For me, I wonder how things would look if the freeway revolts happened in the 90s and 00s instead of the 60s & 70s......I don't know what impact it would have had at the local and state levels, but nationally, I dare say we don't see interstates such as 22 & 49 & 73 get built.
Please remember that the freeway revolts were largely an urban phenomenon. The only real resistance to Interstate highways in rural areas was that they would reduce traffic through small towns that depended on travelers for their livelihood.
Even a couple of the highways you mention met little resistance in rural areas- but I-22, although it connects the Birmingham and Memphis areas, does not enter either city. I-49 probably should end in downtown Kansas City, but the courts ordered that US 71 be a "parkway" with some grade intersections, north of I-435. Southwest Missouri and Northwest Arkansas are very much looking forward to I-49 being connected across the state line; the new alignment will take a lot of through traffic off of local roads.
One wonders if we should have approached urban interstate construction as Paris did- with a ring road around the city, and no limited access highways inside it.
Quote from: planxtymcgillicuddy on October 28, 2019, 03:49:16 PM
For me, I wonder how things would look if the freeway revolts happened in the 90s and 00s instead of the 60s & 70s......I don't know what impact it would have had at the local and state levels, but nationally, I dare say we don't see interstates such as 22 & 49 & 73 get built.
Quote from: Konza on October 28, 2019, 04:23:57 PM
Please remember that the freeway revolts were largely an urban phenomenon. The only real resistance to Interstate highways in rural areas was that they would reduce traffic through small towns that depended on travelers for their livelihood.
Even a couple of the highways you mention met little resistance in rural areas- but I-22, although it connects the Birmingham and Memphis areas, does not enter either city. I-49 probably should end in downtown Kansas City, but the courts ordered that US 71 be a "parkway" with some grade intersections, north of I-435. Southwest Missouri and Northwest Arkansas are very much looking forward to I-49 being connected across the state line; the new alignment will take a lot of through traffic off of local roads.
One wonders if we should have approached urban interstate construction as Paris did- with a ring road around the city, and no limited access highways inside it.
That would depend upon whether the freeway revolts remained a largely urban phenomenon as they were when they first emerged in the mid-'60's and peaked during the following decade. If so, the calls for RE/T activities would be magnified, since there would have been considerably more urban mileage constructed earlier in multiple metro areas, including the I-95 corridor from DC north through Boston, as well as Memphis, Atlanta, Chicago, and S.F. But even if those facilities had been constructed as originally planned, later opposition wouldn't have particularly targeted intercity connectors with a continued urban focus. The chargeable portion of the Interstate network would have been truncated in '73 as it was in reality; further Interstate development after that time would have commenced largely as it has, with a combination of "filling in the gaps" (i.e., I-49, I-22) and politically/developmentally-motivated corridors such as I-69, I-73/74, and certainly I-14 (IMO, I-11 is a "hybrid" of perceived "gap-filling" and developmental desires).
OTOH -- if freeway opposition was predicated on a more generalized, anti-auto/anti-mobility platform starting in the early '90's, and environmental concerns were incorporated into that agenda -- including economic impact on bypassed towns, decrying new intercity corridors would have likely been part of all that. But even then things would have shaken out along political lines; states and regions dominated by urban areas or where environmental actions have found an audience (NY, CA, the Northwest, and New England in particular) would deem Interstate/freeway additions as "non-starters". I-86 across upstate NY, I-99, and possibly I-68 may not have been developed as they have been to date. In a contrary vein, parts of I-69 (at least Indy-Memphis) may still have been proposed; and I'd suggest that both I-22 and I-49 may have seen development simply because of (a) the fact that substantial portions had been completed before the opposition would have "gelled", and (b) because of the contrarian political environment in the states/regions through which their corridors run. But anything on the West Coast would be dead in its tracks -- while Texas would still likely be promoting (and arranging federal legislation) for at least a Brownsville-Texarkana corridor; while national activists and PIRG's would piss & moan, TX would simply ignore them or show them a raised middle finger! NC would be the mixed bag it is today, but they'd probably
not have the I-73/74 corridor to deal with, so they might simply plan for a E-W corridor along US 74 as well as what's now being developed as I-42 (the I-40 extension to Wilmington having preceded the protestation peak).
In hindsight, the Paris approach might have been the way to go back in the '50's -- but at that time many of the cities, seeing their economic base moving outward to the suburbs, pressed for Interstate connections to city centers in order to attempt to recoup and/or retain as much economic activity as possible. Of course at that time those civic leaders were hardly as diverse a group as is found today; they tended to distill things down to essential dollars and cents rather than addressing socioeconomic issues (which reached the forefront not long after the Interstate system was being deployed).
No New York Central Railroad project started in Pennsylvania between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, or else the completion thereof of the project in the late 1800s.
That would mean no Pennsylvania Turnpike completed along the unused and partly completed railroad grade between Irwin and Carlisle in 1940.
The building of a Pennsylvania Turnpike would have occurred in the 1950s when the other turnpikes (and the rest of the PA Turnpike) were being built.
It would have followed a different route in that part of the state, probably the US-22 corridor between Pittsburgh and Harrisburg, as that was where the main population draw would be along the route.
I don't believe it would have had a major impact with regard to turnpikes in other states, other than possibly delaying the completion of the Chicago-New York turnpike system.
Early urban parkways and freeways were built in the U.S. in the 1920s and 1930s.
New Jersey and Delaware in particular would have been likely to complete that turnpike by about 1951 as in the original timeline, given the very high demand.
If there is no Eisenhower, there is no Interstate system. We would still have freeways but they would not be as networked nor would there be such a thing as "Interstate standards".
Rick
Quote from: nexus73 on October 28, 2019, 06:36:32 PM
If there is no Eisenhower, there is no Interstate system. We would still have freeways but they would not be as networked nor would there be such a thing as "Interstate standards".
Rick
I disagree....even if Eisenhower had not come up with the interstate system, then someone after him certainly would have. Granted, it likely would have taken a lot longer to go from pen and paper to reality, but there would definitely be some form of Interstate-type system, though I don't know if they would be referred to as interstates or not.
Well what's interesting about your original statement, is while there is great support for I-49 in what has been built and the parts to come...the portions of 49 that go directly through major cities are still unfinished. Kansas City didn't allow 49 north of 435. Shreveport and Lafayette's inner city portions are still at odds. I would argue that with Texarkana it looped and largely bypassed the main city and NWA it mostly traverses away from city centers.
iPhone
If the construction of what became the Interstate system were left to the states, there certainly would have been limited access highways constructed.
You have to wonder, though, if without 90% Federal funding, segments that connect points in different states would have been built. Look at the Plains states; what would have been in it for Kansas to build I-70 west of, say, Salina? I-80 in Nebraska west of Lincoln? Any of the Interstates in eastern Montana? Yet US 66 was pretty much two lanes in each direction from Chicago to Springfield, Missouri. Oklahoma had started to build a turnpike to connect OKC and Tulsa. Lots of toll roads in more densely populated eastern states.
I think if you go back to 1955 or so, you'd see what the system might have looked like, and it would be lots of highways that met intrastate and regional needs, but no national system. Eisenhower had the standing to shepherd it through, but the need was out there, and if it weren't Eisenhower, it would have been someone else.
Quote from: planxtymcgillicuddy on October 28, 2019, 06:40:26 PM
I disagree....even if Eisenhower had not come up with the interstate system, then someone after him certainly would have. Granted, it likely would have taken a lot longer to go from pen and paper to reality, but there would definitely be some form of Interstate-type system, though I don't know if they would be referred to as interstates or not.
The foundational studies for Interstate highways occurred before Eisenhower's presidency (1953-1961).
A report to Congress on "Toll Roads and Free Roads" contains the first formal concept of the Interstate Highway System, January 1, 1939.
The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1944 included the creation of a 40,000-mile (64,000 km) National System of Interstate Highways to connect major cities and industrial areas.
Quote from: Beltway on October 28, 2019, 08:46:27 PM
Quote from: planxtymcgillicuddy on October 28, 2019, 06:40:26 PM
I disagree....even if Eisenhower had not come up with the interstate system, then someone after him certainly would have. Granted, it likely would have taken a lot longer to go from pen and paper to reality, but there would definitely be some form of Interstate-type system, though I don't know if they would be referred to as interstates or not.
The foundational studies for Interstate highways occurred before Eisenhower's presidency (1953-1961).
A report to Congress on "Toll Roads and Free Roads" contains the first formal concept of the Interstate Highway System, January 1, 1939.
The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1944 included the creation of a 40,000-mile (64,000 km) National System of Interstate Highways to connect major cities and industrial areas.
In reality, Eisenhower didn't do much except sign the bill into law. He gets the fame because he signed it into law. The entire system was planned decades prior as you mention.
How about when the interstate highways system is passed in 1956, part of the bill would allow states to build service plazas ever 30 miles outside of urban aeras. How would that affect the growth of services (Gas Food motels) near many of the offramps?
Quote from: bassoon1986 on October 28, 2019, 07:00:50 PM
Well what's interesting about your original statement, is while there is great support for I-49 in what has been built and the parts to come...the portions of 49 that go directly through major cities are still unfinished. Kansas City didn't allow 49 north of 435. Shreveport and Lafayette's inner city portions are still at odds. I would argue that with Texarkana it looped and largely bypassed the main city and NWA it mostly traverses away from city centers.
iPhone
The "mini-revolt" about the US 71/potential I-49 freeway in KC was in some respects similar to anti-freeway efforts twenty years previously except for the fact that it only affected two short segments interspersed with a completed facility; the legal victory (apparently the result of "judge-shopping" until a sympathetic jurist could be located*) for opposing parties was largely a "hey, look -- we beat the highway lobby/establishment" form of grandstanding. But so far no one has challenged the court-ordered settlement (likely MODOT prefers not to put any more expenditure into counter-litigation -- it means that's about 3 miles of urban freeway they won't need to finance!). But at this time it looks like Shreveport won't be following suit; the inner connector is likely to stand.
As far as the smaller cities given relatively wide berths by I-49 -- that's due to its use of pre-existing facilities (particularly in NWA), and the deliberate choice to take the path of least resistance with other middle-sized urban areas (Fort Smith, Texarkana, Joplin -- although the ultimate pathway through the latter area may eventually move from the current I-49 routing partially multiplexed with I-44 to present MO 249). And the circus atmosphere surrounding the Lafayette alignment has yet to play out fully; we'll just have to see how that one shakes out.
*Not an uncommon tactic with urban activists; in the late '90's something similar occurred in Los Angeles, with MTA being sued by the
Bus Riders Union for prioritizing new LR lines over expansion of conventional grid-pattern bus service, particularly in South Central L.A. The
Union knew which judges were predisposed to be sympathetic, and they waited until one's docket was relatively free. That judge was Harry Pregerson, who issued an injunction against further work on the then-under-construction Gold Line until MTA placed 532 additional buses into service (the goal was saturation-level service -- bus lines with no more than 25-minute intervals on all major area arterials). The buses were acquired or budgeted (including some older units from S.F.) and the injunction lifted after about 4 months. Ironically, the I-105/I-110 interchange in South Central L.A. bears Judge Pregerson's name!
IMHO probably would be more freeways in the long run, as much of the urban stuff that got built in the last 30 years would have been built sooner, or in different ROWs. The 1990s would have been far too late for a freeway revolt.
For Minneapolis, we'd have had I-335, MN-77 Cedar freeway all the way to downtown, MN-280 freeway instead of the Greenway (feeding into a MN-7 freeway at Bde Mka Ska?), MN-252 frreeway, and the Hiawatha and Olson Freeways (likely connecting downtown since they're both MN-55)
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 28, 2019, 09:48:43 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 28, 2019, 08:46:27 PM
Quote from: planxtymcgillicuddy on October 28, 2019, 06:40:26 PM
I disagree....even if Eisenhower had not come up with the interstate system, then someone after him certainly would have. Granted, it likely would have taken a lot longer to go from pen and paper to reality, but there would definitely be some form of Interstate-type system, though I don't know if they would be referred to as interstates or not.
The foundational studies for Interstate highways occurred before Eisenhower's presidency (1953-1961).
A report to Congress on "Toll Roads and Free Roads" contains the first formal concept of the Interstate Highway System, January 1, 1939.
The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1944 included the creation of a 40,000-mile (64,000 km) National System of Interstate Highways to connect major cities and industrial areas.
In reality, Eisenhower didn't do much except sign the bill into law. He gets the fame because he signed it into law. The entire system was planned decades prior as you mention.
And we almost didn't, even with Eisenhower. It was a member of congress that came up with the original interstate highway system and its mapping. Eisenhower wanted a network of toll roads, not free roads. And there was disagreement within the House of how to fund the highway building.
Quote from: cwf1701 on October 28, 2019, 10:39:24 PM
How about when the interstate highways system is passed in 1956, part of the bill would allow states to build service plazas ever 30 miles outside of urban areas. How would that affect the growth of services (Gas Food motels) near many of the offramps?
We still would have had such growth at interchanges. We can look at ON-401 for the template. There are full service areas on the freeway, yet there are also services at many interchanges. Even many of our non-ticket toll roads have such services, I-90 in Illinois being another example.
Quote from: Brandon on October 29, 2019, 06:45:41 AM
Quote from: cwf1701 on October 28, 2019, 10:39:24 PM
How about when the interstate highways system is passed in 1956, part of the bill would allow states to build service plazas ever 30 miles outside of urban areas. How would that affect the growth of services (Gas Food motels) near many of the offramps?
We still would have had such growth at interchanges. We can look at ON-401 for the template. There are full service areas on the freeway, yet there are also services at many interchanges. Even many of our non-ticket toll roads have such services, I-90 in Illinois being another example.
I would expect services at the interchanges for non-ticket toll roads. The reason that there aren't typically any on ticketed toll roads is because it costs more to get off and back on again.
Quote from: 1 on October 29, 2019, 06:59:54 AM
Quote from: Brandon on October 29, 2019, 06:45:41 AM
Quote from: cwf1701 on October 28, 2019, 10:39:24 PM
How about when the interstate highways system is passed in 1956, part of the bill would allow states to build service plazas ever 30 miles outside of urban areas. How would that affect the growth of services (Gas Food motels) near many of the offramps?
We still would have had such growth at interchanges. We can look at ON-401 for the template. There are full service areas on the freeway, yet there are also services at many interchanges. Even many of our non-ticket toll roads have such services, I-90 in Illinois being another example.
I would expect services at the interchanges for non-ticket toll roads. The reason that there aren't typically any on ticketed toll roads is because it costs more to get off and back on again.
What ticketed toll roads you looking at? There's a ton of services at most exits on toll roads with tolls at the ramps.
Quote from: sparker on October 28, 2019, 04:42:54 PM
OTOH -- if freeway opposition was predicated on a more generalized, anti-auto/anti-mobility platform...
What do you mean "if?"
Henry Ford didn't make the automobile affordable to the masses. That would have had a big effect on road history. The Interstates would all be bicycle routes.
But, as in the other what-if's in this thread, if Ford hadn't done it, someone else would have.
Quote from: DJ Particle on October 29, 2019, 06:21:36 AM
IMHO probably would be more freeways in the long run, as much of the urban stuff that got built in the last 30 years would have been built sooner, or in different ROWs. The 1990s would have been far too late for a freeway revolt.
For Minneapolis, we'd have had I-335, MN-77 Cedar freeway all the way to downtown, MN-280 freeway instead of the Greenway (feeding into a MN-7 freeway at Bde Mka Ska?), MN-252 frreeway, and the Hiawatha and Olson Freeways (likely connecting downtown since they're both MN-55)
In Chicagoland, I-494, I-694, the IL 53 freeway extension, Fox Valley Freeway, Prairie Parkway and Illiana Expressway would all be done by now.
And you're right, the freeways would've taken radically different routes than what was actually proposed. If this were the case, perhaps we'd see more complete routings, like I-70 going all the way to I-95 in Baltimore (but built on the edge of the park instead of smack-dab through the middle of it).
- Ike. What we have in the USA is a quite high standard for interstates, in terms of design. Over design in much of the country. It is not much of a "what if" to come up with a much less federally directed plan, which would mean a less standardized design (at grades, two lane segments, roads not connecting to other states). We also have a preference for free roads. Again not much of a "what if" to come up with a plethora of turnpikes.
- JFK/LBJ. Every other aspect of the Appalachian Regional Comm. has been a failure, but its roads system has opened up areas of the country that could have easily just been left out totally. In the core of Appalachia, there are few non-interstate, non-corridor roads that a capable of supporting even 40 MPH travel.
- RMN. Tricky Dick signed the NEPA, which marked the beginning of the end of an era that goes back to FDR and even to Hoover or even TR, where there was a broad, bipartisan consensus that building things like roads, dams, irrigation systems, soil conservation, and other things to make life better is a good thing.
Who designed red to be stop, green for go? How did yellow get mixed in? Why not purple and blue?
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 29, 2019, 12:58:49 PM
Who designed red to be stop, green for go? How did yellow get mixed in? Why not purple and blue?
Yellow makes sense. As traffic signals emit light, yellow is both between green red and easier to see than medium/dark blue or violet. (This leaves cyan unused, which is why police car lights use this color.)
Quote from: DJ Particle on October 29, 2019, 06:21:36 AM
IMHO probably would be more freeways in the long run, as much of the urban stuff that got built in the last 30 years would have been built sooner, or in different ROWs. The 1990s would have been far too late for a freeway revolt.
Definitely. We'd also probably have fewer freeway removals, and those got off the ground by targeting short stubs that were meant to be something more, and then using those as stepping stones to remove bigger and more major corridors. Without those short stubs, the movement might not have even gotten off the ground. In particular, when the I-480 viaduct in San Francisco was damaged by an earthquake, perhaps it wouldn't have been removed and would instead have become a west coast Big Dig.
Quote from: GaryV on October 29, 2019, 08:56:04 AM
Henry Ford didn't make the automobile affordable to the masses. That would have had a big effect on road history. The Interstates would all be bicycle routes.
But, as in the other what-if's in this thread, if Ford hadn't done it, someone else would have.
I read an article that said that, before Ford, it looked like cars were going to be electric fleets like ZipCar instead of personally owned.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on October 29, 2019, 08:16:05 AM
Quote from: sparker on October 28, 2019, 04:42:54 PM
OTOH -- if freeway opposition was predicated on a more generalized, anti-auto/anti-mobility platform...
What do you mean "if?"
Wasn't always that way. Earlier protests (cf. Memphis, D.C.) were largely offshoots of the era's civil rights movement; the phrase "white man's roads through black man's bedrooms" were front & center to the discussions -- which invariably centered around urban corridors. There were relatively few complaints about rural mileage except in those areas where parts of the system were planned near national parks or, in some cases, coastlines. Remember that one of the principal rationales regarding the original push of the system was to enhance the "farm-to-market" commercial movements; rural sections of the system by and large were welcomed rather than vilified -- at least during the deployment of the chargeable network. It wasn't until the '80's that environmental concerns started to eclipse the social concerns regarding the system and its future.
Quote from: SP Cook on October 29, 2019, 10:35:49 AM
- RMN. Tricky Dick signed the NEPA, which marked the beginning of the end of an era that goes back to FDR and even to Hoover or even TR, where there was a broad, bipartisan consensus that building things like roads, dams, irrigation systems, soil conservation, and other things to make life better is a good thing.
Nixon giveth and Nixon taketh away! NEPA notwithstanding, Nixon functionally shut the door on coordinated and/or regularized national efforts -- in the mold of the 1968 batch of Interstate additions -- by instituting the "block grant" system, which placed such things as the designation of new Interstate corridors in the hands of state & local jurisdictions. This marked the beginning of the phenomenon of new corridors being largely political creations intended to enhance local interests rather than being part of a cohesive national system. Of course, some corridors are logical system additions, others less so. But the beginning of the institution of the process we have today can be traced back to 1973, when the Nixon administration pushed their block-grant legislation through Congress.
Quote from: GaryV on October 29, 2019, 08:56:04 AM
But, as in the other what-if's in this thread, if Ford hadn't done it, someone else would have.
The automobile dated back to 1886 (Benz Patent-Motorwagen), and the first American-built self-propelled vehicles started out in the mid-1890s (the Duryea). Production numbers were low, and unaffordable to the masses. But eventually, someone brings a good product down to a reasonable cost.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 29, 2019, 12:58:49 PM
Who designed red to be stop, green for go?
Not sure if it was known at the time, but red has the longest wavelength, so it's perceived first. But red has long been associated with blood, and thus signals fear in our little monkey brains.
Green was known as the complementary (opposite) to red on a color wheel, though the concept of complementary colors doesn't seem to go much further back than the mid-1800s.
But why not cyan, since it's the RGB-based opposite to red? Apparently, they'd used white light on some very early signals to mean "go". Maybe it was hard to tell the difference from a distance, because pure white light was hard to come by?
I think there hadn't been much testing into mixing light colors, as opposed to mixing color pigments. But ships had used a red on the left side and a green light on the right before traffic signals, and aircraft later carried that red/green standard.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 29, 2019, 08:08:05 AM
Quote from: 1 on October 29, 2019, 06:59:54 AM
I would expect services at the interchanges for non-ticket toll roads. The reason that there aren't typically any on ticketed toll roads is because it costs more to get off and back on again.
What ticketed toll roads you looking at? There's a ton of services at most exits on toll roads with tolls at the ramps.
Uh, yeah, unless I'm missing something:
(A) It rarely costs more to get off, then back on.
(B) Almost all the Thruway's interchanges have tons of services.
Quote from: webny99 on October 30, 2019, 07:23:38 PM
(A) It rarely costs more to get off, then back on.
US-301 in Delaware has this flaw - if a traveler wishes to exit at one of the exits for services, which there's plenty of in Middletown, they incur a second fee.
The current setup is there's one mainline toll gantry at the state line for $4, then all northbound on / southbound off ramps have a $1 toll gantry for local / in state traffic.
But if you cross the state line paying $4, exit, then re-enter northbound, you get charged an extra $1. Same going southbound.
I actually got off at Exit 2 for services when traveling that way a few months back heading southbound, and I intentionally shunpiked the toll plaza to avoid the double charge. The toll-bypass route had a significant amount of traffic, along with trucks which are technically prohibited.
The Maine Turnpike also operates that way for everyone who doesn't have a Maine E-ZPass. If you do, it's a virtual ticket system. If you're paying cash, or even if you have an E-ZPass from another state (IMO this reason alone is why Maine is the worst offender of transponder discrimination out there, though MA is a good runner-up for having three toll rates instead of the usual two), it's instead a barrier/ramp system, with three mainline barriers, barriers at every entrance, and exit barriers on the Falmouth Spur (I-495) and both I-295 interchanges (one of which is easily shunpiked - presumably allowed on the theory that Maine cash users are more likely to know this than people from out of state - and the other of which isn't actually unfair since you don't pass any other toll points before exiting there, being the first exit southbound with the mainline barrier just past it).
California decided numbering duplication was okay in the 1964 State Highway Renumbering. There would likely be routes like US 99 still around and no weird oddities like I-238.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 30, 2019, 11:59:11 PM
California decided numbering duplication was okay in the 1964 State Highway Renumbering. There would likely be routes like US 99 still around and no weird oddities like I-238.
That all depends upon what is considered "duplication". Caltrans still forbids duplication of numbers in different locations, but
does allow "continuation" numbers where Interstate designations are continued as state highways; they're considered one continuous route in the agency's lexicon. 110 in L.A. is among the more prominent of those, with the state designation on freeway portions that don't stand a chance of ever being Interstate standard (e.g. the Arroyo Seco Parkway); others (CA 15, CA 210, CA 905) are clearly "placeholders" for eventual Interstate designation. Of course, 238 is the "odd duck"; the rationale for that has been chewed over exhaustively elsewhere, so reiteration isn't necessary. But what the new rules that accompanied the '64 changeover
did allow were multiple sections of signed routes; this was intended specifically for CA 1, which was to be a common designation for the state highway hugging the coast north of San Juan Capistrano regardless of how many segments were necessary to do just that -- of the 4 "gaps" where US 101 serves as the coastal server, two are clearly co-signed as CA 1 while one (Oxnard-North Ventura) has sporadic trailblazer signage and the remaining (Rincon-Gaviota) devoid of CA 1 signage. Other state routes with separate sections have implied (and legally designated) unbuilt connectors (e.g. 65, 178), while others have gaps that are unlikely to ever be bridged (curiously, all in the 160's: 162, 168, and 169). Some others (e.g. 160) have gaps due to relinquishment, mostly in urban areas.
As to the US 99 deletion back in '64 (and fully realized in the field by 1973), the part of the route not coincident with I-5 -- if one considers the present CA 99 alignment as a template -- clearly exceeds the 300-mile minimum required for intrastate US highways (Wheeler Ridge-Red Bluff), so the choice to delete the US designation within CA can be laid at the feet of the Division of Highways alone. I've inquired about this to my cousin-in-law who was working for the agency (D3, as a surveyor working out of their Marysville office); he says that the decision was made at the top levels of the Division -- but was done after consultation with their counterparts in Oregon and Washington, who wanted US 99 gone within
their borders -- and AASHO (before the "T" was added) expressed a preference for deleting the designation completely rather than retaining a segment within any of the traversed states. Not wishing to take a contrary position re its neighbors, the decision to delete US 99 in CA was made.
Quote from: sparker on October 31, 2019, 04:43:42 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 30, 2019, 11:59:11 PM
California decided numbering duplication was okay in the 1964 State Highway Renumbering. There would likely be routes like US 99 still around and no weird oddities like I-238.
That all depends upon what is considered "duplication". Caltrans still forbids duplication of numbers in different locations, but does allow "continuation" numbers where Interstate designations are continued as state highways; they're considered one continuous route in the agency's lexicon.
No, he's saying that's what he'd
change.