So I stumbled across the highway milage book saved in my downloads and was doing some pursuing and found exit 355 on I-10 for Page Ranch Road, AKA UY 191. What is this suffix? Is this route signed in the field? It looks to go to US 191 via Page Ranch Road, avoiding a possible overshooting if driving westbound on I-10. There only seem to be a handful on mentions online, all here on AARoads. I know AZ uses the X suffix for deleted routes, but I have never seen 'Y' before.
I bet the "Y" is shorthand for "wye junction". If you look at it on a map (https://www.google.com/maps/@32.3729204,-109.6561341,13.54z?hl=en&authuser=0), it makes sense: the road in question is the third leg in the triangle formed between I-10 exits 352 and 355.
Quote from: usends on March 21, 2020, 11:06:24 AM
I bet the "Y" is shorthand for "wye junction". If you look at it on a map (https://www.google.com/maps/@32.3729204,-109.6561341,13.54z?hl=en&authuser=0), it makes sense: the road in question is the third leg in the triangle formed between I-10 exits 352 and 355.
I'm sure that's why. But is it still technically a 'US' highway? According to the highway log it is, but do the feds recognize it? Also at some point I saw it on an older map from back in the 40s-50s that had a state highway number on it, back before I-10 and when US 191 was still US 666.
I see there's a mention of it on Alan Hamilton's US 191 webpage (https://www.arizonaroads.com/us/us191.html), giving some of the history. Backing up the info on there, I see the 1946 topo showed US 666 only along the road that is now designated 191Y, connecting with AZ 86 (which would later become I-10). By the time of the 1957 topo, both roads were there, but the east leg was not labeled with any designation.
I can't answer your other question with certainty, but I bet AASHTO doesn't know about 191Y, I would think that's just an AZDoT designation.
I suspected for a long time that Page Ranch Road was part of State Inventory. If you're headed west on I-10 Exit 355 is signed as "To US 191 North" towards Safford. It doesn't make any sense to exit further west if you're heading towards Safford or Globe. I used Page Ranch Road a lot returning from work trips in New Mexico.
I drove this stretch yesterday. Northbound, the only marking on it is a sign just north of I-10 that says "NORTH (US 191 shield) 3 MILES" . Southbound, no markings at all. On US 191, at the wye, the sign just says "Bowie" , with an arrow pointing left. Not even "to East I-10" .
Was a bit surprised to find that US 191 is four lanes divided for a few miles north of there. Rand McNally does not so indicate.
Quote from: Konza on March 23, 2020, 12:29:52 PM
I drove this stretch yesterday. Northbound, the only marking on it is a sign just north of I-10 that says "NORTH (US 191 shield) 3 MILES" . Southbound, no markings at all. On US 191, at the wye, the sign just says "Bowie" , with an arrow pointing left. Not even "to East I-10" .
Was a bit surprised to find that US 191 is four lanes divided for a few miles north of there. Rand McNally does not so indicate.
A lot of that four laning is fairly recent and was very welcome when it opened. The Safford area pretty much is the population nucleus of almost the entirety of Graham County and US 191/US 70 is one of the main freight roads to the mining districts around Globe.
Quote from: usends on March 22, 2020, 07:13:51 PM
I see there's a mention of it on Alan Hamilton's US 191 webpage (https://www.arizonaroads.com/us/us191.html), giving some of the history. Backing up the info on there, I see the 1946 topo showed US 666 only along the road that is now designated 191Y, connecting with AZ 86 (which would later become I-10). By the time of the 1957 topo, both roads were there, but the east leg was not labeled with any designation.
I can't answer your other question with certainty, but I bet AASHTO doesn't know about 191Y, I would think that's just an AZDoT designation.
It is noted that the 1989 AASHTO route log does not show a US 666Y or SPUR route either.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 23, 2020, 12:37:49 PM
Quote from: Konza on March 23, 2020, 12:29:52 PM
I drove this stretch yesterday. Northbound, the only marking on it is a sign just north of I-10 that says "NORTH (US 191 shield) 3 MILES" . Southbound, no markings at all. On US 191, at the wye, the sign just says "Bowie" , with an arrow pointing left. Not even "to East I-10" .
Was a bit surprised to find that US 191 is four lanes divided for a few miles north of there. Rand McNally does not so indicate.
A lot of that four laning is fairly recent and was very welcome when it opened. The Safford area pretty much is the population nucleus of almost the entirety of Graham County and US 191/US 70 is one of the main freight roads to the mining districts around Globe.
The four lane section ends at MM 104 on US 191. It would be beneficial to see that four lane cross section continue straight N, following the high tension line, to the current intersection of US 70 and 191 east of Safford. Giving Morenci bound freight a faster and safer option. Would construct a diamond interchange - with 191 going over current US 70 at that point. The current US 191 into Safford would become Business 191.
Quote from: Mapmikey on March 23, 2020, 04:26:00 PM
Quote from: usends on March 22, 2020, 07:13:51 PM
I see there's a mention of it on Alan Hamilton's US 191 webpage (https://www.arizonaroads.com/us/us191.html), giving some of the history. Backing up the info on there, I see the 1946 topo showed US 666 only along the road that is now designated 191Y, connecting with AZ 86 (which would later become I-10). By the time of the 1957 topo, both roads were there, but the east leg was not labeled with any designation.
I can't answer your other question with certainty, but I bet AASHTO doesn't know about 191Y, I would think that's just an AZDoT designation.
It is noted that the 1989 AASHTO route log does not show a US 666Y or SPUR route either.
I do remember from ages past (late 70's) that US-666Y was indeed signed prior to the US-191 replacement. I actually remember seeing the sign on I-10 and thinking it was weird.
Page Ranch was signed as 191 for many years for traffic headed westbound on I-10. If memory serves, ADOT removed all of that and replaced with "To US 191" markers around 2011.
US 191 Proper between I-10 and State Route 266 was twinned over a series of projects between 2004 and 2006. The rationale was based on safety rather than volume, and justified based on the fact that it was cheaper to build a parallel roadway and tie in, rather than attempt to widen the existing alignment while it carried traffic. The remainder of US 191 between SR 266 and Safford is still undergoing studies to determine its final alignment; the current alignment is not preferred for widening due to ROW and other concerns.
Had heard, while working in Safford, from an unofficial source, that yes the state department was planning on "upgrading" the existing US - 191 alignment N into Safford.
Maybe as a complete three lane job, extending it S from where it currently ends. Yes believe a new terrain four lane would be preferable, to the E, maintaining the wide median, and routing heavy mine freight away from Safford proper.
Quote from: DJStephens on August 04, 2020, 12:50:16 PM
Had heard, while working in Safford, from an unofficial source, that yes the state department was planning on "upgrading" the existing US - 191 alignment N into Safford.
Maybe as a complete three lane job, extending it S from where it currently ends. Yes believe a new terrain four lane would be preferable, to the E, maintaining the wide median, and routing heavy mine freight away from Safford proper.
I can see re-aligning US 191 to bypass Safford, maybe even removing the US 70 overlap. But 3 lanes in both directions is excessive to say the least. I-10 isn't even six lanes from Phoenix to Casa Grande (yet) or from Phoenix to Indio and those are much, much more traveled routes. Four lanes would be warranted however. I got stuck behind slow traffic heading north into Safford and wanted to rip my hair out.
Quote from: Exit58 on August 08, 2020, 08:21:20 PM
Quote from: DJStephens on August 04, 2020, 12:50:16 PM
Had heard, while working in Safford, from an unofficial source, that yes the state department was planning on "upgrading" the existing US - 191 alignment N into Safford.
Maybe as a complete three lane job, extending it S from where it currently ends. Yes believe a new terrain four lane would be preferable, to the E, maintaining the wide median, and routing heavy mine freight away from Safford proper.
I can see re-aligning US 191 to bypass Safford, maybe even removing the US 70 overlap. But 3 lanes in both directions is excessive to say the least. I-10 isn't even six lanes from Phoenix to Casa Grande (yet) or from Phoenix to Indio and those are much, much more traveled routes. Four lanes would be warranted however. I got stuck behind slow traffic heading north into Safford and wanted to rip my hair out.
No I was talking about extending the center turn lane section farther south. South of where it ends on "old" 191 S of the city limits. Perhaps with some "passing" lanes as well. Was not meaning three lanes in each direction.
A three lane job, where the highway carries a significant portion of it's traffic, as heavy freight is not preferable imho. The tex-dot did this on US - 285 N of Pecos and it is a FAIL.
Quote from: DJStephens on August 08, 2020, 09:45:43 PM
Quote from: Exit58 on August 08, 2020, 08:21:20 PM
Quote from: DJStephens on August 04, 2020, 12:50:16 PM
Had heard, while working in Safford, from an unofficial source, that yes the state department was planning on "upgrading" the existing US - 191 alignment N into Safford.
Maybe as a complete three lane job, extending it S from where it currently ends. Yes believe a new terrain four lane would be preferable, to the E, maintaining the wide median, and routing heavy mine freight away from Safford proper.
I can see re-aligning US 191 to bypass Safford, maybe even removing the US 70 overlap. But 3 lanes in both directions is excessive to say the least. I-10 isn't even six lanes from Phoenix to Casa Grande (yet) or from Phoenix to Indio and those are much, much more traveled routes. Four lanes would be warranted however. I got stuck behind slow traffic heading north into Safford and wanted to rip my hair out.
No I was talking about extending the center turn lane section farther south. South of where it ends on "old" 191 S of the city limits. Perhaps with some "passing" lanes as well. Was not meaning three lanes in each direction.
A three lane job, where the highway carries a significant portion of it's traffic, as heavy freight is not preferable imho. The tex-dot did this on US - 285 N of Pecos and it is a FAIL.
Ahhhh ok I see what you mean. :pan: I find it interesting where the divided highway/expressway ends, just sorta randomly at SR 266 to I-10. I could see an interim upgrade with passing lanes until they could make it 4-lanes to Safford.
I still like the idea of bypassing Safford on 191 and even removing the 70 overlap. I was navigating to Morenci and my Gamin, Google, and Apple all wanted me to take Lone Star Road to reach US 70 on the eastern edge of town. I can see people listening to this and that street becoming another victim of GPS routings.
Quote from: Exit58 on August 11, 2020, 02:56:51 AM
Quote from: DJStephens on August 08, 2020, 09:45:43 PM
Quote from: Exit58 on August 08, 2020, 08:21:20 PM
Quote from: DJStephens on August 04, 2020, 12:50:16 PM
Had heard, while working in Safford, from an unofficial source, that yes the state department was planning on "upgrading" the existing US - 191 alignment N into Safford.
Maybe as a complete three lane job, extending it S from where it currently ends. Yes believe a new terrain four lane would be preferable, to the E, maintaining the wide median, and routing heavy mine freight away from Safford proper.
I can see re-aligning US 191 to bypass Safford, maybe even removing the US 70 overlap. But 3 lanes in both directions is excessive to say the least. I-10 isn't even six lanes from Phoenix to Casa Grande (yet) or from Phoenix to Indio and those are much, much more traveled routes. Four lanes would be warranted however. I got stuck behind slow traffic heading north into Safford and wanted to rip my hair out.
No I was talking about extending the center turn lane section farther south. South of where it ends on "old" 191 S of the city limits. Perhaps with some "passing" lanes as well. Was not meaning three lanes in each direction.
A three lane job, where the highway carries a significant portion of it's traffic, as heavy freight is not preferable imho. The tex-dot did this on US - 285 N of Pecos and it is a FAIL.
Ahhhh ok I see what you mean. :pan: I find it interesting where the divided highway/expressway ends, just sorta randomly at SR 266 to I-10. I could see an interim upgrade with passing lanes until they could make it 4-lanes to Safford.
I still like the idea of bypassing Safford on 191 and even removing the 70 overlap. I was navigating to Morenci and my Gamin, Google, and Apple all wanted me to take Lone Star Road to reach US 70 on the eastern edge of town. I can see people listening to this and that street becoming another victim of GPS routings.
Yes that is what they SHOULD do. Continue the four lane cross section N, breaking away from current 191, which would become Business 191. Follow the high tension line, curve to the NNE, and meet the current junction of US 70 and 191 east of San Jose. Would largely remove N - S heavy mine freight from Safford proper. A diamond interchange could be built there, elevating 191 over 70 at that current intersection. With collector/distributor frontage for 191 at the interchange. The national truck stop chains could all establish locations at each corner - Loves, Pilot, Flying J, etc. What they WILL do may be far less optimal or desirable.
ADOT rolled out a bypass study in 2011 for both US 70 and for US 191. It would have routed 70 along the base of Mt. Graham, then east along the 5000 South (Powerline Rd) alignment south of Safford before joining up with the old US 70 somewhere around San Jose. 191 would have followed a new 4-lane highway northeast from the junction at AZ 266 and intersected the new US 70 somewhere southeast of Safford
The idea was shot down by local leaders pretty fast. They look at what happened to Holbrook, Winslow, Downtown Mesa, etc. and want nothing to do with a bypass.
Quote from: JKRhodes on August 18, 2020, 12:34:58 PM
ADOT rolled out a bypass study in 2011 for both US 70 and for US 191. It would have routed 70 along the base of Mt. Graham, then east along the 5000 South (Powerline Rd) alignment south of Safford before joining up with the old US 70 somewhere around San Jose. 191 would have followed a new 4-lane highway northeast from the junction at AZ 266 and intersected the new US 70 somewhere southeast of Safford
The idea was shot down by local leaders pretty fast. They look at what happened to Holbrook, Winslow, Downtown Mesa, etc. and want nothing to do with a bypass.
There is a substantial difference in circumstances though given Safford/Thatcher is the only locale with real services between Lordsburg and Globe. If anything getting heavy commercial traffic out of the core of Safford and Thatcher would be beneficial to the locals.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 18, 2020, 12:59:20 PM
Quote from: JKRhodes on August 18, 2020, 12:34:58 PM
ADOT rolled out a bypass study in 2011 for both US 70 and for US 191. It would have routed 70 along the base of Mt. Graham, then east along the 5000 South (Powerline Rd) alignment south of Safford before joining up with the old US 70 somewhere around San Jose. 191 would have followed a new 4-lane highway northeast from the junction at AZ 266 and intersected the new US 70 somewhere southeast of Safford
The idea was shot down by local leaders pretty fast. They look at what happened to Holbrook, Winslow, Downtown Mesa, etc. and want nothing to do with a bypass.
There is a substantial difference in circumstances though given Safford/Thatcher is the only locale with real services between Lordsburg and Globe. If anything getting heavy commercial traffic out of the core of Safford and Thatcher would be beneficial to the locals.
I would speculate that there isn't a ton of OTR traffic using US 70 and US 60; Until they can widen the 150 or so miles of 2-lane highway between Lordsburg and Superior, it's not a very attractive route for truckers. They tend to stick to the interstate unless a dust storm forces a closure of I-10.
Truck traffic in Safford is primarily there to serve the town, and would have to exit a bypass route to do so.
Having said that, there is a fair amount of truck traffic that bounces back and forth between Miami and Morenci to haul various materials between the mines. I think most of the people here get a little nervous about what could happen if a sulfuric acid tanker were to spill its contents in the middle of town. Thankfully we haven't had a horrible hazmat situation yet that I'm aware of. But for that reason, and the fact that one blew through a red light and almost killed my family a while back, I would absolutely support the idea of a bypass route.
Quote from: JKRhodes on August 18, 2020, 01:29:34 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 18, 2020, 12:59:20 PM
Quote from: JKRhodes on August 18, 2020, 12:34:58 PM
ADOT rolled out a bypass study in 2011 for both US 70 and for US 191. It would have routed 70 along the base of Mt. Graham, then east along the 5000 South (Powerline Rd) alignment south of Safford before joining up with the old US 70 somewhere around San Jose. 191 would have followed a new 4-lane highway northeast from the junction at AZ 266 and intersected the new US 70 somewhere southeast of Safford
The idea was shot down by local leaders pretty fast. They look at what happened to Holbrook, Winslow, Downtown Mesa, etc. and want nothing to do with a bypass.
There is a substantial difference in circumstances though given Safford/Thatcher is the only locale with real services between Lordsburg and Globe. If anything getting heavy commercial traffic out of the core of Safford and Thatcher would be beneficial to the locals.
I would speculate that there isn't a ton of OTR traffic using US 70 and US 60; Until they can widen the 150 or so miles of 2-lane highway between Lordsburg and Superior, it's not a very attractive route for truckers. They tend to stick to the interstate unless a dust storm forces a closure of I-10.
Truck traffic in Safford is primarily there to serve the town, and would have to exit a bypass route to do so.
Having said that, there is a fair amount of truck traffic that bounces back and forth between Miami and Morenci to haul various materials between the mines. I think most of the people here get a little nervous about what could happen if a sulfuric acid tanker were to spill its contents in the middle of town. Thankfully we haven't had a horrible hazmat situation yet that I'm aware of. But for that reason, and the fact that one blew through a red light and almost killed my family a while back, I would absolutely support the idea of a bypass route.
Personally I always preferred US 60/US 70 to get to New Mexico over I-10. Not only is the route shorter distance wise, it also was a way more attractive option during bad weather. I-10 between Phoenix and Tucson has a lot of summer dust storm issues but what gets overlooked is how often I-10 East of Benson has problems with winter storms. US 70 being along the course of the Gila River is low enough that winter weather isn't really an issue and I don't recall the area being particularly prone to dust storms due to a slightly higher elevation.
US 70 between Lordsburg and Safford has traffic counts likely in the low thousands. Maybe less. Simply not enough for a four laning. Would also really doubt New Mexico could even build a decent four lane anymore.
Quote from: DJStephens on August 21, 2020, 10:48:56 PM
US 70 between Lordsburg and Safford has traffic counts likely in the low thousands. Maybe less. Simply not enough for a four laning. Would also really doubt New Mexico could even build a decent four lane anymore.
To clarify I was talking about a four lane bypass of Thatcher and Safford only. West of Lordsburg traffic doesn't pick up on US 70 until US 191 in Arizona.
Quote from: JKRhodes on August 18, 2020, 12:34:58 PM
ADOT rolled out a bypass study in 2011 for both US 70 and for US 191. It would have routed 70 along the base of Mt. Graham, then east along the 5000 South (Powerline Rd) alignment south of Safford before joining up with the old US 70 somewhere around San Jose. 191 would have followed a new 4-lane highway northeast from the junction at AZ 266 and intersected the new US 70 somewhere southeast of Safford
The idea was shot down by local leaders pretty fast. They look at what happened to Holbrook, Winslow, Downtown Mesa, etc. and want nothing to do with a bypass.
Had no idea this was ever even looked at. Not a great deal of population or traffic counts in the region, but a high percentage of heavy freight. A four lane, with good standards, and minimal stops is highly preferable to routing on tight, antiquated, in town, two or three lane roads.
Quote from: DJStephens on August 21, 2020, 10:48:56 PM
US 70 between Lordsburg and Safford has traffic counts likely in the low thousands. Maybe less. Simply not enough for a four laning. Would also really doubt New Mexico could even build a decent four lane anymore.
191 between I-10 and AZ 266 was twinned in 2004 with an AADT of 2.7K. Despite the low traffic, ADOT justified it based on safety concerns, and also because it was cheaper to construct a parallel roadway than it was to level out hills and add passing lanes while maintaining traffic flow.
I can see them doing something similar to US 70 based on safety justifications. I-10 gets shut down pretty frequently near San Simon due to dust storms, and traffic gets rerouted through Safford. It's been happening more frequently with the drought. In 2017 ADOT installed "To I-10" reassurance markers on US 70 and 191 and tweaked the intersection of the two highways to handle a higher volume of turning trucks.
If nothing else, I can definitely see them doing a truck bypass. Safford is a major choke point and turns into a huge mess when the interstate gets shut down.
***EDIT: Forgot to mention, US 70's AADT is about 21K in Safford and 1.8K at the NM State line according to the 2018 AADT Count****
Quote from: DJStephens on August 21, 2020, 11:06:16 PM
Quote from: JKRhodes on August 18, 2020, 12:34:58 PM
ADOT rolled out a bypass study in 2011 for both US 70 and for US 191. It would have routed 70 along the base of Mt. Graham, then east along the 5000 South (Powerline Rd) alignment south of Safford before joining up with the old US 70 somewhere around San Jose. 191 would have followed a new 4-lane highway northeast from the junction at AZ 266 and intersected the new US 70 somewhere southeast of Safford
The idea was shot down by local leaders pretty fast. They look at what happened to Holbrook, Winslow, Downtown Mesa, etc. and want nothing to do with a bypass.
Had no idea this was ever even looked at. Not a great deal of population or traffic counts in the region, but a high percentage of heavy freight. A four lane, with good standards, and minimal stops is highly preferable to routing on tight, antiquated, in town, two or three lane roads.
It's two lanes each direction with a center turn lane between the west town limits of Pima and the east city limits of Safford. I've seen worse truck routes, but it does have two 15 MPH School zones, and a slowly growing number of traffic signals. All of which definitely makes the route a little less than ideal for trucks.
This is the article from the local paper when this was being looked at. For the life of me I can't remember the URL for the Study, I'll keep digging though.
https://www.eacourier.com/news/adot-presents-alternate-highway-corridors-to-public/article_855b2430-fb3c-54f2-a030-5c1f5c953711.html
***EDIT: Found the study paper in the ASU Repository. Commissioned by ADOT, performed by Parson's Brinkerhoff. Almost 200 pages:
https://repository.asu.edu/items/17607
Yes am aware of the US 70 alignment in the Gila Valley. Lived in Safford from mid '18 to mid '19. At a geotechnical firm (on the corner of 1st Avenue and 8th street).
Have to wonder why they didn't propose an alignment for 70 on the N side of the Gila River, up on the mesa, S of where Safford Mine is today. Plenty of room up there, and it is up off the floodplain of the River itself. Guessing Gila Box reservation planning, possibly. A ROW of generous width could have been established, with most ranch access preserved, and a few interchanges. E and W end, US 191, and Safford Mine S access road. Yes have observed sulfuric acid tankers exceeding the speed limit in Pima, Thatcher and Safford themselves. And going through lights that have turned red.
Believe it would be of more value, however, to continue the current upgraded US 191 N (from MP 104/105) to connect to existing junction of 70 and 191 E of San Jose. This would follow the high tension line, and then veer NNE to miss the irrigated farmlands E of Safford. 191 N of 70 could be double barreled fairly easily, until it reaches the foothills on the way to the original Morenci Mine. Blasting, terracing, and alignment adjusting and improvement could get a divided four lane all the way to Four Way. There is currently a Virginia Twin four lane 191 from Four Way west towards Clifton. This should be upgraded so both sides have equivalent standards.
This entire scenario would get one a divided four lane all the way from Interstate 10 to the outskirts of the Morenci Mine complex.
Quote from: DJStephens on August 23, 2020, 11:11:12 AM
Yes am aware of the US 70 alignment in the Gila Valley. Lived in Safford from mid '18 to mid '19. At a geotechnical firm (on the corner of 1st Avenue and 8th street).
Have to wonder why they didn't propose an alignment for 70 on the N side of the Gila River, up on the mesa, S of where Safford Mine is today. Plenty of room up there, and it is up off the floodplain of the River itself. Guessing Gila Box reservation planning, possibly. A ROW of generous width could have been established, with most ranch access preserved, and a few interchanges. E and W end, US 191, and Safford Mine S access road. Yes have observed sulfuric acid tankers exceeding the speed limit in Pima, Thatcher and Safford themselves. And going through lights that have turned red.
Believe it would be of more value, however, to continue the current upgraded US 191 N (from MP 104/105) to connect to existing junction of 70 and 191 E of San Jose. This would follow the high tension line, and then veer NNE to miss the irrigated farmlands E of Safford. 191 N of 70 could be double barreled fairly easily, until it reaches the foothills on the way to the original Morenci Mine. Blasting, terracing, and alignment adjusting and improvement could get a divided four lane all the way to Four Way. There is currently a Virginia Twin four lane 191 from Four Way west towards Clifton. This should be upgraded so both sides have equivalent standards.
This entire scenario would get one a divided four lane all the way from Interstate 10 to the outskirts of the Morenci Mine complex.
Cool. It's always nice to meet others with ties to this valley. I'm one of those people who keeps trying to leave, and keeps coming back, to Graham County. I was born here in '83. Lived in Las Cruces in 2005, Phoenix area 2006-2011, Morenci 2011-2016, and Salt Lake in 2018...
Yes I often fantasized about twinning the "Stretch" of US 191 between 131 and 140 at a minimum when I used to commute to Morenci.
The junction at "Three-Way" would be well served by a flyover for northbound US 191 traffic. I've seen northbound traffic get backed up from the stop sign all the way past the bridge and up the hill. When production and mill expansion projects were at full bore, morning rush hour traffic was worse than Phoenix, considering the amount of lanes available and the length of traffic queues.
Various ideas to bypass mine traffic around Clifton have been floated over the years and shot down.
US 191Y illustrated:
https://www.gribblenation.org/2023/06/us-route-191y.html
Just to let you all know, the Y suffix exists elsewhere: AR 176Y in Sherwood.
VA still has at least 3 Y routes (VA 6Y, VA 132Y, VA 180Y), but they seem to not be posting any further ones. Mapmikey will definitely correct me if necessary.
Quote from: 74/171FAN on June 25, 2023, 08:22:49 PM
VA still has at least 3 Y routes (VA 6Y, VA 132Y, VA 180Y), but they seem to not be posting any further ones. Mapmikey will definitely correct me if necessary.
Virginia definitely stopped assigning new Y routes. There are a few still posted - 132Y, 180Y, 205Y, and 300Y. 6Y is now unposted along with a few others.
I wonder if this qualifies for an entry on the Wikipedia article for split U.S. Routes? The article for split Interstate highways includes Maryland's state-designated ones, so I don't think it would be a stretch.
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 25, 2023, 08:53:07 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on June 25, 2023, 08:22:49 PM
VA still has at least 3 Y routes (VA 6Y, VA 132Y, VA 180Y), but they seem to not be posting any further ones. Mapmikey will definitely correct me if necessary.
Virginia definitely stopped assigning new Y routes. There are a few still posted - 132Y, 180Y, 205Y, and 300Y. 6Y is now unposted along with a few others.
I think I debated about removing VA 6Y from TM when I clinched VA 6 in December, but GSV still shows signage so I could not remember if it was actually unposted.
Quote from: index on June 26, 2023, 03:12:04 AM
I wonder if this qualifies for an entry on the Wikipedia article for split U.S. Routes? The article for split Interstate highways includes Maryland's state-designated ones, so I don't think it would be a stretch.
If you feel inclined by all means. That said, I'd venture a guess that some stick in the mud would object based off the conversation we are having in this thread:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=32652.msg2851440#new
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 26, 2023, 07:02:36 AM
Quote from: index on June 26, 2023, 03:12:04 AM
I wonder if this qualifies for an entry on the Wikipedia article for split U.S. Routes? The article for split Interstate highways includes Maryland's state-designated ones, so I don't think it would be a stretch.
If you feel inclined by all means. That said, I’d venture a guess that some stick in the mud would object based off the conversation we are having in this thread:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=32652.msg2851440#new (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=32652.msg2851440#new)
I went ahead and edited the article. I guess I'll see how far it gets.
Quote from: index on June 26, 2023, 09:09:32 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 26, 2023, 07:02:36 AM
Quote from: index on June 26, 2023, 03:12:04 AM
I wonder if this qualifies for an entry on the Wikipedia article for split U.S. Routes? The article for split Interstate highways includes Maryland's state-designated ones, so I don't think it would be a stretch.
If you feel inclined by all means. That said, I'd venture a guess that some stick in the mud would object based off the conversation we are having in this thread:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=32652.msg2851440#new (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=32652.msg2851440#new)
I went ahead and edited the article. I guess I'll see how far it gets.
I'll have to include that highway resolution you posted for 1958. I keep forgetting those are actually online for Arizona.
My general understanding of US 191Y is the route was originally part of the main highway, starting out as part of SR 81 back in 1927, being re-designated as part of US 666 in 1938. Highway modernization which included practically rebuilding all of US 666 between Morenci and Bowie Junction meant a new alignment opened sometime between 1946 and 1951, closer to Willcox. The older route was kept largely to serve as a faster and more direct connection for westbound SR 86 traffic, later I-10 traffic. In 1958, the route was redesignated as US 666Y. The route was redesignated as US 191Y in 1992.
Usually the "Y" connotation is for access ramps, bypassing intersections or a small access road connecting one highway to another. However in this case, it's a 3.5 mile long highway stretch of highway. According to some ASHD documents, ADOT records and maps, the point at which US 191Y and I-10 meet is known as "Bowie Junction". And given US 191Y is listed on state highway logs, ADOT doesn't treat it as a "ramp" or access road, but instead treats it as an actual highway, albeit unsigned.
It's not uncommon for ADOT to designate supplementary routes for U.S. Highways not recognized by AASHTO. US 60X (unsigned) is a good example of that and I believe US 93 Spur in Kingman (unsigned) may be too. That was definitely the case for US 80 Alternate in the Phoenix area from the 1930s to the 1970s. It was basically created as an excuse for the state to maintain Washington Street east of 16th Street, which was the city limits for Phoenix at the time. IIRC, US 191T through the Morenci mine is also not recognized by AASHTO, which considers that route part of US 191 proper, just as they recognized it as US 666 when the route was US 666T.
Arizona is big on special designation roads that arguably ought to just be assigned standalone numbers. US 191Y is an example of this but there are some others that leap to mind:
AZ 95 had a couple different Spur routes and a Truck route. AZ 95 Truck and the Spur over Parker Dam are both signed. I've heard arguments that AZ 95 Truck ought to be AZ 62 to provide Route continuity with CA 62. I'm not certain what the status of the spur to Cottail Cove State Park is signed given that is relatively new.
The strangest one I recall was AZ 89L in Page. I've never bothered to look it up in the AASHTO database but I suspect that was just an instance of ADOT and Page wanting a business route without the red tape that usually goes along with getting one.
I revisited my own 191Y blog. I got the realignment of US 666 off of Page Ranch Road down to somewhere in the 1944-1948 timeframe.
Arkansas has tons of Y routes, including US 412Y in Washington County and AR 88Y in Polk County. They are often one leg of an Oklahoma Y intersection. Most of them are unsigned. US 67Y in Lawrence County, a connector between US 67 and AR 34, is fully signed in both directions, but signed Y routes are rare.
It's the same with Arizona. None of the Y routes I ever came across were signed. If I hadn't looked through state highway logs and GIS data, I'd have never known they even existed.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 26, 2023, 09:20:24 AM
Quote from: index on June 26, 2023, 09:09:32 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 26, 2023, 07:02:36 AM
Quote from: index on June 26, 2023, 03:12:04 AM
I wonder if this qualifies for an entry on the Wikipedia article for split U.S. Routes? The article for split Interstate highways includes Maryland's state-designated ones, so I don't think it would be a stretch.
If you feel inclined by all means. That said, I'd venture a guess that some stick in the mud would object based off the conversation we are having in this thread:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=32652.msg2851440#new (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=32652.msg2851440#new)
I went ahead and edited the article. I guess I'll see how far it gets.
I'll have to include that highway resolution you posted for 1958. I keep forgetting those are actually online for Arizona.
So are copies of the state highway logs from 1959 and 1965. The '59 one is hard to read, just a heads up. I'm trying to copy down the info and put it into separate PDF files. So far have US 80, US 66, SR 86, SR 84 and SR 84A pulled from it.
Quote from: bugo on June 30, 2023, 04:31:36 PM
US 67Y in Lawrence County, a connector between US 67 and AR 34, is fully signed in both directions
GSV:
https://goo.gl/maps/PyJ6SKmMkHCvPSyN7
https://goo.gl/maps/e8BDVFLeu1GwdJEe8
https://goo.gl/maps/9T7pNL3D5s7WigC9A
https://goo.gl/maps/Ba62FxBDohXP6PwM8
Quote from: 707 on June 30, 2023, 04:44:11 PM
It's the same with Arizona. None of the Y routes I ever came across were signed. If I hadn't looked through state highway logs and GIS data, I'd have never known they even existed.
Steve Riner noted on one of the Facebook pages that US 666Y used to actually be signed from I-10.