First thread after being inactive for a while.
So, what US Routes, and state highways (in your state) you wish were recommissioned?
US 66.
<------------------------
Swap CA 99 for US 99 since it is over 300 miles. Co-sign it with CA 36 to I-5 and you got a complete loop from the Interstate system. A little less obvious one would be bringing back US 89 to Wickenburg from Flagstaff in Arizona. Truncating it to US 180 never made much sense to begin with since ADOT still maintains all the roadway between both cities still.
For state highways I thought that I would give this some extra thought for places I've lived....
Arizona:
AZ 279: Essentially this would be a more logical replacement for AZ 260 from AZ 89A to AZ 87 which would eliminate the huge multiplex for AZ 260/87.
Florida:
FL 4a: Having an A1A segment from Sugarloaf Key to Stock Island would have been handy to have while the right-of-way was still available before all the red tape made it impossible.
California:
CA 180: Essentially I'm talking about the planned extension over County Route J1 west to CA 25. There is a ton of evidence to suggest that this was actually signed despite being not state maintained prior to 1940. It would be handy to have an alternate to CA 152 available over the Diablos to state standards.
Michigan:
US 10: Really the terminus ought to be downtown Detroit...come on...
US 27: This should have been swapped with US 127 north of Cincinnati once US 27 was decomissioned north of Fort Wayne. I lived on this route in Lansing and people called it 27 for years north of St. Johns.
VA 44 in Chesterfield and Powhatan.
US 17-1
I.S. 213
As TheHighwayMan394 said, US-61, but also US-16. I don't care if it's mostly parallel to I-90, I think it's nice to have an alternate parallel route to an Interstate, if one wants to travel more leisurely. (Relocating US-52 off I-94 would also be another change I'd like, but I'm not sure this fits the thread's question.)
Also, I want MN-101 brought back in its entirety. I just find something fascinating about having a long surface road carry one state designation through several suburbs. (I know that goes against MnDOT's policy about "ewww, maintaining city surface streets," but I don't care.)
Edit: MN-242 as well, except extend it east over CR-14 all the way to I-35E (or perhaps even US-61, since that would only be another ~two miles). I always thought that made sense as a state route, but apparently MnDOT/the legislature disagreed.
US 5 re-extended in New Haven to end at US 1 as it once did.
This one I've said ad nauseum: return US 6 to its pre-Interstate alignments except for the Newtown-Southbury stretch.
Either bring back US 6A from Woodbury to Willimantic, or re-extend CT 14 west of Willimantic to Woodbury (and even beyond to Brookfield via CT 317 and CT 133)
MN 49 would be cool to bring back I think.
US-21 in Ohio and WV and US-25 North of Cincinnati to at least Toledo.
And US-66.
Quote from: MNHighwayManI think it's nice to have an alternate parallel route to an Interstate, if one wants to travel more leisurely.
Nothing necessarily wrong with that, but there's also no reason why such a route has to be a U.S. route. It could be any type of route as long as it's signed consistently.
QuoteEdit: MN-242 as well, except extend it east over CR-14 all the way to I-35E (or perhaps even US-61, since that would only be another ~two miles). I always thought that made sense as a state route, but apparently MnDOT/the legislature disagreed.
Not quite the case here. It's functionally classified as a Principal Arterial, so MnDOT would have liked to keep control of it. But it was so far down on their improvement priority list that Coon Rapids, Blaine, and Anoka County balked. Anoka County took it over from MnDOT because they were able to 4 lane it faster than if it had stayed under MnDOT control.
Washington state routes 251 and 603.
US 99, 99W, 99E
Restore GA 260 to its full length out to US 278. Truthfully, I'm not sure why the remaining part is still in the system, as it's mostly just a residential street.
Also GA 351, as the closest decommissioned (and not merely relocated) highway to where I grew up (not that I remember it, as it was turned back a year or two before I was born). Its former route is still the most direct connection between Jonesboro and McDonough, county seats of neighboring counties.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on July 08, 2017, 02:54:58 PM
MN 49 would be cool to bring back I think.
Only if it were reunited with MN-149. :D A similar, albeit much weaker, case could be made for reuniting MN-156 with MN-56.
Quote from: froggie on July 08, 2017, 04:34:22 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayManI think it's nice to have an alternate parallel route to an Interstate, if one wants to travel more leisurely.
Nothing necessarily wrong with that, but there's also no reason why such a route has to be a U.S. route. It could be any type of route as long as it's signed consistently.
QuoteEdit: MN-242 as well, except extend it east over CR-14 all the way to I-35E (or perhaps even US-61, since that would only be another ~two miles). I always thought that made sense as a state route, but apparently MnDOT/the legislature disagreed.
Not quite the case here. It's functionally classified as a Principal Arterial, so MnDOT would have liked to keep control of it. But it was so far down on their improvement priority list that Coon Rapids, Blaine, and Anoka County balked. Anoka County took it over from MnDOT because they were able to 4 lane it faster than if it had stayed under MnDOT control.
Extend the MN-16 designation west then, whatever. Although, I had it in mind that the US-16 designation would be restored through South Dakota and Wisconsin as well, which seems worthy enough of the US Highway designation to me.
And as far as 242 goes, I didn't know that. One would think MnDOT would pony up if they didn't want to let it go, but then again I'm sure they probably didn't have the funds and/or the proper politics to keep MN-242 a reality.
US 99, as WA 99 and OR 99-99W/99E. Simply being an alternate to I-5 would be nice, especially in Washington. Plus, ODOT never should restore 99W through Portland, and sign it correctly, again, as an alternate to I-5, but that would really only be useful if there was another way over the Columbia River.
re-extend US 54 from it's current western terminus at I-72 near Pittsfield to US 45 in Onarga. Illinois truncated US 54 from Chicago to near its current western terminus in 1972 with the alignment from Springfield to US 54 in Onarga becoming IL-54. US 54 can be cosigned with I-72 and US 36 from near Pittsfield to the current IL-54 in Springfield.
Old CA 9, from Saratoga to CA 237 in Sunnyvale.
Old CT 130
IA 982, so I could have taken a photo
This recommissioning may make not much sense, but re-extending US 65 south back to Natchez, MS seems to me would be helpful in bringing a major US highway route to the forefront of many drivers eyes (big town with a MS River crossing vs its current rural terminus in a speed-trap small town).
US 425 is there now, but was brought in a few years ago. IMO, US 65 is much more important for the truck driving public than US 425 ever will be. (65 is even built better from AR north. Also, US 425's northern terminus is...that's right: US 65 on the southern edge of Pine Bluff, AR.)
Quote from: kurumi on July 09, 2017, 01:32:10 AM
IA 982, so I could have taken a photo
If we're going to go down that route, I'd like all of Minnesota's decommissioned state highways to return, at least briefly, so I can take pictures and maybe
steal a few signs politely ask whoever takes them down if I can have one. ;-)
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on July 08, 2017, 08:26:25 PM
Extend the MN-16 designation west then, whatever. Although, I had it in mind that the US-16 designation would be restored through South Dakota and Wisconsin as well, which seems worthy enough of the US Highway designation to me.
I think both SD and WI still maintain a lot of old US 16 (WI as WI 16 and SD as part of SD 11, part of 42, 262, part of 38, part of 45, multiple Business 90 loops, and 248). US 16 could also be routed through the Badlands to hit as many national parks as possible (old Alt 16, now SD 240). However, unlike WI, SD does not like parallel US routes to its interstates...
Quote from: SD Mapman on July 09, 2017, 02:45:02 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on July 08, 2017, 08:26:25 PM
Extend the MN-16 designation west then, whatever. Although, I had it in mind that the US-16 designation would be restored through South Dakota and Wisconsin as well, which seems worthy enough of the US Highway designation to me.
I think both SD and WI still maintain a lot of old US 16 (WI as WI 16 and SD as part of SD 11, part of 42, 262, part of 38, part of 45, multiple Business 90 loops, and 248). US 16 could also be routed through the Badlands to hit as many national parks as possible (old Alt 16, now SD 240). However, unlike WI, SD does not like parallel US routes to its interstates...
Neither does Minnesota, which is most likely why it was seriously amputated after I-90 was built.
Quote from: thenetwork on July 08, 2017, 03:43:56 PM
US-25 North of Cincinnati to at least Toledo.
They could recommission US-25 all the way to Port Austin and it would be okay with me.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on July 09, 2017, 03:57:11 PM
Quote from: SD Mapman on July 09, 2017, 02:45:02 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on July 08, 2017, 08:26:25 PM
Extend the MN-16 designation west then, whatever. Although, I had it in mind that the US-16 designation would be restored through South Dakota and Wisconsin as well, which seems worthy enough of the US Highway designation to me.
I think both SD and WI still maintain a lot of old US 16 (WI as WI 16 and SD as part of SD 11, part of 42, 262, part of 38, part of 45, multiple Business 90 loops, and 248). US 16 could also be routed through the Badlands to hit as many national parks as possible (old Alt 16, now SD 240). However, unlike WI, SD does not like parallel US routes to its interstates...
Neither does Minnesota, which is most likely why it was seriously amputated after I-90 was built.
SD and MN pressured WI to decommission their part of 16 in order to be able to decommission theirs.
I would switch CT 159 back to US 5A, since is is a western (and honestly, more scenic) parallel of its parent.
For Utah:
US 30S (could be 330 or something, just a US Route), 40, 91.
And bring back 666!
Quote from: roadguy2 on July 10, 2017, 01:11:05 AM
For Utah:
US 30S (could be 330 or something, just a US Route), 40, 91.
And bring back 666!
666 doesn't stand a chance given all the angst that the route number brought along with all the sign theft that occurred in Arizona and New Mexico. People still call the Coronado Trail over US 191 the Devils Highway which I'm sure ADOT really just loves. :-D
US 66 and 99, for sure!
Reconnect OH 800 and OH 8 between Canton and Akron to act as a business corridor for I-77.
Although it wasn't decommissioned, just truncated back to Warrenton, I wish US-211 still went all the way to D.C since US-29 from Warrenton to the Key Bridge is basically East/West
US 89 Border to Border.
As mentioned before US 16. Just duplex it with I-90 in South Dakota east of Rapid City. It can run on it's own over SD-38 which was once US-16 then duplex it with I-90 again until it reached Dexter MN. As far as the state routes go I have several.
WI-24 from the Waukesha County line to East Troy. Very illogical ending at a county line. It should at least be extended out to WI-164 in Big Bend. There is enough traffic to justify it as a state highway.
WI-74 Don't know why it was decommissioned in the first place. Surprising it just lead to way too many routing changes in Waukesha County over the last 30 years.
WI-149 Again not clear leaves a big gap without a state highway.
WI-163 Diddo with WI-149 leaves a big gap without a state highway. I would also bring back WI-96 east of I-43 and end it at WI-163.
My wish list used to be even longer but I have cut it shorter just to not have it be too long. Keep things reasonable.
Why is WI-134 still around? It's just a short useless spur that leads to a small town called London which isn't even incorporated. Makes no sense
I'd vote for putting MA 129 through Lynn back on its original routing (pre-1996), and designate the "new" routing through Downtown Lynn as 129A. Particularly as there's no factual evidence to support claims that the current route scheme has brought throngs of people into Downtown Lynn to spend money and boost the local economy.
You know, I take back U.S. 213. There's U.S. 301 along the Upper Shore in Maryland, so having two U.S. highways there would be redundant.
Quote from: roadman on July 13, 2017, 04:14:45 PM
I'd vote for putting MA 129 through Lynn back on its original routing, and designate the "new" routing through Downtown Lynn as 129A. Particularly as there's no factual evidence to support claims that the current route scheme has brought throngs of people into Downtown Lynn to spend money and boost the local economy.
What about MA 129 in Wakefield and Lynnfield?
Quote from: roadman on July 13, 2017, 04:14:45 PM
I'd vote for putting MA 129 through Lynn back on its original routing, and designate the "new" routing through Downtown Lynn as 129A. Particularly as there's no factual evidence to support claims that the current route scheme has brought throngs of people into Downtown Lynn to spend money and boost the local economy.
The irony of the state re-routing people to force them through downtown, yet sign it so poorly that one couldn't possibly follow the route just by following signs.
On Long Island, I'd like to see the decommissioned sections of NY 27A and NY 24 brought back. NY 113 and NY 115 would be nice as well.
Quote from: roadman on July 13, 2017, 04:14:45 PM
I'd vote for putting MA 129 through Lynn back on its original routing, and designate the "new" routing through Downtown Lynn as 129A. Particularly as there's no factual evidence to support claims that the current route scheme has brought throngs of people into Downtown Lynn to spend money and boost the local economy.
Not to get technical; but I believe you meant to say the
pre-1996 alignment.
The
original alignment of 129 through Lynn involved hugging Lynn Beach (via Lynn Shore Drive) then using Nahant St. (not the Carroll Parkway/Lynnway) to Broad St. (MA 1A). From there, it went into Downtown Lynn & Lynn Commons, crossed Western Ave. (MA 107) and eventually went via Federal (?) St. to Walnut St. (where it would proceed towards US 1 & Saugus).
I'm guessing that the reroute
out of Downtown Lynn back then (1950s? or early 1960s) was due to GE erecting some buildings one the western side of MA 107 & cutting off public access on Federal(?) St. west of Western Ave. (the street has since reopened to the public following GE either selling or demolishing the old buildings). The reroute away from Lynn Beach & onto Eastern Ave. was probably done at the same time. Was the MDC trying to keep thru-truck traffic away from the beach?
Quote from: SectorZ on July 15, 2017, 08:21:37 PMThe irony of the state re-routing people to force them through downtown, yet sign it so poorly that one couldn't possibly follow the route just by following signs.
Even more ironic if not confusing is that when then-MassHighway erected the few MA 129A signs; some of the then-newly-erected signs near/at the eastern terminus (for 129A) had Eastern Ave. west of New Ocean St. (MA 1A)
still designated as
129. Similar is true for some of the signs at the northern MA 107/129A junction.
Quote from: catsynth on July 12, 2017, 01:10:06 AM
US 89 Border to Border.
The decommissioning south of US 60 made sense but I would bring it back between Flagstaff and US 93. Along with US 99 and US 16 from Rapid City to Waukesha ad perhaps US 61 to the Canadian border. All the other US highway decommissionings I am perfectly fine with.
All decomisiod us routes.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 27, 2017, 05:08:10 PM
All decomisiod us routes.
The correct spelling is in the title of the thread....really? :rolleyes:
US 171 from US 80/79 to meet back with its parent route US 71, all in Shreveport, LA. Why? Just because.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 27, 2017, 05:16:12 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 27, 2017, 05:08:10 PM
All decomisiod us routes.
The correct spelling is in the title of the thread....really? :rolleyes:
Hey, you're coming very close to decimating his character.
AR 68 (one of the original highways)
AR 471
As others have mentioned, US-25 from Cincinnati north to the top of the "Thumb"
US-27 from Ft. Wayne to Cheboygan, and end US-127 in Lansing like it used to.
US-10 from Detroit to Midland
US-50 from Sacramento to San Francisco
US-6 from Bishop to Long Beach (One of my bucket list trips is to take US-6 from LA to Cape Cod.)
Of course, US-66 and US-99.
Dear CDOT:
If a US Route in Colorado isn't decommissioned, then SIGN the damned route consistently!!!
Love,
US-6, US-40, US-85, US-87 and others...
^ Or at least reroute the U.S. highway properly...
Iowa 122 gets reextended to US 18 east of Rudd, just so it doesn't end at the random spot the city limits of Mason City end. Another one is Iowa 106, because everyone at work calls it old 106. Another one is Iowa 105, because it would eliminate the one nonconforming county road in Iowa.
I am sure someone will probably say all the highways decommissioned in 2003.
I wouldn't, but I do wonder why 105 was dropped. Also, IIRC, BUSINESS 18 used to extend east of Mason City along old 18 instead of returning south via US 65.
Re-route U.S. 202 from I-84 in the Danbury area to CT 302 through Bethel and Newtown, its first routing. (Perhaps just for my own self-interest heheh. :sombrero:)
This one's minor, but I nominate CT Route 71A in central Connecticut. After it splits off from it's parent in Berlin, it forms most of the Chamberlain Highway. Soon after it enters New Britain, the designation suddenly stops at Buell Street. Most, if not all, of Arch Street north of it used to be part of the road. What they should do is bring that back, then extend it one long block east on Chestnut Street (downtown, past our police station). Doing so would have it meet its parent at the southern landing of the Harry Truman Overpass.
Quote from: DandyDan on July 30, 2017, 05:27:57 AM
I am sure someone will probably say all the highways decommissioned in 2003.
Meh, I agree that most of those were unimportant to keep as state highways. However, I wish Iowa DOT would resurrect those that continue to be signed in street blade only. 927 (old US 6 between Davenport and Wilton) and the remainder of 965 (old US 218 between Iowa City and Cedar Rapids) come to mind immediately.
Quote from: DandyDan on July 30, 2017, 05:27:57 AM
Iowa 122 gets reextended to US 18 east of Rudd, just so it doesn't end at the random spot the city limits of Mason City end. Another one is Iowa 106, because everyone at work calls it old 106. Another one is Iowa 105, because it would eliminate the one nonconforming county road in Iowa.
I am sure someone will probably say all the highways decommissioned in 2003.
I would just because it'd be cool and give me something more to visit, photograph, and explore.
Same goes for all the weird 288-303 series Minnesota routes that have been eliminated. (Or at least perhaps one in particular ;-))