16, 2016, 11:32:48 PM
Interesting map. It must be before the 1937 "Straightening" which rerouted US - 66 to run more E-W thus bypassing Santa Fe. And Los Lunas. Central Avenue in Albuquerque in the map appears as US - 366. Directly overlaying the minor route that passed through Barton, Venus, and Otto. Don't believe any of those places even exist anymore. Clines Corners' on I-40 is roughly where "Tapia" appears on the map.
U.S. 366 was originally U.S. 470, running from Willard to Albuquerque. U.S. 70 originally followed the route of U.S. 60 in New Mexico; when U.S. 70 was re-routed southwest from Clovis, U.S. 60 took over its original route and U.S. 470 was renumbered 366. On this 1932 map, there is a road roughly along the alignment of post-1937 U.S. 66, called NM-6 west of Albuquerque and east of NM-41 where U.S. 366 turned south. And, no, Clines Corners isn't at Tapia; it probably didn't exist at that time because the junction of NM-2 (later U.S. 285) and NM-6 (later 66) wasn't yet a significant junction.
So wondering why they would change 470 to 366. Or why they built 66 down that hill to begin with if there was an easier route to be had.
Quote from: texaskdog on June 17, 2016, 05:50:20 PM
So wondering why they would change 470 to 366. Or why they built 66 down that hill to begin with if there was an easier route to be had.
That's because they had to build it up first. US 60 is another highway that had a really weird history out west, especially in Arizona. The whole US 60T route followed most of what was AZ 73 through a bunch of dirt reservation roads east of Salt River Canyon in the Fort Apache and San Carlos. US 70 basically jumped all over the place with it originally ending at US 66 in Holbrook AZ along what is now US 180....which is the second US 180 in Arizona and New Mexico. Even US 80 had a weird alignment that looped down to Douglas, back north to Tucson and for some reason north to Phoenix. Basically I-10 and I-8 took the shortcuts that US 80 should have along what were parts of AZ 86 and AZ 84...but then again those routes had to be built but and US 80 just took what was easiest.
Edit: Attached some map links from US 60, 66, 70 and 80 for reference off of USends.com:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usends.com%2Fmapguy%2FMapImgs%2Fx66_early.gif&hash=e7d4a276b681e20bfabe300d74e453a86bdbe06c)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usends.com%2Fmapguy%2FMapImgs%2Fx60.gif&hash=8f952a2bb2b52338fdc77dc1df53e404aea5d52e)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usends.com%2Fmapguy%2FMapImgs%2Fx70.gif&hash=bf91495c941190cb4f4f9c8987dc1a2d1621340b)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usends.com%2Fmapguy%2FMapImgs%2Fx80_earlier.gif&hash=b9a5ab26484133678162572ca1d2d87b6b5053ed)
Quote from: texaskdog on June 17, 2016, 05:50:20 PM
So wondering why they would change 470 to 366. Or why they built 66 down that hill to begin with if there was an easier route to be had.
Shorter answer is that 470 was a branch of original U.S. 70, which wasn't there any more. When 70 was rerouted, 470 was changed to be a branch, not of 60, but of 66 (its other end). Interesting to note that this was the second U.S. 366 in New Mexico; the first one ran from Clovis to
Tularosa El Paso, in other words the route that 70 took over in 1932.
Quote from: DJStephens on June 16, 2016, 11:32:48 PM
Clines Corners' on I-40 is roughly where "Tapia" appears on the map.
Nowhere close. Clines Corners is off the map to the south.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 17, 2016, 06:28:18 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on June 17, 2016, 05:50:20 PM
So wondering why they would change 470 to 366. Or why they built 66 down that hill to begin with if there was an easier route to be had.
That's because they had to build it up first. US 60 is another highway that had a really weird history out west, especially in Arizona. The whole US 60T route followed most of what was AZ 73 through a bunch of dirt reservation roads east of Salt River Canyon in the Fort Apache and San Carlos. US 70 basically jumped all over the place with it originally ending at US 66 in Holbrook AZ along what is now US 180....which is the second US 180 in Arizona and New Mexico. Even US 80 had a weird alignment that looped down to Douglas, back north to Tucson and for some reason north to Phoenix. Basically I-10 and I-8 took the shortcuts that US 80 should have along what were parts of AZ 86 and AZ 84...but then again those routes had to be built but and US 80 just took what was easiest.
Edit: Attached some map links from US 60, 66, 70 and 80 for reference off of USends.com:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usends.com%2Fmapguy%2FMapImgs%2Fx66_early.gif&hash=e7d4a276b681e20bfabe300d74e453a86bdbe06c)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usends.com%2Fmapguy%2FMapImgs%2Fx60.gif&hash=8f952a2bb2b52338fdc77dc1df53e404aea5d52e)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usends.com%2Fmapguy%2FMapImgs%2Fx70.gif&hash=bf91495c941190cb4f4f9c8987dc1a2d1621340b)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usends.com%2Fmapguy%2FMapImgs%2Fx80_earlier.gif&hash=b9a5ab26484133678162572ca1d2d87b6b5053ed)
And now I realize that the US Highway system is a clusterfuck... :pan:
I remember when I was little following US highways on my Rand McNally... at that time I thought the US highway system was brilliant, and every route I followed took me on an adventure. :-(
I'd say by the heyday of the US Route system in the late 50s and early 60s it was actually pretty good. The original 1926 grid had some really weird routes that were short. There was a crap ton of renumbering and extensions through to the 1950s when you saw all the x0 routes except 90 reach the coast and more simple routes like US 6 extended over while others were removed. The main problem with the system now is that there are too many truncations on routes that didn't need them largely thanks to the Interstates and California. There is also crap like US 163, US 400, US 412 and US 425 which has popped up in recent years. For some reason there seems to be no more movement for route extensions or renumbering anymore post Interstate era as well...hell the Interstates could use some renumberings also.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 18, 2016, 09:19:53 PM
I'd say by the heyday of the US Route system in the late 50s and early 60s it was actually pretty good. The original 1926 grid had some really weird routes that were short. There was a crap ton of renumbering and extensions through to the 1950s when you saw all the x0 routes except 90 reach the coast and more simple routes like US 6 extended over while others were removed. The main problem with the system now is that there are too many truncations on routes that didn't need them largely thanks to the Interstates and California. There is also crap like US 163, US 400, US 412 and US 425 which has popped up in recent years. For some reason there seems to be no more movement for route extensions or renumbering anymore post Interstate era as well...hell the Interstates could use some renumberings also.
Yeah, I see the same type of numbering crap happening to the Interstate system. Examples that have already happened are I-82, I-41, I-99, and I-97 off the top of my head. And I-69 is about to become the worst offender in the world (akin to US-62). While I agree California made unnecessary truncations, I believe that if a legit-Interstate replaces a US route without splitting it in half, the replaced segment of the US route should be truncated. The only US highway I can think of off the top of my head that should be truncated is US-85.
Quote from: billtm on June 19, 2016, 08:59:39 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 18, 2016, 09:19:53 PM
I'd say by the heyday of the US Route system in the late 50s and early 60s it was actually pretty good. The original 1926 grid had some really weird routes that were short. There was a crap ton of renumbering and extensions through to the 1950s when you saw all the x0 routes except 90 reach the coast and more simple routes like US 6 extended over while others were removed. The main problem with the system now is that there are too many truncations on routes that didn't need them largely thanks to the Interstates and California. There is also crap like US 163, US 400, US 412 and US 425 which has popped up in recent years. For some reason there seems to be no more movement for route extensions or renumbering anymore post Interstate era as well...hell the Interstates could use some renumberings also.
Yeah, I see the same type of numbering crap happening to the Interstate system. Examples that have already happened are I-82, I-41, I-99, and I-97 off the top of my head. And I-69 is about to become the worst offender in the world (akin to US-62). While I agree California made unnecessary truncations, I believe that if a legit-Interstate replaces a US route without splitting it in half, the replaced segment of the US route should be truncated. The only US highway I can think of off the top of my head that should be truncated is US-85.
When you look at how the Interstate grid was laid out in 1957 it made a lot of sense. The problem is that there has been a lot of odd numbering additons in the six decades since. The worst for me at the duplicate numbers simply because there wasn't an I-50 or 60. Now I think the issue is more so people don't want chance hence why a grid numbering update doesn't get traction. I'm with you on US 85, it's silly to not even see the number once in New Mexico. A couple of were talking about routing US 85 down US 285 and US 385 to Big Bend National Park as a better alignment.
Make US Highways great again!
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 19, 2016, 09:46:27 AM
Quote from: billtm on June 19, 2016, 08:59:39 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 18, 2016, 09:19:53 PM
I'd say by the heyday of the US Route system in the late 50s and early 60s it was actually pretty good. The original 1926 grid had some really weird routes that were short. There was a crap ton of renumbering and extensions through to the 1950s when you saw all the x0 routes except 90 reach the coast and more simple routes like US 6 extended over while others were removed. The main problem with the system now is that there are too many truncations on routes that didn't need them largely thanks to the Interstates and California. There is also crap like US 163, US 400, US 412 and US 425 which has popped up in recent years. For some reason there seems to be no more movement for route extensions or renumbering anymore post Interstate era as well...hell the Interstates could use some renumberings also.
Yeah, I see the same type of numbering crap happening to the Interstate system. Examples that have already happened are I-82, I-41, I-99, and I-97 off the top of my head. And I-69 is about to become the worst offender in the world (akin to US-62). While I agree California made unnecessary truncations, I believe that if a legit-Interstate replaces a US route without splitting it in half, the replaced segment of the US route should be truncated. The only US highway I can think of off the top of my head that should be truncated is US-85.
When you look at how the Interstate grid was laid out in 1957 it made a lot of sense. The problem is that there has been a lot of odd numbering additons in the six decades since. The worst for me at the duplicate numbers simply because there wasn't an I-50 or 60. Now I think the issue is more so people don't want chance hence why a grid numbering update doesn't get traction. I'm with you on US 85, it's silly to not even see the number once in New Mexico. A couple of were talking about routing US 85 down US 285 and US 385 to Big Bend National Park as a better alignment.
I like the 285/385 idea, because it makes the US highways seem more like a supplement to the Interstates. :nod: But the nonsensical routing of US-285 in southern Colorado would have to be fixed too. My original idea was to give it the US-91 treatment north of Denver.
Quote from: billtm on June 19, 2016, 05:56:26 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 19, 2016, 09:46:27 AM
Quote from: billtm on June 19, 2016, 08:59:39 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 18, 2016, 09:19:53 PM
I'd say by the heyday of the US Route system in the late 50s and early 60s it was actually pretty good. The original 1926 grid had some really weird routes that were short. There was a crap ton of renumbering and extensions through to the 1950s when you saw all the x0 routes except 90 reach the coast and more simple routes like US 6 extended over while others were removed. The main problem with the system now is that there are too many truncations on routes that didn't need them largely thanks to the Interstates and California. There is also crap like US 163, US 400, US 412 and US 425 which has popped up in recent years. For some reason there seems to be no more movement for route extensions or renumbering anymore post Interstate era as well...hell the Interstates could use some renumberings also.
Yeah, I see the same type of numbering crap happening to the Interstate system. Examples that have already happened are I-82, I-41, I-99, and I-97 off the top of my head. And I-69 is about to become the worst offender in the world (akin to US-62). While I agree California made unnecessary truncations, I believe that if a legit-Interstate replaces a US route without splitting it in half, the replaced segment of the US route should be truncated. The only US highway I can think of off the top of my head that should be truncated is US-85.
When you look at how the Interstate grid was laid out in 1957 it made a lot of sense. The problem is that there has been a lot of odd numbering additons in the six decades since. The worst for me at the duplicate numbers simply because there wasn't an I-50 or 60. Now I think the issue is more so people don't want chance hence why a grid numbering update doesn't get traction. I'm with you on US 85, it's silly to not even see the number once in New Mexico. A couple of were talking about routing US 85 down US 285 and US 385 to Big Bend National Park as a better alignment.
I like the 285/385 idea, because it makes the US highways seem more like a supplement to the Interstates. :nod: But the nonsensical routing of US-285 in southern Colorado would have to be fixed too. My original idea was to give it the US-91 treatment north of Denver.
Probably better to use 91 as a renumber of US 191 from south of Yellowstone and swap with US 89 north if you want it to slot into the grid properly. I'll never understand what this whole "status quo" deal is these days with route renumbering becoming stagnant.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 19, 2016, 09:35:25 PM
I'll never understand what this whole "status quo" deal is these days with route renumbering becoming stagnant.
It's because nobody but us cares what number any given highway actually is. All that the other 99% of the motoring population cares about is that whatever number a road happens to be is actually signed well.
Quote from: kphoger on June 20, 2016, 09:23:25 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 19, 2016, 09:35:25 PM
I'll never understand what this whole "status quo" deal is these days with route renumbering becoming stagnant.
It's because nobody but us cares what number any given highway actually is. All that the other 99% of the motoring population cares about is that whatever number a road happens to be is actually signed well.
Yes the lowest common denominator, the GPS crowd spoiling all the fun possibilities.
I'm not so sure about the US-91 rerouting that was proposed, because both US-191 and US-89 seem awfully switchbacky and disjointed.
When the US system was built out it went from town to town, if the route bypassed your town there were lost business opportunities. lost prestige and for some towns it could have meant a death sentence. At the time I suspect they thought routing 66 up to the state capitol (Santa Fe) was more important than a quicker route to/from the larger city (Albuquerque). Politics and pride win out over strict interpretation of the "shortest and best route" rules.
The whole US system as it is right now has no meaning, no consistency and should be replaced with a more meaningful system. Since the Interstates are for all intents and purposes built out the US system could be abandoned and replaced by a new system revolving around the Interstate system, with the new route system extending and feeding the Interstate System. I proposed a "Star Route" system a couple times in various forums as a way to make a meaningful secondary highway system. In areas like the Great Plains and the West "Star Routes" would replace those US and State routes that fill in the blanks between Interstates, much like some of the remaining US routes do. Others would extend Interstates, using the same number but a markedly different sign. For example, US-51 in WI and IL would become some sort of xx-39 route extending I-39.
While NM doesn't have any logical Interstate Extension candidates, I-27 in Texas does. US-87 south of Lubbock could become Extension Route 27.
Of course we all know this would never happen and this really is in the realm of fantasy renumbering. People grow accustomed to the existing numbers and some states replace decommissioned US routes with state routes of the same number (US-89 and US-89A in Arizona for example) to help maintain this but it is a jolt when the number itself is changed. Imagine the upheaval when an entire system disappears and is replaced overnight. At least the Interstate system replaced US routes one by one and many even remained when they should have been replaced (US-150 in IL)
Quote from: billtm on June 20, 2016, 01:12:26 PM
I'm not so sure about the US-91 rerouting that was proposed, because both US-191 and US-89 seem awfully switchbacky and disjointed.
Basically it's popped up in the fictional threads a couple times. If you look at north of Yellowstone on both routes it makes sense to swap them if US 191 had a full conversion to US 91 since it would terminate west of US 89 at the Canadian border....but then again that's just all fantasy.
Quote from: N9JIG on June 20, 2016, 04:50:53 PM
When the US system was built out it went from town to town, if the route bypassed your town there were lost business opportunities. lost prestige and for some towns it could have meant a death sentence. At the time I suspect they thought routing 66 up to the state capitol (Santa Fe) was more important than a quicker route to/from the larger city (Albuquerque). Politics and pride win out over strict interpretation of the "shortest and best route" rules.
The whole US system as it is right now has no meaning, no consistency and should be replaced with a more meaningful system. Since the Interstates are for all intents and purposes built out the US system could be abandoned and replaced by a new system revolving around the Interstate system, with the new route system extending and feeding the Interstate System. I proposed a "Star Route" system a couple times in various forums as a way to make a meaningful secondary highway system. In areas like the Great Plains and the West "Star Routes" would replace those US and State routes that fill in the blanks between Interstates, much like some of the remaining US routes do. Others would extend Interstates, using the same number but a markedly different sign. For example, US-51 in WI and IL would become some sort of xx-39 route extending I-39.
While NM doesn't have any logical Interstate Extension candidates, I-27 in Texas does. US-87 south of Lubbock could become Extension Route 27.
Of course we all know this would never happen and this really is in the realm of fantasy renumbering. People grow accustomed to the existing numbers and some states replace decommissioned US routes with state routes of the same number (US-89 and US-89A in Arizona for example) to help maintain this but it is a jolt when the number itself is changed. Imagine the upheaval when an entire system disappears and is replaced overnight. At least the Interstate system replaced US routes one by one and many even remained when they should have been replaced (US-150 in IL)
Don't forget that there wasn't a ton of straight lined highways when the Auto Trails were replaced by US Routes. Look at good old US 80 making that huge dip down to Douglas and Tucson then all the way up to Phoenix just to go back down to Yuma then Gila Bend. Personally I think the current system could be salvaged with a numbering overhaul rather than a completely new system. There is still a ton of routes that are aligned in correct ways like US 41, US 70, US 2 and US 1 just to name a few of many. I like the idea that a couple people have thrown out about tossing Interstate numbers and giving them US Route designations instead. The main difference would be basically the Interstate colored shield to designated a road as part of the Interstate system. You could probably make a lot of trims down to State Routes or Alternates in that situation.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 20, 2016, 12:55:50 PM
Quote from: kphoger on June 20, 2016, 09:23:25 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 19, 2016, 09:35:25 PM
I'll never understand what this whole "status quo" deal is these days with route renumbering becoming stagnant.
It's because nobody but us cares what number any given highway actually is. All that the other 99% of the motoring population cares about is that whatever number a road happens to be is actually signed well.
Yes the lowest common denominator, the GPS crowd spoiling all the fun possibilities.
No, it's just that the current system works perfectly well for getting people from A to B. It's only us OCD roadgeeks that are bothered by out-of-place numbers and stuff like that.
In fact, if anything, I'd say the spur and loop numbering of many highway networks makes things even harder for the general populace than random numbers would. For example, I can never seem to keep MO-165, MO-265, and MO-465 straight in my mind when I'm in Branson; if they were, say, MO-73, MO-122, and MO-581, then I'd have an easier time of it.
Quote from: kphoger on June 20, 2016, 05:33:09 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 20, 2016, 12:55:50 PM
Quote from: kphoger on June 20, 2016, 09:23:25 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 19, 2016, 09:35:25 PM
I'll never understand what this whole "status quo" deal is these days with route renumbering becoming stagnant.
It's because nobody but us cares what number any given highway actually is. All that the other 99% of the motoring population cares about is that whatever number a road happens to be is actually signed well.
Yes the lowest common denominator, the GPS crowd spoiling all the fun possibilities.
No, it's just that the current system works perfectly well for getting people from A to B. It's only us OCD roadgeeks that are bothered by out-of-place numbers and stuff like that.
In fact, if anything, I'd say the spur and loop numbering of many highway networks makes things even harder for the general populace than random numbers would. For example, I can never seem to keep MO-165, MO-265, and MO-465 straight in my mind when I'm in Branson; if they were, say, MO-73, MO-122, and MO-581, then I'd have an easier time of it.
Right....but the reason those numberings don't happen is because of a widespread assumption that the motoring public doesn't give a crap...and yes that may be true but that didn't used to stop ambition but it sure does now. Hell by the time the Interstates came along there was an assumption that everyday folk couldn't handle a US 50/60 existing along with an I-50/60...even though some examples in modern times exist like US 41/I-41 and US 74/I-74. In general...at least to me it seems like modern times are more about the status quo rather than changing things for the better with public works projects.
The one that I always thought lost a lot of it's meaning were spur Interstate Routes. I always felt like those numberings were handed out like they were candy when the Interstate designation was considered to be a big deal. Things would be a lot more simple if a good chunk of those routes were given state route status or just signed as a US Route if they are already co-signed.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 20, 2016, 09:21:37 PMHell by the time the Interstates came along there was an assumption that everyday folk couldn't handle a US 50/60 existing along with an I-50/60...even though some examples in modern times exist like US 41/I-41 and US 74/I-74.
I do wish people would stop dragging 41 into this - the two routes are entirely concurrent: there's no US41 turning off I-41 (unlike 74), or the interstate running on a different corridor, which was the problem that led rise to the US/I- with same numbers not being 'allowed' in the same state.
Quote from: english si on June 21, 2016, 05:31:44 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 20, 2016, 09:21:37 PMHell by the time the Interstates came along there was an assumption that everyday folk couldn't handle a US 50/60 existing along with an I-50/60...even though some examples in modern times exist like US 41/I-41 and US 74/I-74.
I do wish people would stop dragging 41 into this - the two routes are entirely concurrent: there's no US41 turning off I-41 (unlike 74), or the interstate running on a different corridor, which was the problem that led rise to the US/I- with same numbers not being 'allowed' in the same state.
Right but is it a problem? Basically that's what the assumption was when the Interstate numbering plan was being laid out way back in the 50s. That was the concern...that people literally would not be able to tell to the difference between an Interstate and US Route if they ran in the same plan then branched off. If one thing can be said about the Interstate signage it's this; they made one hell of a distinctive sign that's hard to miss. Basically the red/white/blue with the "Interstate" in the crest completely stands out to the standard black on white especially when the Interstate is 36x36 compared to a 24x24 US Route or State Highway shield. That basically showed a total lack of faith or intelligence in the general motoring public not to have a 50 or 60 back in the original plan. Granted looking at a map and trying to find your own path was a much bigger deal back before GPS units and the likelihood of someone getting confused was way higher.
Funny the 470/366 thing would never happen now. They stopped caring long ago.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 21, 2016, 06:05:00 AMIf one thing can be said about the Interstate signage it's this; they made one hell of a distinctive sign that's hard to miss. Basically the red/white/blue with the "Interstate" in the crest completely stands out to the standard black on white especially when the Interstate is 36x36 compared to a 24x24 US Route or State Highway shield. That basically showed a total lack of faith or intelligence in the general motoring public not to have a 50 or 60 back in the original plan.
The decision on numbering was probably made before the decision on the shields. If they didn't know for sure there was going to be such a distinctive shield, keeping the numbers separate in a state made sense.
When the US system came about, states renumbered their already existing state highways to avoid duplicates.
Quote from: GaryV on June 21, 2016, 04:40:39 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 21, 2016, 06:05:00 AMIf one thing can be said about the Interstate signage it's this; they made one hell of a distinctive sign that's hard to miss. Basically the red/white/blue with the "Interstate" in the crest completely stands out to the standard black on white especially when the Interstate is 36x36 compared to a 24x24 US Route or State Highway shield. That basically showed a total lack of faith or intelligence in the general motoring public not to have a 50 or 60 back in the original plan.
The decision on numbering was probably made before the decision on the shields. If they didn't know for sure there was going to be such a distinctive shield, keeping the numbers separate in a state made sense.
When the US system came about, states renumbered their already existing state highways to avoid duplicates.
Very few had substantial state route systems before the US Routes came to fruition. About the only substantial one that comes to mind off the top of my head was Michigan with the state trunklines.
Quote from: texaskdog on June 21, 2016, 03:21:36 PM
Funny the 470/366 thing would never happen now. They stopped caring long ago.
I don't know about that, things always change in the future. We're just living in a time when public works projects in the U.S. are going through a great decline. There will come a time when the U.S. will have to catch up to the infrastructure that's being built in some other places in the world like the Middle East and China. The problem with the transportation side of that coin is that nobody wants to spend money on roads until something breaks completely. It's kind of amazing see how far the attitude has shifted in my own lifetime let alone all the way back to my Grand Parents.
The other issue is that the interstates were 'new'. I'm sure maps hadn't even standardized how to show their numbers. I'm also not sure whether it was common to call it "Interstate Ten" or "I-Ten" back then. Calling it "Route Ten", might have been what was expected. Not realizing how we'd switch to the I- prefix or the 'long name'.
I grew up not far from US 19, and even as a kid it was called Route 19. And yet all the state routes were also called by their names "Route 18", "Route 58", "Route 11", "Route 82", "Route 322", "Route 19". Didn't matter the designation. I don't even really recall my parents ever calling I-79 or I-80 that. Though they would say, such as a trip to North Dakota as "We're getting on the interstate", as if it were it's own entity, but even then I recall them just calling it Route 80, Route 90, Route 94, Route 29, etc.
All roads with numbered signs are technically "Routes". The route may jump from road to road, but it's always a 'route'. Regardless which classification.
My guess is, as with my parents, and many before them, it was just simpler to make sure there was as least confusion and duplication as possible. Same reason the rule on 3dis not being reused in the same state. Yet 264 and 265 can exist in one metro area, 275 in Cincinnati and 275 in Toledo would be considered a Rubik's Cube for travelers. (As for Louisville, even I have taken the wrong one forgetting which one was the inner and outer bypass around Louisville) when I'm not hawk-eyeing the road signs.
But, going back to U.S. routes, the ability to realign the routes, sometimes drastically, was probably because the roads hadn't yet been solidifed mentally. Once "Route 19" was "Route 19" for twenty years, it's hard to go back and try to change it. Which is the problem with rerouting a road today. They can truncate it or decommission it entirely, but putting it on a new alignment seems to be wizardry to the general public.
Businesses not wanting to 'change what road they're on' is not the reason for Business Routes. They still have to change their directions, signage, legal addresses, etc, to the new route. People still have to know that the hardware store didn't relocate to the shoulder of the new freeway bypass.
It's mostly to make sure idiots that are driving through town that forget to follow the new route can navigate their way through the town back to the primary road they were already on. My dad did this a few months ago with US 422 in New Castle. He didn't realize he needed to exit heading west to follow the freeway and called me from town asking where he was. He still followed the US 422 Business signs faithfully, until one intersection downtown where the signage is a bit confusing (you turn right to then turn left, jogging one main road up, essentially). Well, he missed it and called again. This time even further lost. But, managed to find US 224, and knew that road would take him toward I-376.
So, there is a round-about way why realigning roads isn't a great idea and labeling things "Bypass" might be better. But, it definitely makes me realize why some of the things are done they way they are when I see my 60+ year old parents try to navigate just by memory and road signs with no maps or GPS.
Quote from: Sykotyk on June 26, 2016, 01:27:09 AM
The other issue is that the interstates were 'new'. I'm sure maps hadn't even standardized how to show their numbers. I'm also not sure whether it was common to call it "Interstate Ten" or "I-Ten" back then. Calling it "Route Ten", might have been what was expected. Not realizing how we'd switch to the I- prefix or the 'long name'.
I grew up not far from US 19, and even as a kid it was called Route 19. And yet all the state routes were also called by their names "Route 18", "Route 58", "Route 11", "Route 82", "Route 322", "Route 19". Didn't matter the designation. I don't even really recall my parents ever calling I-79 or I-80 that. Though they would say, such as a trip to North Dakota as "We're getting on the interstate", as if it were it's own entity, but even then I recall them just calling it Route 80, Route 90, Route 94, Route 29, etc.
All roads with numbered signs are technically "Routes". The route may jump from road to road, but it's always a 'route'. Regardless which classification.
My guess is, as with my parents, and many before them, it was just simpler to make sure there was as least confusion and duplication as possible. Same reason the rule on 3dis not being reused in the same state. Yet 264 and 265 can exist in one metro area, 275 in Cincinnati and 275 in Toledo would be considered a Rubik's Cube for travelers. (As for Louisville, even I have taken the wrong one forgetting which one was the inner and outer bypass around Louisville) when I'm not hawk-eyeing the road signs.
But, going back to U.S. routes, the ability to realign the routes, sometimes drastically, was probably because the roads hadn't yet been solidifed mentally. Once "Route 19" was "Route 19" for twenty years, it's hard to go back and try to change it. Which is the problem with rerouting a road today. They can truncate it or decommission it entirely, but putting it on a new alignment seems to be wizardry to the general public.
Businesses not wanting to 'change what road they're on' is not the reason for Business Routes. They still have to change their directions, signage, legal addresses, etc, to the new route. People still have to know that the hardware store didn't relocate to the shoulder of the new freeway bypass.
It's mostly to make sure idiots that are driving through town that forget to follow the new route can navigate their way through the town back to the primary road they were already on. My dad did this a few months ago with US 422 in New Castle. He didn't realize he needed to exit heading west to follow the freeway and called me from town asking where he was. He still followed the US 422 Business signs faithfully, until one intersection downtown where the signage is a bit confusing (you turn right to then turn left, jogging one main road up, essentially). Well, he missed it and called again. This time even further lost. But, managed to find US 224, and knew that road would take him toward I-376.
So, there is a round-about way why realigning roads isn't a great idea and labeling things "Bypass" might be better. But, it definitely makes me realize why some of the things are done they way they are when I see my 60+ year old parents try to navigate just by memory and road signs with no maps or GPS.
That's actually the most cited reason I used to hear about I-19 not switching over from kilometers years ago to miles. Apparently there some business owners that were freaking out that they might have to change a sign or two...granted in all my travels south of Tucson near the border I never once saw an example...or at least one that comes to mind.
One remembering that I can think of that actually worked in modern times was US 27 becoming US 127 north of Lansing Michigan to Grayling. When the US 127 freeway was completed from I-69 to St. Johns basically they went ahead with the truncation of US 27 back to Fort Wayne since it basically multiplexed I-69 to Lansing. What was left of US 27 north of St. Johns was renumbered as US 127. Granted this was back in 2001 or 2002 I believe and MDOT actually did a great job at advertising the change well in advance. I have a lot of family and friends in the area, nobody seemed all that confused about the changed. For them US 27 became Old 27 and north of St. Johns it was just US 127. But I'm aware that I'm talking about a state that has a history of highway realignments and changes some drastic like US 10 or the change of routes for US 12. I remember in driving school when I was a kid they actually taught what a State Trunk Line, US Route and Interstate were. It just goes to show that if put an effort into roadway education it can positive results.