Most of the changes that were made to the US highway system during the mid-1930s were beneficial... basically that's when the modern framework of the US routes took shape. But there was one change that I'm really surprised took place, and that's the extension of US 70 west to Los Angeles. Let's look at its routing:
- Prior to the change, US 70 followed today's US 54 south from Alamogordo, ending in El Paso.
- After the 1934 change, US 70 went southwest from Alamogordo to Las Cruces, along what had been designated NM 3.
- There US 70 picked up US 80 and ran concurrently with it to Lordsburg (a distance of 120 miles).
- US 70 diverged from US 80 at Lordsburg and went northwest to Globe, along what had previously been designated US 180 (the original 180 (https://www.usends.com/180-i.html), not the current one).
- From Globe westward, US 70 had no independent alignment all the way to L.A. That's nearly 500 miles!
It could've been so much simpler:
- Reroute US 70 to Las Cruces, and let it end there.
- Just leave US 180 alone; the stretch from Lordsburg to Globe remains a US route.
Instead, they killed US 180, and extended US 70 almost 800 miles west. Out of that distance, only 30 miles were new to the US route system! And only 180 miles were on an independent alignment; the remaining 600 miles were overlapped with other US routes. Seems like an awful lot of overkill just to get another route to L.A. Any insights on the rationale behind that decision?
Quote from: usends on April 17, 2020, 08:30:16 PM
Most of the changes that were made to the US highway system during the mid-1930s were beneficial... basically that's when the modern framework of the US routes took shape. But there was one change that I'm really surprised took place, and that's the extension of US 70 west to Los Angeles. Let's look at its routing:
- Prior to the change, US 70 followed today's US 54 south from Alamogordo, ending in El Paso.
- After the 1934 change, US 70 went southwest from Alamogordo to Las Cruces, along what had been designated NM 3.
- There US 70 picked up US 80 and ran concurrently with it to Lordsburg (a distance of 120 miles).
- US 70 diverged from US 80 at Lordsburg and went northwest to Globe, along what had previously been designated US 180 (the original 180 (https://www.usends.com/180-i.html), not the current one).
- From Globe westward, US 70 had no independent alignment all the way to L.A. That's nearly 500 miles!
It could've been so much simpler:
- Reroute US 70 to Las Cruces, and let it end there.
- Just leave US 180 alone; the stretch from Lordsburg to Globe remains a US route.
Instead, they killed US 180, and extended US 70 almost 800 miles west. Out of that distance, only 30 miles were new to the US route system! And only 180 miles were on an independent alignment; the remaining 600 miles were overlapped with other US routes. Seems like an awful lot of overkill just to get another route to L.A. Any insights on the rationale behind that decision?
All I can think of re a rationale for that extension was to satisfy the concept that x0 US highways should be if at all possible coast-to-coast. The latitudinal shift -- and Southern Ontario -- made US 10 and US 90 problematic in that regard, so one was truncated at its east end and the other at its west. But the idea of everything from 20 through 80 effectively getting to both coasts probably seemed, in the earlier days of the system, to be a desirable characteristic of the network. And since there were few traversable corridors across western NM and pretty much all of AZ, multiplexes were the order of the day. When
three of them, 60/70/80, end up going through one metro area (Phoenix), topography, politics, and/or publicity are invariably involved in that situation. At least CA had the good sense to split 60 and 70 through Riverside and Colton, respectively. Also remember that most of the western states were trying to entice folks to move out west; having continuous routes to follow (despite the various Plains convolutions of both US 60 and US 70) would likely have been considered more beneficial even with long multiplexes (which bother us rear-view analysts more than it likely bothered the "dust bowl" migrants of the '30's!).
I always wondered why they truncated 70 and not 60.
Once 60 gets to Springfield, Missouri, it's pretty much redundant; it really doesn't pass through a large city from Springfield to Amarillo, and then from Amarillo to Phoenix. Originally it was to end at Springfield but the controversy that resulted in the Chicago to LA route being numbered 66 eventually led to its extension.
With 66 being the main route west, having the main east west route between 66 and 80 be 70 makes more sense than having it be 60.
Quote from: Konza on April 17, 2020, 09:20:06 PM
I always wondered why they truncated 70 and not 60.
Once 60 gets to Springfield, Missouri, it's pretty much redundant; it really doesn't pass through a large city from Springfield to Amarillo, and then from Amarillo to Phoenix. Originally it was to end there but the controversy that resulted in the Chicago to LA route being numbered 66 eventually led to its extension.
With 66 being the main route west, having the main east west route between 66 and 80 be 70 makes more sense than having it be 60.
US 60 in CA lasted a lot longer than US 70 because of its independent section from Pomona to Beaumont via Riverside, whereas US 70, itself multiplexed pre-'64 with US 99, was functionally subsumed by I-10. I-10 was still being built across the Sonoran Desert between Indio and Blythe after the state's renumbering effort, so US 60 alone was retained as the working highway number until the freeway was completed except for the Indio bypass. US 60 signage was removed in the spring of 1968 and replaced with CA 60 signage west of Beaumont; by that time the freeway was complete except for the Indio bypass, which left about 12 miles of conventional highway; it was signed as "Temporary I-10" until the bypass was complete. But US 60 signage was posted along the AZ portion of I-10 coincident with the old 60/70 alignment; it was removed when the I-10 cutoff to Buckeye was completed and US 60 was truncated to the junction. The decommissioning of US 70 in CA in '64 and the delay for doing likewise with US 60 was likely the deciding factor to retain US 60 on the original L.A.-Phoenix alignment via Wickenburg rather than US 70. AZ didn't mind multiplexes, but it certainly didn't care much for
useless duplications to an arbitrary terminus (which is why US 93 was never extended into metro Phoenix), so instead of dragging US 70 into Phoenix to terminate, it simply did so at Globe. Globe thus joins Bishop, CA (US 6) in the ranks of current ignominious end locations to previously cross-country routes.
I feel the correct routing of US 60 from Springfield Westwards should have been on US 66 all the way to Barstow, then the route that in 1934 became US 466. That way, US 70 would have made sense as far as Pomona (as it would have taken US 60's route through Riverside instead). But alas, they wanted the Chicago-Los Angeles route to be a single number. Why they didn't do the same with the Chicago to New York route? Even worse, New York City has never been served by a US x0, and I think it should have deserved one.
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on April 18, 2020, 06:04:28 AM
I feel the correct routing of US 60 from Springfield Westwards should have been on US 66 all the way to Barstow, then the route that in 1934 became US 466. That way, US 70 would have made sense as far as Pomona (as it would have taken US 60's route through Riverside instead). But alas, they wanted the Chicago-Los Angeles route to be a single number. Why they didn't do the same with the Chicago to New York route? Even worse, New York City has never been served by a US x0, and I think it should have deserved one.
The problem with New York as regards highways heading west from that city was simple topology; the ridge patterns in the northern Appalachians tended to go southwest-northeast, providing a serious obstacle to any efficient route directly west. The most useful route, US 22, headed west before zig-zagging its way by ridgehopping followed by valley following all the way across PA. At the risk of a bit of fictional speculation, it's conceivable that a NY-Cleveland rerouting of US 20 could have utilized present US 322 and US 22 to get to metro NY (with current US 20 east of Cleveland renumbered as US 6 and present US 6 becoming US 8 -- keeping all the single-digit US routes except for US 1 and the western US 2 in New England and/or the northeastern states). But it would have been no more an efficient corridor than it is today; it took Interstate-level 90% funding, unthinkable in the 1920's and 30's, to carve out an efficient western road egress (I-80, of course) from NY metro. Even the main rail lines detoured south (Pennsylvania Railroad) or north (New York Central, which went up the Hudson to Albany before turning west); only a few railroads attacked the terrain west of NYC -- but most of those were there to move anthracite coal from mine to market.
But the planners of the day chose a much easier path for US 20, across upstate NY, paralleling the old Erie Canal. And seeing as how US 30 always went through Philadelphia, it was much easier to essentially ignore direct western routes out of NYC, since commerce in that metro area was always destined to thrive even without that type of egress.
Quote from: sparker on April 18, 2020, 03:10:59 PM
But the planners of the day chose a much easier path for US 20, across upstate NY, paralleling the old Erie Canal. And seeing as how US 30 always went through Philadelphia, it was much easier to essentially ignore direct western routes out of NYC, since commerce in that metro area was always destined to thrive even without that type of egress.
It does seem odd, though, that both US 30 and US 40 end up in Atlantic City. US 30 could have still gone to Philadelphia, then continued to New York (probably riding along with US 1) and ended on Long Island.
Quote from: Eth on April 18, 2020, 03:41:19 PM
Quote from: sparker on April 18, 2020, 03:10:59 PM
But the planners of the day chose a much easier path for US 20, across upstate NY, paralleling the old Erie Canal. And seeing as how US 30 always went through Philadelphia, it was much easier to essentially ignore direct western routes out of NYC, since commerce in that metro area was always destined to thrive even without that type of egress.
It does seem odd, though, that both US 30 and US 40 end up in Atlantic City. US 30 could have still gone to Philadelphia, then continued to New York (probably riding along with US 1) and ended on Long Island.
Something tells me NYC interests and politicos don't give a rat's ass that they have never sat atop a x0 US highway; they got to 8M+ population and their status as the corporate capital of the nation without that particular "amenity". It might have been belated, but they finally got their x0 (at least metro-wise) in the Interstate era. Personally, I'd like to see I-80 extended east across the bridge and the Bronx, down I-295, and out I-495 to its L.I. east end -- but NYC folks would probably treat that concept with a collective shrug of the shoulders.
Even as a kid growing up in neighboring Glendale, the least-noticed US highways coming into L.A. metro were always US 60 and US 70 (the fact that one or both was multiplexed with US 99 in the region likely affected that perception or lack thereof). US 66, 99, and 101 got all the glory (6, being late to that dance, didn't figure prominently either) as far as local recognition was concerned. So even in the ever-vehicle-centric region L.A. was from the get-go, the presence of
two US x0's didn't get noticed much if at all.
This probably wanders into fictional territory but it involves a lot of the same geography so I'll post it here and take whatever lumps I have to take.
For the longest time I thought that a Phoenix to Albuquerque direct link would be a useful addition to the Interstate system. Take US 60 from I-10 east and extend it to Albuquerque. Make it Interstate 28 or 32.
Now that I live out here I see how infeasible something like that would be; the terrain US 60 crosses east of Phoenix is brutal; the costs would be astronomical and the environmentalists would throw up roadblock after roadblock. It would most likely cross a couple of tribal reservations as well.
Not sure how much time it would save over the I-17 and I-40 routing but suspect it would save some, but not enough to justify the cost. I do think it would be an "if you build it, they will come" kind of thing, though; I suspect the reasons travelers take the I-17 and I-40 route is because the roads through eastern Arizona are slow and if a faster route were to be made available, they would use it.
Phoenix is kind of an odd bird as far as the Interstate system goes; it's now the fifth largest city in the country but is only served by two Interstate highways, with no 3di's. That being said, the loops around Phoenix, with the exception of the newly opened South Mountain Freeway, don't really serve as bypasses as much as they move traffic around the metropolitan area.
If the Phoenix area is underserved by the Interstate Highway System, it's probably because when the Interstate Highway system was planned, the Phoenix area had about one tenth of the population it now has. Why weren't Phoenix and Las Vegas connected by an Interstate highway? Because, in 1955, they didn't need to be. In retrospect, Arizona did well to get I-17 and I-19. Why did US 80 drop down to Bisbee and Douglas but I-10 stay north? Because, in 1926, the copper mines around Bisbee were a major economic engine. By 1955, they were much less so, and Bisbee and Douglas weren't on the most direct route between Las Cruces and Tucson.
It's probably worth revisiting the Interstate System in Arizona from time to time, but I'm not sure you'd come up with something significantly different.
Just imagine what the multiplex of 1, 9, and 30 would be called... 1930? And if 22 were put on the route of 139 and the surface portion of 78, then it could possibly be 1-9-22-30, which would just be, pardon mon français, a clusterfuck.
Quote from: sparker on April 18, 2020, 03:10:59 PM
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on April 18, 2020, 06:04:28 AM
I feel the correct routing of US 60 from Springfield Westwards should have been on US 66 all the way to Barstow, then the route that in 1934 became US 466. That way, US 70 would have made sense as far as Pomona (as it would have taken US 60's route through Riverside instead). But alas, they wanted the Chicago-Los Angeles route to be a single number. Why they didn't do the same with the Chicago to New York route? Even worse, New York City has never been served by a US x0, and I think it should have deserved one.
The problem with New York as regards highways heading west from that city was simple topology; the ridge patterns in the northern Appalachians tended to go southwest-northeast, providing a serious obstacle to any efficient route directly west. The most useful route, US 22, headed west before zig-zagging its way by ridgehopping followed by valley following all the way across PA. At the risk of a bit of fictional speculation, it's conceivable that a NY-Cleveland rerouting of US 20 could have utilized present US 322 and US 22 to get to metro NY (with current US 20 east of Cleveland renumbered as US 6 and present US 6 becoming US 8 -- keeping all the single-digit US routes except for US 1 and the western US 2 in New England and/or the northeastern states). But it would have been no more an efficient corridor than it is today; it took Interstate-level 90% funding, unthinkable in the 1920's and 30's, to carve out an efficient western road egress (I-80, of course) from NY metro. Even the main rail lines detoured south (Pennsylvania Railroad) or north (New York Central, which went up the Hudson to Albany before turning west); only a few railroads attacked the terrain west of NYC -- but most of those were there to move anthracite coal from mine to market.
But the planners of the day chose a much easier path for US 20, across upstate NY, paralleling the old Erie Canal. And seeing as how US 30 always went through Philadelphia, it was much easier to essentially ignore direct western routes out of NYC, since commerce in that metro area was always destined to thrive even without that type of egress.
Everyone forgets that US 466 was the first highway over the Hoover Dam, it had to loop back to US 66 somehow...who knew at the time US 93 would have become what it did?
Anyways I have my own theory on US 70 being extended to California and it involves CA 74. CA 74 between US 60 in Riverside and CA 111 in Coachella Valley was briefly signed as CA 740. The three digit sign state routes in California seemed to have been place holders for US Routes. My thought is that California initially wanted US 70 to end at US 101 via what is now CA 74 on the Ortega Highway and Pines-to-Palms Highway. It would have out US 60, US 70, and US 80 in correct geographic orientation. US 70 ended up being almost a total multiplex of US 60 in California (and briefly was for a time).
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 18, 2020, 11:39:23 PM
Anyways I have my own theory on US 70 being extended to California and it involves CA 74. CA 74 between US 60 in Riverside and CA 111 in Coachella Valley was briefly signed as CA 740. The three digit sign state routes in California seemed to have been place holders for US Routes. My thought is that California initially wanted US 70 to end at US 101 via what is now CA 74 on the Ortega Highway and Pines-to-Palms Highway. It would have out US 60, US 70, and US 80 in correct geographic orientation. US 70 ended up being almost a total multiplex of US 60 in California (and briefly was for a time).
That's pretty good insight regarding 740 as a placeholder for US 70, particularly since it was the western section of LRN 64, which (eventually) encompassed US 60/70 east of Indio plus SSR 74 west of there all the way to US 101; it probably looked to early CA system planners like the most likely route for whatever US highway came west from Phoenix. However, one trip over both the San Jacinto range, with its tight horseshoe curves and switchbacks at both ends of the mountain crossing, and the Santa Ana mountains between Lake Elsinore and San Juan Capistrano would probably disabuse any planner of the appropriateness of that corridor as a through US highway, much less a x0. When US 70 came calling in CA just before WWII, it's likely that the Division of Highways, lacking another viable alignment, simply said "fuck it, just slap it down on top of US 99!" And so it finally got to L.A. -- but entirely multiplexed with at least one other route west of Globe!
But in keeping with the SSR 74/740 speculation -- one would wonder, if the present CA 78 alignment through the Glamis sand dunes had been in operation in 1938, whether US 70 might well have detoured down 78 all the way to US 101 at Oceanside/Carlsbad -- or even shunted down to the San Diego area via SSR 67! A bit awkward, yes -- but, really, no more than the historic alignment of US 80 across AZ, with the trajectory shift north to access Phoenix and the equally strange arc south to Douglas. A combination of topography and the need to address regional needs can be a real PITA, as such alignment oddities indicate.
Quote from: Hwy 61 Revisited on April 18, 2020, 10:14:24 PM
Just imagine what the multiplex of 1, 9, and 30 would be called... 1930? And if 22 were put on the route of 139 and the surface portion of 78, then it could possibly be 1-9-22-30, which would just be, pardon mon français, a clusterfuck.
Yeah, I suppose four US routes running together (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7751552,-84.3412101,3a,75y,111.51h,83.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLDKmiU7blwVbWuuDz1s4Rg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) would be a bit of a mouthful. :)
Quote from: sparker on April 19, 2020, 01:55:59 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 18, 2020, 11:39:23 PM
Anyways I have my own theory on US 70 being extended to California and it involves CA 74. CA 74 between US 60 in Riverside and CA 111 in Coachella Valley was briefly signed as CA 740. The three digit sign state routes in California seemed to have been place holders for US Routes. My thought is that California initially wanted US 70 to end at US 101 via what is now CA 74 on the Ortega Highway and Pines-to-Palms Highway. It would have out US 60, US 70, and US 80 in correct geographic orientation. US 70 ended up being almost a total multiplex of US 60 in California (and briefly was for a time).
That's pretty good insight regarding 740 as a placeholder for US 70, particularly since it was the western section of LRN 64, which (eventually) encompassed US 60/70 east of Indio plus SSR 74 west of there all the way to US 101; it probably looked to early CA system planners like the most likely route for whatever US highway came west from Phoenix. However, one trip over both the San Jacinto range, with its tight horseshoe curves and switchbacks at both ends of the mountain crossing, and the Santa Ana mountains between Lake Elsinore and San Juan Capistrano would probably disabuse any planner of the appropriateness of that corridor as a through US highway, much less a x0. When US 70 came calling in CA just before WWII, it's likely that the Division of Highways, lacking another viable alignment, simply said "fuck it, just slap it down on top of US 99!" And so it finally got to L.A. -- but entirely multiplexed with at least one other route west of Globe!
But in keeping with the SSR 74/740 speculation -- one would wonder, if the present CA 78 alignment through the Glamis sand dunes had been in operation in 1938, whether US 70 might well have detoured down 78 all the way to US 101 at Oceanside/Carlsbad -- or even shunted down to the San Diego area via SSR 67! A bit awkward, yes -- but, really, no more than the historic alignment of US 80 across AZ, with the trajectory shift north to access Phoenix and the equally strange arc south to Douglas. A combination of topography and the need to address regional needs can be a real PITA, as such alignment oddities indicate.
The real thing that gets me is that 740 went to Riverside instead of ending in Perris. That Perris-Riverside segment became part of US 395. As rugged as the Pines to Palms Highway is by our standards today in the 1930s that would have been a world class mountain crossing and way better than things like the Old Ridge Route or Jack Rabbit Trail.
Either way there seemed to be an obsession with getting X0 routes across the country no matter what back in the 1930s. Personally I think Globe is a fine terminus for US 70 today would have made for one back then as well. US 60 by almost complete fluke ended up being a very important route somehow after US 66 stole it's original planned routing.
Quote from: Eth on April 19, 2020, 09:26:26 AM
Quote from: Hwy 61 Revisited on April 18, 2020, 10:14:24 PM
Just imagine what the multiplex of 1, 9, and 30 would be called... 1930? And if 22 were put on the route of 139 and the surface portion of 78, then it could possibly be 1-9-22-30, which would just be, pardon mon français, a clusterfuck.
Yeah, I suppose four US routes running together (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7751552,-84.3412101,3a,75y,111.51h,83.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLDKmiU7blwVbWuuDz1s4Rg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) would be a bit of a mouthful. :)
Well, look at all that traffic! That's what happens when route concurrency is allowed to run rampant :-)
Quote from: kurumi on April 19, 2020, 01:43:40 PM
Quote from: Eth on April 19, 2020, 09:26:26 AM
Quote from: Hwy 61 Revisited on April 18, 2020, 10:14:24 PM
Just imagine what the multiplex of 1, 9, and 30 would be called... 1930? And if 22 were put on the route of 139 and the surface portion of 78, then it could possibly be 1-9-22-30, which would just be, pardon mon français, a clusterfuck.
Yeah, I suppose four US routes running together (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7751552,-84.3412101,3a,75y,111.51h,83.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLDKmiU7blwVbWuuDz1s4Rg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) would be a bit of a mouthful. :)
Well, look at all that traffic! That's what happens when route concurrency is allowed to run rampant :-)
Yeah... though 1/9 is already used a lot, so...
Heck, if 46 and 80 were extended into NY, there could be a multiplex of 1/9/30/46/80/95, which... :crazy:
Quote from: Eth on April 19, 2020, 09:26:26 AM
Quote from: Hwy 61 Revisited on April 18, 2020, 10:14:24 PM
Just imagine what the multiplex of 1, 9, and 30 would be called... 1930? And if 22 were put on the route of 139 and the surface portion of 78, then it could possibly be 1-9-22-30, which would just be, pardon mon français, a clusterfuck.
Yeah, I suppose four US routes running together (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7751552,-84.3412101,3a,75y,111.51h,83.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLDKmiU7blwVbWuuDz1s4Rg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) would be a bit of a mouthful. :)
Back in the '50's and early '60's -- from downtown Phoenix to Florence Junction, AZ -- US 60/70/80/89 would have said a
biiiiiiiig hello!!! :sombrero:
Quote from: sparker on April 19, 2020, 04:04:17 PM
Quote from: Eth on April 19, 2020, 09:26:26 AM
Quote from: Hwy 61 Revisited on April 18, 2020, 10:14:24 PM
Just imagine what the multiplex of 1, 9, and 30 would be called... 1930? And if 22 were put on the route of 139 and the surface portion of 78, then it could possibly be 1-9-22-30, which would just be, pardon mon français, a clusterfuck.
Yeah, I suppose four US routes running together (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7751552,-84.3412101,3a,75y,111.51h,83.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLDKmiU7blwVbWuuDz1s4Rg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) would be a bit of a mouthful. :)
Back in the '50's and early '60's -- from downtown Phoenix to Florence Junction, AZ -- US 60/70/80/89 would have said a biiiiiiiig hello!!! :sombrero:
And AZ 93 which somehow didn't become an extension of US 93.
Quote from: Konza on April 18, 2020, 10:02:54 PM
This probably wanders into fictional territory but it involves a lot of the same geography so I'll post it here and take whatever lumps I have to take.
For the longest time I thought that a Phoenix to Albuquerque direct link would be a useful addition to the Interstate system. Take US 60 from I-10 east and extend it to Albuquerque. Make it Interstate 28 or 32.
Now that I live out here I see how infeasible something like that would be; the terrain US 60 crosses east of Phoenix is brutal; the costs would be astronomical and the environmentalists would throw up roadblock after roadblock. It would most likely cross a couple of tribal reservations as well.
Not sure how much time it would save over the I-17 and I-40 routing but suspect it would save some, but not enough to justify the cost. I do think it would be an "if you build it, they will come" kind of thing, though; I suspect the reasons travelers take the I-17 and I-40 route is because the roads through eastern Arizona are slow and if a faster route were to be made available, they would use it.
Phoenix is kind of an odd bird as far as the Interstate system goes; it's now the fifth largest city in the country but is only served by two Interstate highways, with no 3di's. That being said, the loops around Phoenix, with the exception of the newly opened South Mountain Freeway, don't really serve as bypasses as much as they move traffic around the metropolitan area.
If the Phoenix area is underserved by the Interstate Highway System, it's probably because when the Interstate Highway system was planned, the Phoenix area had about one tenth of the population it now has. Why weren't Phoenix and Las Vegas connected by an Interstate highway? Because, in 1955, they didn't need to be. In retrospect, Arizona did well to get I-17 and I-19. Why did US 80 drop down to Bisbee and Douglas but I-10 stay north? Because, in 1926, the copper mines around Bisbee were a major economic engine. By 1955, they were much less so, and Bisbee and Douglas weren't on the most direct route between Las Cruces and Tucson.
It's probably worth revisiting the Interstate System in Arizona from time to time, but I'm not sure you'd come up with something significantly different.
I've thought the same thing and have been working on a proposal to reimagine Interstate 30, which I will soon post to the
Fictional Highways forum. But here's the
Cliff's Notes version: Deviate from existing I-30 west of Texarkana, near New Boston, TX (re-designating and re-siigning the rest of the current route as I-28), and head west thru/near Paris, Wichita Falls, and Lubbock in TX, then via Roswell in NM to I-25, where after a brief multiplex the route would pick up existing US 60 and parallel it southwest to Globe in AZ. From Globe it would skirt the small towns of the Superstition Mountains along US 60 to near Florence Junction, after which it would pick up future AZ 24 (Gateway Freeway), then AZ Loop 202 SanTan Freeway to I-10 where it would terminate at the border between Phoenix and Chandler. The only major obstacles along this routing would be Salt River Canyon and the Queen Creek Tunnel, both along US 60 in Arizona.
Now this would not provide a direct, one-route link between Phoenix and Albuquerque, but it would make I-30 more worthy of its "x0" number. It would also provide an alternative route for PHX-ABQ traffic as well as provide a northern TX Interstate alternative that would bypass the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex, as well as relieve cross-country pressure on I-40, and link several mid-size urban areas in both Texas and New Mexico.
In 1955, Phoenix was a "pass-through" city. In 2020, it's a "destination" city. The Interstate Highway System should, and largely does, treat such cities differently.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 19, 2020, 04:08:22 PM
Quote from: sparker on April 19, 2020, 04:04:17 PM
Quote from: Eth on April 19, 2020, 09:26:26 AM
Quote from: Hwy 61 Revisited on April 18, 2020, 10:14:24 PM
Just imagine what the multiplex of 1, 9, and 30 would be called... 1930? And if 22 were put on the route of 139 and the surface portion of 78, then it could possibly be 1-9-22-30, which would just be, pardon mon français, a clusterfuck.
Yeah, I suppose four US routes running together (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7751552,-84.3412101,3a,75y,111.51h,83.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLDKmiU7blwVbWuuDz1s4Rg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) would be a bit of a mouthful. :)
Back in the '50's and early '60's -- from downtown Phoenix to Florence Junction, AZ -- US 60/70/80/89 would have said a biiiiiiiig hello!!! :sombrero:
And AZ 93 which somehow didn't become an extension of US 93.
While hosting a large number of multiplexes in the state prior to the advent of the Interstate system -- largely due to topography and the presence of only a few major cities back then -- AZ never cared much for
useless multiplexes where a number is posted alongside another just to reach a specific (usually a city center) destination at which to terminate. And US 93 wasn't extended south past Kingman along AZ 93 until the '60's during the initial years of Interstate deployment (and subsequent US truncations), so ADOT may have just been hedging its bets regarding the southern extension of that route (since it had previously truncated AZ 93 back from its farthest extent at Nogales). The I-10 routing between Phoenix and Tucson, more or less along the old AZ 93 route, probably had a lot to do with the decision to truncate US 93 in the Wickenburg area -- first at US 89 before its decommissioning, then a few miles south at US 60. Ideally (pardon the fictional devation) US 60 would simply terminate at I-10 in Tempe; the western extension of US 60 on Grand Avenue and out to Wickenburg would become the southern end of US 93, terminating at I-17, and US 60 west of Wickenburg would be an extension of AZ 74. That would be a more appropriate end for US 60 rather than the awkward northern "loop" and an end out in the middle of nowhere.
If and when I-11 is built, it's more than likely that the truncation above will occur -- but with US 93 cut back all the way to its junction with I-15 northeast of Las Vegas.
Quote from: sparker on April 20, 2020, 02:48:28 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 19, 2020, 04:08:22 PM
Quote from: sparker on April 19, 2020, 04:04:17 PM
Quote from: Eth on April 19, 2020, 09:26:26 AM
Quote from: Hwy 61 Revisited on April 18, 2020, 10:14:24 PM
Just imagine what the multiplex of 1, 9, and 30 would be called... 1930? And if 22 were put on the route of 139 and the surface portion of 78, then it could possibly be 1-9-22-30, which would just be, pardon mon français, a clusterfuck.
Yeah, I suppose four US routes running together (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7751552,-84.3412101,3a,75y,111.51h,83.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLDKmiU7blwVbWuuDz1s4Rg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) would be a bit of a mouthful. :)
Back in the '50's and early '60's -- from downtown Phoenix to Florence Junction, AZ -- US 60/70/80/89 would have said a biiiiiiiig hello!!! :sombrero:
And AZ 93 which somehow didn't become an extension of US 93.
While hosting a large number of multiplexes in the state prior to the advent of the Interstate system -- largely due to topography and the presence of only a few major cities back then -- AZ never cared much for useless multiplexes where a number is posted alongside another just to reach a specific (usually a city center) destination at which to terminate. And US 93 wasn't extended south past Kingman along AZ 93 until the '60's during the initial years of Interstate deployment (and subsequent US truncations), so ADOT may have just been hedging its bets regarding the southern extension of that route (since it had previously truncated AZ 93 back from its farthest extent at Nogales). The I-10 routing between Phoenix and Tucson, more or less along the old AZ 93 route, probably had a lot to do with the decision to truncate US 93 in the Wickenburg area -- first at US 89 before its decommissioning, then a few miles south at US 60. Ideally (pardon the fictional devation) US 60 would simply terminate at I-10 in Tempe; the western extension of US 60 on Grand Avenue and out to Wickenburg would become the southern end of US 93, terminating at I-17, and US 60 west of Wickenburg would be an extension of AZ 74. That would be a more appropriate end for US 60 rather than the awkward northern "loop" and an end out in the middle of nowhere.
If and when I-11 is built, it's more than likely that the truncation above will occur -- but with US 93 cut back all the way to its junction with I-15 northeast of Las Vegas.
Irony is that US 60 west of Wickenburg was for a time briefly AZ 74 when the state picked up the existing roadway. AZ 74 can be seen going all the way to the state line on the 1931 Clason Map:
http://www.davidrumsey.com/ll/thumbnailView.html?startUrl=%2F%2Fwww.davidrumsey.com%2Fluna%2Fservlet%2Fas%2Fsearch%3Fos%3D0%26lc%3DRUMSEY~8~1%26q%3DArizona%20Highway%26sort%3DPub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No%26bs%3D10#?c=0&m=0&s=0&cv=0&r=0&xywh=2053%2C1805%2C891%2C1578
Quote from: sparker on April 18, 2020, 02:51:20 AM
AZ didn't mind multiplexes, but it certainly didn't care much for useless duplications to an arbitrary terminus (which is why US 93 was never extended into metro Phoenix)
I don't know if you're aware, but in 1979 AZDOT actually
requested an extension of US 93 to Phoenix (https://www.usends.com/blog/us-route-wannabes-1979-edition-az). AASHTO denied it, and for some reason AZ never tried again.
The suggestion that US 93 replace US 60 northwest of downtown Phoenix has significant merit, especially when junctions with US 60 sport signs saying "US 60 to US 93- Kingman, Las Vegas" .
My understanding is that the route of I-11 as it nears the Phoenix area has yet to be finalized but the chances that I-11 will follow US 93/US 60 all the way into downtown Phoenix are not good. If US 93 is truncated at Las Vegas when I-11 is completed and designated north of I-10, the former US 93 spur into Phoenix could be redesignated as AZ 93 and nothing would miss a beat.
It makes way too much sense for the Phoenix to Las Vegas route to have a single route number, and US 60 west of Tempe serves no productive purpose. These changes should be made sooner, not later.
Quote from: Konza on April 20, 2020, 02:28:50 PM
The suggestion that US 93 replace US 60 northwest of downtown Phoenix has significant merit, especially when junctions with US 60 sport signs saying "US 60 to US 93- Kingman, Las Vegas" .
My understanding is that the route of I-11 as it nears the Phoenix area has yet to be finalized but the chances that I-11 will follow US 93/US 60 all the way into downtown Phoenix are not good. If US 93 is truncated at Las Vegas when I-11 is completed and designated north of I-10, the former US 93 spur into Phoenix could be redesignated as AZ 93 and nothing would miss a beat.
It makes way too much sense for the Phoenix to Las Vegas route to have a single route number, and US 60 west of Tempe serves no productive purpose. These changes should be made sooner, not later.
I'd argue US 60 does have a purpose west of Phoenix and it ought to be rerouted on CA 62. That corridor is unbelievably valuable when I-10 suddenly had a problem between Vicksburg Road and AZ 303.
Quote from: usends on April 20, 2020, 09:30:05 AM
Quote from: sparker on April 18, 2020, 02:51:20 AM
AZ didn't mind multiplexes, but it certainly didn't care much for useless duplications to an arbitrary terminus (which is why US 93 was never extended into metro Phoenix)
I don't know if you're aware, but in 1979 AZDOT actually requested an extension of US 93 to Phoenix (https://www.usends.com/blog/us-route-wannabes-1979-edition-az). AASHTO denied it, and for some reason AZ never tried again.
I did not know that. Question: was that action about the same time that US 89 was decommissioned south of I-40? If so, then maybe there was pressure at the time to ensure that at least
one N-S US highway entered Phoenix. I'm also guessing that in the ensuing years outsized growth in the region served as its own self-generating expansion mechanism; the extension of a US highway wasn't, in later years, considered a necessary component of that growth, so further pursuit of such an extension simply wasn't taken.
Quote from: sparker on April 20, 2020, 09:40:01 PM
Quote from: usends on April 20, 2020, 09:30:05 AM
Quote from: sparker on April 18, 2020, 02:51:20 AM
AZ didn't mind multiplexes, but it certainly didn't care much for useless duplications to an arbitrary terminus (which is why US 93 was never extended into metro Phoenix)
I don't know if you're aware, but in 1979 AZDOT actually requested an extension of US 93 to Phoenix (https://www.usends.com/blog/us-route-wannabes-1979-edition-az). AASHTO denied it, and for some reason AZ never tried again.
I did not know that. Question: was that action about the same time that US 89 was decommissioned south of I-40? If so, then maybe there was pressure at the time to ensure that at least one N-S US highway entered Phoenix. I'm also guessing that in the ensuing years outsized growth in the region served as its own self-generating expansion mechanism; the extension of a US highway wasn't, in later years, considered a necessary component of that growth, so further pursuit of such an extension simply wasn't taken.
89 was decommissioned south of Flagstaff in 1992. In my opinion it should have stayed at least to Wickenburg.
As for Phoenix, wasn't the 60/70/80/89 multiplex in downtown once also concurrent with
AZ 93?
Quote from: US 89 on April 20, 2020, 11:17:04 PM
Quote from: sparker on April 20, 2020, 09:40:01 PM
Quote from: usends on April 20, 2020, 09:30:05 AM
Quote from: sparker on April 18, 2020, 02:51:20 AM
AZ didn't mind multiplexes, but it certainly didn't care much for useless duplications to an arbitrary terminus (which is why US 93 was never extended into metro Phoenix)
I don't know if you're aware, but in 1979 AZDOT actually requested an extension of US 93 to Phoenix (https://www.usends.com/blog/us-route-wannabes-1979-edition-az). AASHTO denied it, and for some reason AZ never tried again.
I did not know that. Question: was that action about the same time that US 89 was decommissioned south of I-40? If so, then maybe there was pressure at the time to ensure that at least one N-S US highway entered Phoenix. I'm also guessing that in the ensuing years outsized growth in the region served as its own self-generating expansion mechanism; the extension of a US highway wasn't, in later years, considered a necessary component of that growth, so further pursuit of such an extension simply wasn't taken.
89 was decommissioned south of Flagstaff in 1992. In my opinion it should have stayed at least to Wickenburg.
As for Phoenix, wasn't the 60/70/80/89 multiplex in downtown once also concurrent with AZ 93?
It was:
https://www.arizonaroads.com/maps/1961-5.jpg
And yes, US 89 ought to still be around...preferably on AZ 89A.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 20, 2020, 11:21:41 PM
Quote from: US 89 on April 20, 2020, 11:17:04 PM
Quote from: sparker on April 20, 2020, 09:40:01 PM
Quote from: usends on April 20, 2020, 09:30:05 AM
Quote from: sparker on April 18, 2020, 02:51:20 AM
AZ didn't mind multiplexes, but it certainly didn't care much for useless duplications to an arbitrary terminus (which is why US 93 was never extended into metro Phoenix)
I don't know if you're aware, but in 1979 AZDOT actually requested an extension of US 93 to Phoenix (https://www.usends.com/blog/us-route-wannabes-1979-edition-az). AASHTO denied it, and for some reason AZ never tried again.
I did not know that. Question: was that action about the same time that US 89 was decommissioned south of I-40? If so, then maybe there was pressure at the time to ensure that at least one N-S US highway entered Phoenix. I'm also guessing that in the ensuing years outsized growth in the region served as its own self-generating expansion mechanism; the extension of a US highway wasn't, in later years, considered a necessary component of that growth, so further pursuit of such an extension simply wasn't taken.
89 was decommissioned south of Flagstaff in 1992. In my opinion it should have stayed at least to Wickenburg.
As for Phoenix, wasn't the 60/70/80/89 multiplex in downtown once also concurrent with AZ 93?
It was:
https://www.arizonaroads.com/maps/1961-5.jpg
And yes, US 89 ought to still be around...preferably on AZ 89A.
Wholly concur -- but at the same time, ADOT should re-designate AZ 89 from the 89A junction north to I-40 as a northern extension of AZ 69 (at least until NAU students start stealing the 69 shields).
Quote from: sparker on April 21, 2020, 02:27:30 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 20, 2020, 11:21:41 PM
Quote from: US 89 on April 20, 2020, 11:17:04 PM
Quote from: sparker on April 20, 2020, 09:40:01 PM
Quote from: usends on April 20, 2020, 09:30:05 AM
Quote from: sparker on April 18, 2020, 02:51:20 AM
AZ didn't mind multiplexes, but it certainly didn't care much for useless duplications to an arbitrary terminus (which is why US 93 was never extended into metro Phoenix)
I don't know if you're aware, but in 1979 AZDOT actually requested an extension of US 93 to Phoenix (https://www.usends.com/blog/us-route-wannabes-1979-edition-az). AASHTO denied it, and for some reason AZ never tried again.
I did not know that. Question: was that action about the same time that US 89 was decommissioned south of I-40? If so, then maybe there was pressure at the time to ensure that at least one N-S US highway entered Phoenix. I'm also guessing that in the ensuing years outsized growth in the region served as its own self-generating expansion mechanism; the extension of a US highway wasn't, in later years, considered a necessary component of that growth, so further pursuit of such an extension simply wasn't taken.
89 was decommissioned south of Flagstaff in 1992. In my opinion it should have stayed at least to Wickenburg.
As for Phoenix, wasn't the 60/70/80/89 multiplex in downtown once also concurrent with AZ 93?
It was:
https://www.arizonaroads.com/maps/1961-5.jpg
And yes, US 89 ought to still be around...preferably on AZ 89A.
Wholly concur -- but at the same time, ADOT should re-designate AZ 89 from the 89A junction north to I-40 as a northern extension of AZ 69 (at least until NAU students start stealing the 69 shields).
I never really understood what the purpose of having US 89 through Ash Fork was once AZ 79 was finished through Oak Creek Canyon in the late 1930s. The Ash Fork corridor was supposed to be part of US 280 but was last minute swapped to an extension of US 89. It's clear that Arizona wanted US 89 to go through Jerome which is understandable given how important it's mines were in the early 20th century. I've heard people say nowadays that Oak Creek Canyon, Mingus Mountain, and Yarnell Hill aren't worth of a US Route...total crap IMO. There is still things like US 191 over the Coronado Trail and US 550 over the Million Dollar Highway that are equally as haggard...as well as scenic. It's a real shame that cities like Sedona, Cottonwood, and Prescott are no longer part of a larger national network.
Personally I would align AZ 69 over Fain Road and the Pioneer Parkway to current AZ 89. The west Pioneer Parkway and the current surface highway to downtown Prescott could be assigned X69 numbers.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 21, 2020, 08:16:26 AM
I never really understood what the purpose of having US 89 through Ash Fork was once AZ 79 was finished through Oak Creek Canyon in the late 1930s. The Ash Fork corridor was supposed to be part of US 280 but was last minute swapped to an extension of US 89. It’s clear that Arizona wanted US 89 to go through Jerome which is understandable given how important it’s mines were in the early 20th century. I’ve heard people say nowadays that Oak Creek Canyon, Mingus Mountain, and Yarnell Hill aren’t worth of a US Route...total crap IMO. There is still things like US 191 over the Coronado Trail and US 550 over the Million Dollar Highway that are equally as haggard...as well as scenic. It’s a real shame that cities like Sedona, Cottonwood, and Prescott are no longer part of a larger national network.
SR 89A is a great scenic route, but it's nowhere near the best, fastest through route. If Google is right, you save over 30 minutes on the Flagstaff-Prescott drive if you go through Ash Fork compared to going through Sedona and Cottonwood. 89A also has several sections near Jerome that really aren't all that conducive to long distance truck traffic.
I realize there are other US routes with extremely mountainous sections like US 550, but in that case there's no other road between Durango and Ridgway that doesn't involve a long detour out to Cortez, and 550 is by far the fastest route from Durango to places like Montrose or Grand Junction. In places where there isn't much in the way of Interstate service, US highways generally follow the best inter-city connecting routes. Don't get me wrong, 89A is an awesome road - but it's silly to pretend it's the best Prescott-Flagstaff route, especially when there are obvious quicker alternatives. In the event of a US 89 re-extension I wouldn't mind making 89A an ALT or even SCENIC bannered route, but I just don't think it's a good choice for a mainline US highway.
^^^^^^^^^^^
I always thought that the ideal extension for US 89 would be the Lake Mary road segueing onto AZ 87 down into metro Phoenix. But present 89A would work as well -- provided ADOT erected signage at the ends suggesting that it might not be the optimal choice for trucks (such as the L-shaped AZ 89/I-40 "detour" via Ash Fork), similar to CA's big yellow signs to that effect. There's plenty of places across the country where the more efficient and higher capacity route isn't necessarily a US highway (e.g. the paired US 222 and PA 272 in SE PA).
But getting back to the subject of the OP and the possibility of using what's now CA 74 as a US 70 alignment -- IMO -- and just for the section from San Juan Capistrano to Lake Elsinore alone (I used to drive that at least once every few weeks eastbound to get home from Irvine corporate meetings that invariably ran late, and avoiding CA 91 through Santa Ana Canyon like the plague!). If you get used to it, it's not horrible, but certainly not an appropriate artery for heavy truck traffic. The section over the San Jacintos is quite similar to CA 33 from Ojai to CA 166; a lot of switchbacks and curvature -- but that was good enough for old US 399 back in the day! More of a PITA because of the overall length of the bothersome segment rather than its severity; while the scenery is fine, the driving experience gets tiring!
That's why I draw the comparison to stuff like the Old Ridge Route and Jack Rabbit Trail. The Pines to Palms segment of CA 74 was far more in line with what one light expect on US 399 on the Maricopa Highway or to some extent Ridge Route Alternate. The Ortega Highway seems to be a sticking point for a lot of people but by the standard of the 1930s it isn't too far off what one would expect for a US Route. Lest we forget US 466 had a pretty haggard dirt segment west of Creston in the 1930s and Tehachapi-Woodford Road was no joke either.
Regarding AZ 89A it is the preferred route coupled with AZ 260 to get freight to Sedona and Cottonwood. AZ 179 is not truck friendly at all with all the roundabouts which leads most truckers to 89A. AZ 89 north of Prescott is a far more gentle grade but is surprisingly light on traffic. Either way both corridors have merit and probably shouldn't have been punted to State Route status to begin with.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 21, 2020, 07:09:44 PM
That's why I draw the comparison to stuff like the Old Ridge Route and Jack Rabbit Trail. The Pines to Palms segment of CA 74 was far more in line with what one light expect on US 399 on the Maricopa Highway or to some extent Ridge Route Alternate. The Ortega Highway seems to be a sticking point for a lot of people but by the standard of the 1930s it isn't too far off what one would expect for a US Route. Lest we forget US 466 had a pretty haggard dirt segment west of Creston in the 1930s and Tehachapi-Woodford Road was no joke either.
Regarding AZ 89A it is the preferred route coupled with AZ 260 to get freight to Sedona and Cottonwood. AZ 179 is not truck friendly at all with all the roundabouts which leads most truckers to 89A. AZ 89 north of Prescott is a far more gentle grade but is surprisingly light on traffic. Either way both corridors have merit and probably shouldn't have been punted to State Route status to begin with.
Interestingly, before I-17 was planned over the (original) AZ 69/79 composite corridor (where it is now), it was to follow US 89 from Wickenburg to Ash Fork -- the obvious "path of least resistance" in the mid-50's. AZ 89, and US 89 before it, was a very fast road; considering the growth of the Prescott area both before and after the US decommissioning in the early '90's, the decision to truncate the US route is questionable at best and, at worst, a gratuitous and unnecessary arbitrary decision -- likely done to remove the multiplex of US 89 over I-40 (which in reality was probably never a navigation issue any more in 1992 than it was previously).
IMO, a practical solution (other than the Lake Mary approach I previously iterated) involving keeping a US route through Prescott would be to restore US 89 to AZ 89; keeping 89A a state highway poses no particular issues. Seeing that the use of the US 60 loop through Wickenburg is only situationally useful (problems on I-10 west of Buckeye), 60 could be removed west of Tempe, with west of Wickenburg replaced by a AZ 74 western extension. The Grand Avenue/Wickenburg "diagonal" could be co-signed as US 89 & US 93, both terminating at I-17 in Phoenix (ADOT would just have to suck it up regarding "useless" multiplexes, as both designations denote useful egresses northward from the metro area). Now that probably won't happen; the record for restoring US highways previously decommissioned isn't exactly stellar regarding
any state. But IMO it'd be quite appropriate!
Straying into fictional territory but adding to the point above. Some of the newer corridors in Arizona are far superior than what was available in the heyday of the US Route System. Personally I found that AZ 260 and AZ 87 was a far superior route between Mesa-Show Low over US 60 through Globe. Would it not be viable to realign US 60 into Phoenix via 202, 260, and 87 then extend US 70 to to I-10 in Tempe? That would leave the corridor of Wickenburg to I-17 open for either US 89 or US 93 (although I prefer the former due to I-11) and an 89A could be rerouted wherever. AZ 77 would be fine as a stand alone through Salt River Canyon and AZ 74 would be fine extended again westward to I-10. That would put two X0 US Routes ending in a major city.
Regarding AZ 260 I would cut it back to Show Low-Eagar (better yet reactive US 260 in place of US 180 and reactivate AZ 279 in Verde Valley. AZ 87 south of Mesa is functionally being slowly decommissioned anyways so it probably could just have it's signage removed or assigned an AZ X87 that is available. All these moves would certainly clear up multiplexes and utilize the best newer mountain corridors to full effect in Arizona.
But then again that's just all a pipe dream assuming there would be the will to change up the highway designations nowadays.
Or you could multiplex US 60 and US 70 on the Superstition Freeway from Country Club west to I-10 and let the routes terminate together.
After a drive up to Show Low yesterday, I'd like to double down on my opinion on this one. The Salt River Canyon is spectacular, but if there is an alternative to it being on an x0 US route, it should be pursued.
ADOT has overhead message boards in Show Low with driving times to Phoenix via both Us 60 and AZ 260/87. They're within minutes of each other. Most of the AZ 87/260 route is already four lanes. It's a better route, and should have the more prominent route number.
I was coming from south of Tucson, so I probably would have not driven through the Phoenix area yesterday regardless of how the routes were marked, but I would have been more than OK with the road through Globe and the Salt River Canyon being just AZ 77.
Quote from: Konza on April 23, 2020, 04:49:16 PM
After a drive up to Show Low yesterday, I'd like to double down on my opinion on this one. The Salt River Canyon is spectacular, but if there is an alternative to it being on an x0 US route, it should be pursued.
ADOT has overhead message boards in Show Low with driving times to Phoenix via both Us 60 and AZ 260/87. They're within minutes of each other. Most of the AZ 87/260 route is already four lanes. It's a better route, and should have the more prominent route number.
I was coming from south of Tucson, so I probably would have not driven through the Phoenix area yesterday regardless of how the routes were marked, but I would have been more than a OK with the road through a Globe and the Salt River Canyon being just AZ 77.
The corridor improvements on 87/260 have been massive these past three decades and long surpassed Salt River Canyon. I recall driving 87/260 when they were mostly two lane highways. As the 2010s wore on 87/260 became my favored route for my weekly work trip up to the Show Low Area over US 60. If it wasn't for the mines in Globe I doubt many truckers would bother with US 60 through Salt River Canyon anymore.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 23, 2020, 06:46:11 PM
Quote from: Konza on April 23, 2020, 04:49:16 PM
After a drive up to Show Low yesterday, I'd like to double down on my opinion on this one. The Salt River Canyon is spectacular, but if there is an alternative to it being on an x0 US route, it should be pursued.
ADOT has overhead message boards in Show Low with driving times to Phoenix via both Us 60 and AZ 260/87. They're within minutes of each other. Most of the AZ 87/260 route is already four lanes. It's a better route, and should have the more prominent route number.
I was coming from south of Tucson, so I probably would have not driven through the Phoenix area yesterday regardless of how the routes were marked, but I would have been more than a OK with the road through a Globe and the Salt River Canyon being just AZ 77.
The corridor improvements on 87/260 have been massive these past three decades and long surpassed Salt River Canyon. I recall driving 87/260 when they were mostly two lane highways. As the 2010s wore on 87/260 became my favored route for my weekly work trip up to the Show Low Area over US 60. If it wasn't for the mines in Globe I doubt many truckers would bother with US 60 through Salt River Canyon anymore.
Pre-extensive Interstate deployment (circa early '59) my dad and his brother made a cross-country trip to visit my grandfather, who was having serious medical issues, and they used US 60 east to Clovis, NM, and US 70 east from there to their destination of Broken Bow, OK. That was my dad's first trip through the Salt River Canyon; on return (they thought better of it and came back via US 80 and US 70 via Safford) he couldn't stop talking about how dangerous that road was and how it should be avoided whenever possible. He described it as all switchbacks and horseshoe curves getting down to the bottom of the canyon and the same getting up the other side. But then he hated curvy 2-lane roads in general; he readily condemned the
original SSR 198 over the Coast Range from San Lucas to Coalinga as "going around every fucking tree they could find!" -- although now I can attest to that highway's improvement in the meantime; it's quite an enjoyable drive.
Quote from: sparker on April 24, 2020, 06:07:56 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 23, 2020, 06:46:11 PM
Quote from: Konza on April 23, 2020, 04:49:16 PM
After a drive up to Show Low yesterday, I'd like to double down on my opinion on this one. The Salt River Canyon is spectacular, but if there is an alternative to it being on an x0 US route, it should be pursued.
ADOT has overhead message boards in Show Low with driving times to Phoenix via both Us 60 and AZ 260/87. They're within minutes of each other. Most of the AZ 87/260 route is already four lanes. It's a better route, and should have the more prominent route number.
I was coming from south of Tucson, so I probably would have not driven through the Phoenix area yesterday regardless of how the routes were marked, but I would have been more than a OK with the road through a Globe and the Salt River Canyon being just AZ 77.
The corridor improvements on 87/260 have been massive these past three decades and long surpassed Salt River Canyon. I recall driving 87/260 when they were mostly two lane highways. As the 2010s wore on 87/260 became my favored route for my weekly work trip up to the Show Low Area over US 60. If it wasn't for the mines in Globe I doubt many truckers would bother with US 60 through Salt River Canyon anymore.
Pre-extensive Interstate deployment (circa early '59) my dad and his brother made a cross-country trip to visit my grandfather, who was having serious medical issues, and they used US 60 east to Clovis, NM, and US 70 east from there to their destination of Broken Bow, OK. That was my dad's first trip through the Salt River Canyon; on return (they thought better of it and came back via US 80 and US 70 via Safford) he couldn't stop talking about how dangerous that road was and how it should be avoided whenever possible. He described it as all switchbacks and horseshoe curves getting down to the bottom of the canyon and the same getting up the other side. But then he hated curvy 2-lane roads in general; he readily condemned the original SSR 198 over the Coast Range from San Lucas to Coalinga as "going around every fucking tree they could find!" -- although now I can attest to that highway's improvement in the meantime; it's quite an enjoyable drive.
A guy I worked with back in the early 2010s was absolutely terrified of Salt River Canyon. He had a huge fear of heights and had to lay down I the back of the work truck if he went with me to Show Low or TorC via US 60. Personally I never found Salt River Canyon all that bad so long as you didn't get stuck behind a truck. The hairpins are wide enough to allow pullouts and I never thought the grades were steep enough to require lower gears.
Now the Old Mustang Grade of CA 198, man that looks like that was a beast. I found a CHPW article from 1944 when that thing was replaced with the modern highway. I've found both endpoints of the Old Mustang Grade, unfortunately one was fenced off and overgrown much like Old CA 25 on Lewis Creek Road.
^^^^^^^^^^^
Looks like my dad missed the 198 upgrades by a couple of years. He worked (management) at the original Lockheed "skunk works" in Burbank during WWII, and had to personally deliver some "packages" to Camp Roberts north of Paso Robles back in '42 (he had no idea what was in them -- as he said, classified well above his pay grade!). But he had some time off after the delivery, so he decided to visit his uncle over in Dinuba -- hence the trip over 198 that resulted in his dismal opinion of the facility! In retrospect, he should have gone down to 41 and then over that way into the Valley -- but he also hated to backtrack, so 198 it was!
Quote from: sparker on April 24, 2020, 05:42:13 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^
Looks like my dad missed the 198 upgrades by a couple of years. He worked (management) at the original Lockheed "skunk works" in Burbank during WWII, and had to personally deliver some "packages" to Camp Roberts north of Paso Robles back in '42 (he had no idea what was in them -- as he said, classified well above his pay grade!). But he had some time off after the delivery, so he decided to visit his uncle over in Dinuba -- hence the trip over 198 that resulted in his dismal opinion of the facility! In retrospect, he should have gone down to 41 and then over that way into the Valley -- but he also hated to backtrack, so 198 it was!
Yeah the difference between the old grade and modern grade is massive. Much of the original alignment of 198 in Warthan Canyon was gradually straightened after that point. There was a bunch of floating bridges on early 198 in Warthan Canyon that were designed to detach so they could be salvaged after floods. I would imagine the Parkfield Grade is probably a decent analog as to how Warthan Canyon once was on 198.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 24, 2020, 01:52:06 PM
Quote from: sparker on April 24, 2020, 06:07:56 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 23, 2020, 06:46:11 PM
Quote from: Konza on April 23, 2020, 04:49:16 PM
After a drive up to Show Low yesterday, I'd like to double down on my opinion on this one. The Salt River Canyon is spectacular, but if there is an alternative to it being on an x0 US route, it should be pursued.
ADOT has overhead message boards in Show Low with driving times to Phoenix via both Us 60 and AZ 260/87. They're within minutes of each other. Most of the AZ 87/260 route is already four lanes. It's a better route, and should have the more prominent route number.
I was coming from south of Tucson, so I probably would have not driven through the Phoenix area yesterday regardless of how the routes were marked, but I would have been more than a OK with the road through a Globe and the Salt River Canyon being just AZ 77.
The corridor improvements on 87/260 have been massive these past three decades and long surpassed Salt River Canyon. I recall driving 87/260 when they were mostly two lane highways. As the 2010s wore on 87/260 became my favored route for my weekly work trip up to the Show Low Area over US 60. If it wasn't for the mines in Globe I doubt many truckers would bother with US 60 through Salt River Canyon anymore.
Pre-extensive Interstate deployment (circa early '59) my dad and his brother made a cross-country trip to visit my grandfather, who was having serious medical issues, and they used US 60 east to Clovis, NM, and US 70 east from there to their destination of Broken Bow, OK. That was my dad's first trip through the Salt River Canyon; on return (they thought better of it and came back via US 80 and US 70 via Safford) he couldn't stop talking about how dangerous that road was and how it should be avoided whenever possible. He described it as all switchbacks and horseshoe curves getting down to the bottom of the canyon and the same getting up the other side. But then he hated curvy 2-lane roads in general; he readily condemned the original SSR 198 over the Coast Range from San Lucas to Coalinga as "going around every fucking tree they could find!" -- although now I can attest to that highway's improvement in the meantime; it's quite an enjoyable drive.
A guy I worked with back in the early 2010s was absolutely terrified of Salt River Canyon. He had a huge fear of heights and had to lay down I the back of the work truck if he went with me to Show Low or TorC via US 60. Personally I never found Salt River Canyon all that bad so long as you didn't get stuck behind a truck. The hairpins are wide enough to allow pullouts and I never thought the grades were steep enough to require lower gears.
Now the Old Mustang Grade of CA 198, man that looks like that was a beast. I found a CHPW article from 1944 when that thing was replaced with the modern highway. I've found both endpoints of the Old Mustang Grade, unfortunately one was fenced off and overgrown much like Old CA 25 on Lewis Creek Road.
Current CA 198 doesn't look bad at all. Did the Old Mustang Grade deviate significantly from the current route?
Quote from: ftballfan on April 25, 2020, 04:14:45 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 24, 2020, 01:52:06 PM
Quote from: sparker on April 24, 2020, 06:07:56 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 23, 2020, 06:46:11 PM
Quote from: Konza on April 23, 2020, 04:49:16 PM
After a drive up to Show Low yesterday, I'd like to double down on my opinion on this one. The Salt River Canyon is spectacular, but if there is an alternative to it being on an x0 US route, it should be pursued.
ADOT has overhead message boards in Show Low with driving times to Phoenix via both Us 60 and AZ 260/87. They're within minutes of each other. Most of the AZ 87/260 route is already four lanes. It's a better route, and should have the more prominent route number.
I was coming from south of Tucson, so I probably would have not driven through the Phoenix area yesterday regardless of how the routes were marked, but I would have been more than a OK with the road through a Globe and the Salt River Canyon being just AZ 77.
The corridor improvements on 87/260 have been massive these past three decades and long surpassed Salt River Canyon. I recall driving 87/260 when they were mostly two lane highways. As the 2010s wore on 87/260 became my favored route for my weekly work trip up to the Show Low Area over US 60. If it wasn't for the mines in Globe I doubt many truckers would bother with US 60 through Salt River Canyon anymore.
Pre-extensive Interstate deployment (circa early '59) my dad and his brother made a cross-country trip to visit my grandfather, who was having serious medical issues, and they used US 60 east to Clovis, NM, and US 70 east from there to their destination of Broken Bow, OK. That was my dad's first trip through the Salt River Canyon; on return (they thought better of it and came back via US 80 and US 70 via Safford) he couldn't stop talking about how dangerous that road was and how it should be avoided whenever possible. He described it as all switchbacks and horseshoe curves getting down to the bottom of the canyon and the same getting up the other side. But then he hated curvy 2-lane roads in general; he readily condemned the original SSR 198 over the Coast Range from San Lucas to Coalinga as "going around every fucking tree they could find!" -- although now I can attest to that highway's improvement in the meantime; it's quite an enjoyable drive.
A guy I worked with back in the early 2010s was absolutely terrified of Salt River Canyon. He had a huge fear of heights and had to lay down I the back of the work truck if he went with me to Show Low or TorC via US 60. Personally I never found Salt River Canyon all that bad so long as you didn't get stuck behind a truck. The hairpins are wide enough to allow pullouts and I never thought the grades were steep enough to require lower gears.
Now the Old Mustang Grade of CA 198, man that looks like that was a beast. I found a CHPW article from 1944 when that thing was replaced with the modern highway. I've found both endpoints of the Old Mustang Grade, unfortunately one was fenced off and overgrown much like Old CA 25 on Lewis Creek Road.
Current CA 198 doesn't look bad at all. Did the Old Mustang Grade deviate significantly from the current route?
It diverged to the south near the schoolhouse in Priest Valley and emerged at Peach Tree Valley Road near Cow Creek. The road is still there behind gates and can be found on Google Maps.
But you're right about modern 198, it's a fantastic drive. In fact Motortrend features it somewhat frequently during their best driver's car test.
Quote from: Eth on April 18, 2020, 03:41:19 PM
Quote from: sparker on April 18, 2020, 03:10:59 PM
But the planners of the day chose a much easier path for US 20, across upstate NY, paralleling the old Erie Canal. And seeing as how US 30 always went through Philadelphia, it was much easier to essentially ignore direct western routes out of NYC, since commerce in that metro area was always destined to thrive even without that type of egress.
It does seem odd, though, that both US 30 and US 40 end up in Atlantic City. US 30 could have still gone to Philadelphia, then continued to New York (probably riding along with US 1) and ended on Long Island.
It's worth noting that this is exactly what the Lincoln Highway did - went east to Philadelphia, than northeast to NYC.
Indeed, you can trace the the history of these corridors back through other older modes of transportation. The Lincoln Highway followed the same general corridor west from NYC that the Pennsylvania Railroad did. Meanwhile going north up the Hudson and then west across Upstate as the NYS Thruway now does was the routing of the NY Central Railroad and, before that, the routing of the Erie Canal.
Prior to the construction of I-80, there was no direct route from NYC to the midwest (note how it doesn't really parallel any US highways through PA). Trips west used primarily one of the two routes above.
Quote from: Duke87 on April 25, 2020, 05:50:45 PM
Quote from: Eth on April 18, 2020, 03:41:19 PM
Quote from: sparker on April 18, 2020, 03:10:59 PM
But the planners of the day chose a much easier path for US 20, across upstate NY, paralleling the old Erie Canal. And seeing as how US 30 always went through Philadelphia, it was much easier to essentially ignore direct western routes out of NYC, since commerce in that metro area was always destined to thrive even without that type of egress.
It does seem odd, though, that both US 30 and US 40 end up in Atlantic City. US 30 could have still gone to Philadelphia, then continued to New York (probably riding along with US 1) and ended on Long Island.
It's worth noting that this is exactly what the Lincoln Highway did - went east to Philadelphia, than northeast to NYC.
Indeed, you can trace the the history of these corridors back through other older modes of transportation. The Lincoln Highway followed the same general corridor west from NYC that the Pennsylvania Railroad did. Meanwhile going north up the Hudson and then west across Upstate as the NYS Thruway now does was the routing of the NY Central Railroad and, before that, the routing of the Erie Canal.
Prior to the construction of I-80, there was no direct route from NYC to the midwest (note how it doesn't really parallel any US highways through PA). Trips west used primarily one of the two routes above.
The only through NYC (metro; it terminated at the docks in Jersey City) to Chicago railroad that took a relatively direct path west was the Erie; it slithered through the southern Catskills to the Delaware River, used that northwest (and still one of the reasons why NY17/I-86 expansion through Hale Eddy is problematic) and then over the mountains to Binghamton. From there it pretty much traced NY 17 and/or I-86 over to Jamestown, cut down into northern Ohio, and then struck out (via Lima, OH and Huntington, IN) to Chicago. Never a major player, it nevertheless found a place when heavy and/or oversized equipment needed hauling because it featured an extra-wide ROW and required high clearances for overcrossings. Perfect for the old Westinghouse plant in Elmira, NY as well as the various purveyors of construction equipment concentrated around Akron, OH. An early Jay Gould property, sold to pay off his other debts (and various fines!); it always teetered on insolvency, even with later mergers, until absorbed by Conrail in 1976. One thing it was known for was having one of the largest locomotives around (primarily for their anthracite coal traffic east of Binghamton) -- the "triplex" 2-8-8-8-2 simple-articulated steam locomotive, with the rear set of drivers
under the tender! Traction up the wazoo, but a maintenance nightmare!
But the Erie's decidedly limited success illuminates the fact that even early on, the most viable western egress from NYC was either north (to Albany) then west, or southwest (to Philadelphia) then more or less west (much more convoluted than the upstate NY/New York Central pathway). A simple way to illustrate this is to get a 1958 map and look at where the turnpikes are located.
Quote from: kurumi on April 19, 2020, 01:43:40 PM
Quote from: Eth on April 19, 2020, 09:26:26 AM
Quote from: Hwy 61 Revisited on April 18, 2020, 10:14:24 PM
Just imagine what the multiplex of 1, 9, and 30 would be called... 1930? And if 22 were put on the route of 139 and the surface portion of 78, then it could possibly be 1-9-22-30, which would just be, pardon mon français, a clusterfuck.
Yeah, I suppose four US routes running together (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7751552,-84.3412101,3a,75y,111.51h,83.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLDKmiU7blwVbWuuDz1s4Rg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) would be a bit of a mouthful. :)
Well, look at all that traffic! That's what happens when route concurrency is allowed to run rampant :-)
Or the multiplex of 12-14-18-151 on the Beltline. https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0373377,-89.3895835,3a,75y,247.95h,79.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swxnqzeNQr0916j1MwCvSsA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en
I've been pondering about US 70, and they could have done differently in 1947, when US 91 was extended to Long Beach. They could have rerouted US 70 instead to give it some sense, and kept US 91 ending in Barstow. Or, if they were making US x1s routes to be as much border-to-border (or to Gulf of Mexico further East) as possible, they could have extended US 91 to San Diego instead, replacing US 395 (this could have been done as early as 1934). If they had done it that way, then in the 1964 "purge" (as I like to call that year's renumbering) they could have truncated US 395 (which would have ended at Victorville like currently does) to Bishop instead of US 6. But that is going into fictional territory.
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on May 04, 2020, 09:51:25 AM
I've been pondering about US 70, and they could have done differently in 1947, when US 91 was extended to Long Beach. They could have rerouted US 70 instead to give it some sense, and kept US 91 ending in Barstow. Or, if they were making US x1s routes to be as much border-to-border (or to Gulf of Mexico further East) as possible, they could have extended US 91 to San Diego instead, replacing US 395 (this could have been done as early as 1934). If they had done it that way, then in the 1964 "purge" (as I like to call that year's renumbering) they could have truncated US 395 (which would have ended at Victorville like currently does) to Bishop instead of US 6. But that is going into fictional territory.
It's likely that the extension of US 91 back in 1947 was specifically to extend it to somewhere in the L.A. metro area, in keeping with its role as a diagonal route south of central Utah. But when US 395 was commissioned pre-war, it was definitely as a N-S corridor connecting inland points -- but terminating (south) at a port city -- more or less as an "inland access corridor" serving previously "virgin" territory as far as a through corridor was concerned. Remember that before the 1950's San Diego was principally a Navy town and minor recreational area; its 1950 incorporated population was under 150K -- hardly considered a major destination -- curiously, the cities near the endpoints of historic US 80 (S.D., Savannah) were similar population until San Diego experienced its outsized "growth spurt" starting in the '50's. It was probably considered an appropriate terminal point for a 3dus, whereas metro L.A., due to its relatively large presence, was considered to "deserve" an additional 2dus to add to its already impressive mix. Also, the trajectories of each route essentially placed each at or near where they ended up prior to '64.
If Arizona doesn't like overlaps, why was so much of AZ 93 a useless overlap?
Quote from: bugo on May 17, 2020, 05:34:38 AM
If Arizona doesn't like overlaps, why was so much of AZ 93 a useless overlap?
Arizona still has some long overlaps like AZ 77/US 60. US 60/US70 were a total overlap west of Globe. The highway system basically was forced to clean up after California renumbered during 1964.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 17, 2020, 09:17:31 AM
Quote from: bugo on May 17, 2020, 05:34:38 AM
If Arizona doesn't like overlaps, why was so much of AZ 93 a useless overlap?
Arizona still has some long overlaps like AZ 77/US 60. US 60/US70 were a total overlap west of Globe. The highway system basically was forced to clean up after California renumbered during 1964.
Since all of the major desert-bound radial routes from L.A./S.D. eastward were included in the Interstate System, CA's post-'64 "one route/one number" edict meant that if AZ and NV didn't cooperate, their signed US stretches (even multiplexing over and Interstate) would simply vanish at the CA state line. Of course, lags in CA Interstate construction dragged the process of field U.S. highway decommissioning out several more years. But eventually AZ not only followed CA's lead but outstripped it -- while keeping some aspects of the original US system (such as US 60 west of Phoenix) that CA would have deleted and replaced with state routes. But they also added routes after CA's big move (the US 93 extension to Wickenburg and US 160 across the NE reaches of the state), so their overall policies toward US highways is inconsistent at best. I guess a few years down the line we'll see if US 93 ceases to exist in the state when I-11 is fully developed.
Quote from: sparker on May 18, 2020, 01:46:24 AM
...they also added routes after CA's big move (the US 93 extension to Wickenburg and US 160 across the NE reaches of the state), so their overall policies toward US highways is inconsistent at best.
I don't see those two extensions as inconsistencies: one had nothing to do with parallel interstates, and the other one was only indirectly related. US 93 had to be extended to Wickenburg or else it would've had a dangling end (because US 89 had been decommissioned). US 160 across the Navajo reservation was a replacement for the US 164 designation (which in turn had been established to unify a relatively new highway serving a previously remote region spanning three states (https://www.usends.com/blog/why-and-how-the-four-corners-area-us-routes-should-be-renumbered-again)).
The only inconsistency I see in Arizona's interstate-era designation changes was the fact that they kept US 60 between Phoenix and Brenda Jct. (instead of changing it to a state route, like they did with AZ 79, 80, 85, and 89).
Quote from: sparker on May 18, 2020, 01:46:24 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 17, 2020, 09:17:31 AM
Quote from: bugo on May 17, 2020, 05:34:38 AM
If Arizona doesn't like overlaps, why was so much of AZ 93 a useless overlap?
Arizona still has some long overlaps like AZ 77/US 60. US 60/US70 were a total overlap west of Globe. The highway system basically was forced to clean up after California renumbered during 1964.
Since all of the major desert-bound radial routes from L.A./S.D. eastward were included in the Interstate System, CA's post-'64 "one route/one number" edict meant that if AZ and NV didn't cooperate, their signed US stretches (even multiplexing over and Interstate) would simply vanish at the CA state line. Of course, lags in CA Interstate construction dragged the process of field U.S. highway decommissioning out several more years. But eventually AZ not only followed CA's lead but outstripped it -- while keeping some aspects of the original US system (such as US 60 west of Phoenix) that CA would have deleted and replaced with state routes. But they also added routes after CA's big move (the US 93 extension to Wickenburg and US 160 across the NE reaches of the state), so their overall policies toward US highways is inconsistent at best. I guess a few years down the line we'll see if US 93 ceases to exist in the state when I-11 is fully developed.
I really do not understand why ADOT, instead of having US64 end at Teec Nos Pos, doesn't have US64 take over US160 from that junction, piggy back onto US89 south, then take over the current AZ64 routing all the way to Williams at I-40.
Quote from: brad2971 on May 18, 2020, 06:31:11 PM
Quote from: sparker on May 18, 2020, 01:46:24 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 17, 2020, 09:17:31 AM
Quote from: bugo on May 17, 2020, 05:34:38 AM
If Arizona doesn't like overlaps, why was so much of AZ 93 a useless overlap?
Arizona still has some long overlaps like AZ 77/US 60. US 60/US70 were a total overlap west of Globe. The highway system basically was forced to clean up after California renumbered during 1964.
Since all of the major desert-bound radial routes from L.A./S.D. eastward were included in the Interstate System, CA's post-'64 "one route/one number" edict meant that if AZ and NV didn't cooperate, their signed US stretches (even multiplexing over and Interstate) would simply vanish at the CA state line. Of course, lags in CA Interstate construction dragged the process of field U.S. highway decommissioning out several more years. But eventually AZ not only followed CA's lead but outstripped it -- while keeping some aspects of the original US system (such as US 60 west of Phoenix) that CA would have deleted and replaced with state routes. But they also added routes after CA's big move (the US 93 extension to Wickenburg and US 160 across the NE reaches of the state), so their overall policies toward US highways is inconsistent at best. I guess a few years down the line we'll see if US 93 ceases to exist in the state when I-11 is fully developed.
I really do not understand why ADOT, instead of having US64 end at Teec Nos Pos, doesn't have US64 take over US160 from that junction, piggy back onto US89 south, then take over the current AZ64 routing all the way to Williams at I-40.
Which would align it ironically over most of the historic route of AZ 64.
Quote from: brad2971 on May 18, 2020, 06:31:11 PM
Quote from: sparker on May 18, 2020, 01:46:24 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 17, 2020, 09:17:31 AM
Quote from: bugo on May 17, 2020, 05:34:38 AM
If Arizona doesn't like overlaps, why was so much of AZ 93 a useless overlap?
Arizona still has some long overlaps like AZ 77/US 60. US 60/US70 were a total overlap west of Globe. The highway system basically was forced to clean up after California renumbered during 1964.
Since all of the major desert-bound radial routes from L.A./S.D. eastward were included in the Interstate System, CA's post-'64 "one route/one number" edict meant that if AZ and NV didn't cooperate, their signed US stretches (even multiplexing over and Interstate) would simply vanish at the CA state line. Of course, lags in CA Interstate construction dragged the process of field U.S. highway decommissioning out several more years. But eventually AZ not only followed CA's lead but outstripped it -- while keeping some aspects of the original US system (such as US 60 west of Phoenix) that CA would have deleted and replaced with state routes. But they also added routes after CA's big move (the US 93 extension to Wickenburg and US 160 across the NE reaches of the state), so their overall policies toward US highways is inconsistent at best. I guess a few years down the line we'll see if US 93 ceases to exist in the state when I-11 is fully developed.
I really do not understand why ADOT, instead of having US64 end at Teec Nos Pos, doesn't have US64 take over US160 from that junction, piggy back onto US89 south, then take over the current AZ64 routing all the way to Williams at I-40.
Probably since there was already a US highway on that stretch to begin with.
Quote from: Verlanka on May 19, 2020, 05:37:44 AM
Quote from: brad2971 on May 18, 2020, 06:31:11 PM
Quote from: sparker on May 18, 2020, 01:46:24 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 17, 2020, 09:17:31 AM
Quote from: bugo on May 17, 2020, 05:34:38 AM
If Arizona doesn't like overlaps, why was so much of AZ 93 a useless overlap?
Arizona still has some long overlaps like AZ 77/US 60. US 60/US70 were a total overlap west of Globe. The highway system basically was forced to clean up after California renumbered during 1964.
Since all of the major desert-bound radial routes from L.A./S.D. eastward were included in the Interstate System, CA's post-'64 "one route/one number" edict meant that if AZ and NV didn't cooperate, their signed US stretches (even multiplexing over and Interstate) would simply vanish at the CA state line. Of course, lags in CA Interstate construction dragged the process of field U.S. highway decommissioning out several more years. But eventually AZ not only followed CA's lead but outstripped it -- while keeping some aspects of the original US system (such as US 60 west of Phoenix) that CA would have deleted and replaced with state routes. But they also added routes after CA's big move (the US 93 extension to Wickenburg and US 160 across the NE reaches of the state), so their overall policies toward US highways is inconsistent at best. I guess a few years down the line we'll see if US 93 ceases to exist in the state when I-11 is fully developed.
I really do not understand why ADOT, instead of having US64 end at Teec Nos Pos, doesn't have US64 take over US160 from that junction, piggy back onto US89 south, then take over the current AZ64 routing all the way to Williams at I-40.
Probably since there was already a US highway on that stretch to begin with.
Two actually, everyone forgets about US 164.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 19, 2020, 08:08:56 AM
Quote from: Verlanka on May 19, 2020, 05:37:44 AM
Quote from: brad2971 on May 18, 2020, 06:31:11 PM
Quote from: sparker on May 18, 2020, 01:46:24 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 17, 2020, 09:17:31 AM
Quote from: bugo on May 17, 2020, 05:34:38 AM
If Arizona doesn't like overlaps, why was so much of AZ 93 a useless overlap?
Arizona still has some long overlaps like AZ 77/US 60. US 60/US70 were a total overlap west of Globe. The highway system basically was forced to clean up after California renumbered during 1964.
Since all of the major desert-bound radial routes from L.A./S.D. eastward were included in the Interstate System, CA's post-'64 "one route/one number" edict meant that if AZ and NV didn't cooperate, their signed US stretches (even multiplexing over and Interstate) would simply vanish at the CA state line. Of course, lags in CA Interstate construction dragged the process of field U.S. highway decommissioning out several more years. But eventually AZ not only followed CA's lead but outstripped it -- while keeping some aspects of the original US system (such as US 60 west of Phoenix) that CA would have deleted and replaced with state routes. But they also added routes after CA's big move (the US 93 extension to Wickenburg and US 160 across the NE reaches of the state), so their overall policies toward US highways is inconsistent at best. I guess a few years down the line we'll see if US 93 ceases to exist in the state when I-11 is fully developed.
I really do not understand why ADOT, instead of having US64 end at Teec Nos Pos, doesn't have US64 take over US160 from that junction, piggy back onto US89 south, then take over the current AZ64 routing all the way to Williams at I-40.
Probably since there was already a US highway on that stretch to begin with.
Two actually, everyone forgets about US 164.
IIRC, US 164 existed during the time when US 64 was gradually being extended west from Taos, NM; I believe it had gotten to Farmington and (then) US 550 about the time that the decision was made to change the number to US 163 (one of the weirder SCOURN moves). And US 160 still extended northwest from Cortez, CO to US 6/50/I-70 via Moab, UT, before the hyperextended US 191 was commissioned. The US highway network in that area looked like a shell game for a while -- and to some extent, still does! Personally, I would support the supplanting of US 160 and all of AZ 64 with US 64 -- actually give that almost-transcontinental route a real place to go (like the Grand Canyon). And bring back US 164 while one is at it -- it'd be most appropriate. I'd elaborate on other options, but this isn't Fictional! In any case, I don't think we've seen the end of route renumbering in these parts!
Quote from: sparker on May 19, 2020, 04:44:01 PM
IIRC, US 164 existed during the time when US 64 was gradually being extended west from Taos, NM; I believe it had gotten to Farmington and (then) US 550 about the time that the decision was made to change the number to US 163 (one of the weirder SCOURN moves). And US 160 still extended northwest from Cortez, CO to US 6/50/I-70 via Moab, UT, before the hyperextended US 191 was commissioned.
US 164 never really came that close to US 64 and probably was numbered out of respect for the aforementioned AZ 64, which most of US 164 had replaced. During the brief time 164 existed, US 64 dipped south at Taos along what is now NM 68 and US 84/285 to a terminus in Santa Fe. US 64 wasn't rerouted to Farmington until 1972, two years after US 164 had been absorbed into an extension of US 160.
The area's major renumbering that occurred in 1970 mainly happened because the road from Kayenta to Monticello was added to the US highway system, creating more of a continuous north-south US route corridor through southeast Utah and northeast Arizona. That was when US 160 was removed from Utah and sent southwest from Cortez to US 89 at Tuba City, replacing US 164. The road from Cortez to Monticello became an extension of US 666 (which previously had ended in Cortez), while the remainder of ex-160 from Monticello north to Crescent Junction became part of the greater Kayenta-Crescent Junction route.
Of course, that new north-south route needed a number. According to this USEnds blog post (https://www.usends.com/blog/why-and-how-the-four-corners-area-us-routes-should-be-renumbered-again), the original number assigned to that corridor was 164. But the plan that was ultimately approved by AASHO replaced that with 163. I'm not sure where I read this, but I've heard that change may have been made because somebody involved in the decision-making processes thought the odd/even number/direction guideline applied to 3dus routes (it does not).
US 191 wasn't extended south from Yellowstone until 1982, and after a couple years, all US 163 signage north of Bluff (its junction with 191) had disappeared. But UDOT didn't officially apply to AASHTO to truncate US 163 to Bluff until 2008. That was approved...but UDOT's route inventory files still have US 163 extending all the way up to Crescent Junction.
Quote from: hobsini2 on April 26, 2020, 09:17:26 PM
Quote from: kurumi on April 19, 2020, 01:43:40 PM
Quote from: Eth on April 19, 2020, 09:26:26 AM
Quote from: Hwy 61 Revisited on April 18, 2020, 10:14:24 PM
Just imagine what the multiplex of 1, 9, and 30 would be called... 1930? And if 22 were put on the route of 139 and the surface portion of 78, then it could possibly be 1-9-22-30, which would just be, pardon mon français, a clusterfuck.
Yeah, I suppose four US routes running together (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7751552,-84.3412101,3a,75y,111.51h,83.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLDKmiU7blwVbWuuDz1s4Rg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) would be a bit of a mouthful. :)
Well, look at all that traffic! That's what happens when route concurrency is allowed to run rampant :-)
Or the multiplex of 12-14-18-151 on the Beltline. https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0373377,-89.3895835,3a,75y,247.95h,79.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swxnqzeNQr0916j1MwCvSsA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en
...or the multiplex of US 56, 64, 385, and 412 west of Boise City, OK
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.6985555,-102.5531509,3a,75y,97.9h,92.21t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAr6h6P3I1kjWGXJgqm_S3A!2e0!7i3328!8i1664
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on May 20, 2020, 05:06:28 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on April 26, 2020, 09:17:26 PM
Quote from: kurumi on April 19, 2020, 01:43:40 PM
Quote from: Eth on April 19, 2020, 09:26:26 AM
Quote from: Hwy 61 Revisited on April 18, 2020, 10:14:24 PM
Just imagine what the multiplex of 1, 9, and 30 would be called... 1930? And if 22 were put on the route of 139 and the surface portion of 78, then it could possibly be 1-9-22-30, which would just be, pardon mon français, a clusterfuck.
Yeah, I suppose four US routes running together (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7751552,-84.3412101,3a,75y,111.51h,83.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLDKmiU7blwVbWuuDz1s4Rg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) would be a bit of a mouthful. :)
Well, look at all that traffic! That's what happens when route concurrency is allowed to run rampant :-)
Or the multiplex of 12-14-18-151 on the Beltline. https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0373377,-89.3895835,3a,75y,247.95h,79.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swxnqzeNQr0916j1MwCvSsA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en
...or the multiplex of US 56, 64, 385, and 412 west of Boise City, OK
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.6985555,-102.5531509,3a,75y,97.9h,92.21t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAr6h6P3I1kjWGXJgqm_S3A!2e0!7i3328!8i1664
Back about 1959, five routes were signed on the N-S freeway through San Bernardino, CA between 5th Street and Highland Ave: I-15, US 66, US 91, US 395, and SSR 18. Close behind was the first freeway segment on that route between Palm Springs and Indio: I-10, US 60, US 70, and US 99. Situations like that were the catalyst behind the movement of "one route/one number" that instigated the 1964 state renumbering effort.
Quote from: sparker on May 20, 2020, 06:37:05 PM
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on May 20, 2020, 05:06:28 PM
Quote from: hobsini2 on April 26, 2020, 09:17:26 PM
Quote from: kurumi on April 19, 2020, 01:43:40 PM
Quote from: Eth on April 19, 2020, 09:26:26 AM
Quote from: Hwy 61 Revisited on April 18, 2020, 10:14:24 PM
Just imagine what the multiplex of 1, 9, and 30 would be called... 1930? And if 22 were put on the route of 139 and the surface portion of 78, then it could possibly be 1-9-22-30, which would just be, pardon mon français, a clusterfuck.
Yeah, I suppose four US routes running together (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7751552,-84.3412101,3a,75y,111.51h,83.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLDKmiU7blwVbWuuDz1s4Rg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) would be a bit of a mouthful. :)
Well, look at all that traffic! That's what happens when route concurrency is allowed to run rampant :-)
Or the multiplex of 12-14-18-151 on the Beltline. https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0373377,-89.3895835,3a,75y,247.95h,79.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swxnqzeNQr0916j1MwCvSsA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en
...or the multiplex of US 56, 64, 385, and 412 west of Boise City, OK
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.6985555,-102.5531509,3a,75y,97.9h,92.21t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAr6h6P3I1kjWGXJgqm_S3A!2e0!7i3328!8i1664
Back about 1959, five routes were signed on the N-S freeway through San Bernardino, CA between 5th Street and Highland Ave: I-15, US 66, US 91, US 395, and SSR 18. Close behind was the first freeway segment on that route between Palm Springs and Indio: I-10, US 60, US 70, and US 99. Situations like that were the catalyst behind the movement of "one route/one number" that instigated the 1964 state renumbering effort.
While I understand CA's motivation for 1964, I think they used a hatchet when only a surgeon's scalpel would have been necessary. It probably did not make much sense for US 99 to exist south of Wheeler Ridge and N/S US 99 along the largely E-W LA-Indio corridor adds to confusion, but there was no need to totally demote US 99 to CA 99. It should have retained its US status from Wheeler Ridge north to Canada. As discussed by others upthread, US 70, absent a unique route to the beach, had no good reason to even exist West of Globe, so that can be deleted in CA. That would leave a much more manageable I-10/US 60 routing from Beaumont to Arizona, which also would have informed drivers of the Pomona Fwy as being part of a national network (and not just a local CA-60 route). A multiplex of two routes, even for a few hundred miles, isn't confusing, and is quite common around the country.
The routings along I-15 were a little more complicated and have an interesting history. With the hindsight of how the routings actually came out (especially the extension of I-15 proper through Eastern Ontario and Corona to San Diego), it would make sense to keep all of those routes along the stretch, except for US 91. So initially, US 395 and CA-18 join in Riverside and march north. The roadway adds I-15 after passing I-10, adds US 66 at 5th street, drops CA-18 two miles later at Highland, and then drops US 395 in Hesperia to continue as I-15/US 66 all the way to Barstow. But with the extension of I-15 to San Diego, it made sense to truncate US 395 in Hesperia. And with the construction of the I-15 bypass in Ontario, it would make sense to have US 66 follow that routing. This would then mean, that the only multiplexing in the area would be: the short (US) 60/215 that exists in Riverside; CA-18/I-215 from Riverside to the CA-259 fwy split; and I-15/US 66 between the current 15/210 interchange and Barstow. These are much more manageable multiplexes and would not have led to widespread confusion.
[CA-91 west of Riverside would be part of CA-18, CA-259 would also be part of CA-18.]
^^^^^^^^^^^^
It's possible that DOH -- and later Caltrans -- may have made an exception to their non-multiplex post-'64 policy and allowed US 99 to be co-signed with I-5 as far south as Red Bluff, where it would diverge -- but almost certainly the 99E/W split would have been jettisoned in favor of the route currently occupied by CA 99. But the mid-60's decision by OR to decommission US 99 in that state probably tipped the scales toward recasting the US route as a state highway. US 99 signage hung on on the Wheeler Ridge-Sacramento section until the fall of 1966, while US 99W signage north of I-80 persisted until I-5 was completed in the Sacramento Valley about 1973; US 99 signage also could be found until the mid-70's on the last remaining 2-lane sections of the old road until about 1975, when the Anderson Grade section bypassing now-CA 263 was completed. But once I-5 was effectively done (the Sacramento Canyon expressway segment, not fully completed until 1992, notwithstanding), US 99 shields were also gone.
While nostalgia/historical buffs may decry any lack of effort on the part of Caltrans to recommission US 99 over CA 99, it wouldn't really fulfill any functional or navigational purpose; CA 99 has been, more or less, where it has since the green spades were erected over its full length in 1966 -- now almost 55 years ago. All that being said -- I'd welcome the posting of prominent Historical US 66 and Historical US 99 signage over those sections of the original highway that were physically overlaid by the freeway. In the case of US 66, that would include the state line west to the original alignment, Ludlow west to Newberry Springs, and Victorville to just below CA 138 (the Cleghorne exit). The original surface alignment is extant, continuous, and accessible elsewhere. In the case of US 99, the "business routes" through the various cities -- where possible -- would be signed as part of the historical alignment, as well as the intervening freeway sections of CA 99. If by chance I-7 or I-9 ever supplants CA 99 in the Valley below Sacramento or Stockton, the historical signage would be even more significant, as it would preserve the number itself (Maybe the new US 99 Historical Society can take up this concept).