Title.
For me, it's US 66. I understand why they did it, but why 66 and not say, US 11? or US 5? I'm even bummed out they got rid of US 99.
None. The more pointless US routes they decommission, the better. I have a laundry list I'd like to get rid of - 5, 9 (or move 9 onto GSP), 11, 46, 206, much of 220, much of 20, much of 1, I'm sure there are more as you go further south and west...
Quote from: Ketchup99 on September 15, 2020, 03:00:23 PM
None. The more pointless US routes they decommission, the better. I have a laundry list I'd like to get rid of - 5, 9 (or move 9 onto GSP), 11, 46, 206, much of 220, much of 20, much of 1, I'm sure there are more as you go further south and west...
What routes would those become, though? US routes that parallel Interstates in the Northeast are fairly major routes on their own.
61 north of St. Paul
Quote from: 1 on September 15, 2020, 03:02:10 PM
Quote from: Ketchup99 on September 15, 2020, 03:00:23 PM
None. The more pointless US routes they decommission, the better. I have a laundry list I'd like to get rid of - 5, 9 (or move 9 onto GSP), 11, 46, 206, much of 220, much of 20, much of 1, I'm sure there are more as you go further south and west...
What routes would those become, though? US routes that parallel Interstates in the Northeast are fairly major routes on their own.
State routes, presumably - or maybe just normal roads. The major parts through cities could become Interstate business routes, but a US Route is supposed to, in my mind, be an important corridor in and of itself. If we take the example of US 1 in Connecticut (which I'd like to decommission), Route 1 is no longer an important corridor - I-95 is the important corridor, and US 1 is used exclusively by local traffic, not long-distance traffic. The ideal US route, in my view, would be something like US 6 from Hartford to Providence, US 13 from Wilmington to Norfolk, US 15 from Harrisburg to Frederick, or US 22 from Pittsburgh to Altoona - long-distance through routes that do not have an Interstate. If you're looking at, for instance, the corridor from Hagerstown to Harrisburg, the main route already has a number - I-81. There's no use for US 11. Same goes with my prior example, US 1 from New York to Boston - the through corridor is I-95, and the old Post Road is no longer a major through route. Not every local road with a lot of traffic is a US route, and Route 1 is an (albeit very long) local road.
I think that, if an Interstate bypasses the towns along the corridor but the US Route goes through them, then the US Route still deserves its designation.
Take, for example, US-40 between Saint Louis and Terre Haute. US-40 is the route that actually goes from town to town to town. I-70 just bypasses them all a mile or two outside of town.
I'm not entirely in favor of eliminating sections like US 16 and 61 that have long independent sections interrupted by interstates, but those parallel roads don't need to be under state control in these parts and I don't object to relocations onto interstates. These are local roads serving local traffic. If people have to get off in an emergency, they're getting right back on the interstate at the first chance they can.
I'm not even opposed to gaps in US Routes, if there's a long gap between two important sections of roadway. Take US 22 in Pennsylvania, for instance - the Steubenville-Pittsburgh-Hollidaysburg section is what I'd call a "major" US Route, Hollidaysburg-Lewistown is a minor highway where the faster way is via 99 and 322, the Lehigh Valley Thruway is major, and everything else is basically local roads. So why don't we keep the western part of US 22, demote the middle section to PA 22 (to signify its lesser importance), decommission the Lewistown-Harrisburg-Allentown routing (part is concurrent with 322, part is concurrent with 78, and part is local), and then keep US 22 on the Thruway?
1st reply and the thread already got derailed. I love it here :-D
Most of the decommissionings/truncations in Indiana disappointed me.
In Indiana, a road can't be signed as a state highway unless it's owned and maintained by INDOT. Because the state wants to focus on roads that connect cities rather than roads through cities (which is fine from a financial standpoint), there are a lot of seemingly random route endings, and there are no signed business routes.
Some of the worst:
The central IN 4 ends at the Goshen city limits rather than continuing to IN 15
IN 22 now has separate segments ending on each end of Kokomo rather than being continuous
IN 26 now has separate segments ending on each end of Lafayette rather than being continuous
IN 120 now ends at the Elkhart city limits rather than continuing to Bus US 20
IN 933 now ends at the Elkhart/St Joseph county line
PA 115's truncation from Easton to Brodheadsville is kinda sad. It would be nice to have a surface alternative to 33, as well as another traffic route through Easton. It could possibly be a route number for Exit 75 on I-78.
Quote from: CapeCodder on September 15, 2020, 02:53:39 PM
Title.
For me, it's US 66. I understand why they did it, but why 66 and not say, US 11? or US 5? I'm even bummed out they got rid of US 99.
This is pretty much Fictional Highways territory, but I'm disappointed they didn't just use the 66 number for the Interstate upgrade of the whole route. It would have fit the grid just fine, but I guess they were married to the perceived importance of I-15, 40, and 55. They could have even extended it along either what's now I-80 or the string of tollways from IL to NJ, and people probably would have been cool with that, because then you'd have a single, well known number for an LA-Chicagoland-New York-area Interstate.
A younger me would have wished they had kept US 66 and allowed it to run concurrently with the Interstates, but these days, I'd say that's a needless doubling of route shields, and now I lean toward the opinion that it's better to just let the US Highway system be gradually phased out.
CA 130 being relinquished to Mount Hamilton Road. The relinquishment agreement stipulated that San Jose would maintain signage on Alum Rock but they pretty much immediately did the opposite and tore it all down.
Probably the first I was "disappointed" by was US 10 when it was truncated to Bay City, Michigan from Detroit. My parents and I would travel the triplex of I-75, US 23, and US 10 one or two times per summer. I know it was a hundred mile overlap with I-75, but it was cool to see US 10 end in Detroit.
I have similar feelings about the decommissioning of US 27 in Michigan (and Old 27 north of Grayling), though it was a defensible change to create US 127 as a through route.
In Sault Ste Marie, Ontario, there used to be a Highway 17B loop and spur through the city. It was signed both east-west (east of downtown) and north-south (north of downtown). The spur to the International Bridge was "directionally" signed as "bridge". I was sorry to see that route decommissioned because it was a unique business route.
In my home state of Ohio, it was the truncation of Ohio 10 from US 20 in Kipton through Oberlin to southeast of Elyria when I was a kid. I got over that.
Now my ire is towards the decommissioning of US 223 in Toledo and its new terminus at the Monroe Street exit ramp. ODOT may as well have kept the US 223 designation to downtown Toledo since they redesignated the route as an extension of State Route 51. I don't think it saved any maintenance money, and just made a two-state 3du into essentially a single-state one.
Finally, in my current state of Colorado, I'm disappointed in CDOT's decommissioning of US 85 in Colorado Springs. Specifically I'm referring to the Venetucci Blvd section where they truncated US 85 to the I-25 overpass, and the implied overlap with I-25 begins/ends there with no exit. In my view, they should have kept Venetucci on the state system and had US 85 rejoin I-25 at Lake Street.
Probably made sense at the time, but VA 44 (the second one, near Richmond) being dropped just looks silly in retrospect, given the explosive growth along its corridor within the past 30 years.
M-107. Now the highway is in danger from erosion issues, and the county road commission is going to struggle to repair it.
Quote from: Ketchup99 on September 15, 2020, 04:22:43 PM
I'm not even opposed to gaps in US Routes, if there's a long gap between two important sections of roadway. Take US 22 in Pennsylvania, for instance - the Steubenville-Pittsburgh-Hollidaysburg section is what I'd call a "major" US Route, Hollidaysburg-Lewistown is a minor highway where the faster way is via 99 and 322, the Lehigh Valley Thruway is major, and everything else is basically local roads. So why don't we keep the western part of US 22, demote the middle section to PA 22 (to signify its lesser importance), decommission the Lewistown-Harrisburg-Allentown routing (part is concurrent with 322, part is concurrent with 78, and part is local), and then keep US 22 on the Thruway?
I agree. e.g. US 87 why not just have two parts of 87 instead of a several state duplex?
When MN 110 was decommissioned, US 212 should have been extended and not MN 62. Or MN 110 should have taken over MN 62.
I'll add a few local ones to this list.
KS 150 in Johnson County. A victim of Kansas's "a state route cannot lie entirely within single or multiple contiguous city limits policy" garbage. If KDOT had better vision, this could have been made into a much better, faster-flowing arterial highway, probably with Michigan Lefts, instead of the congested conventional arterial that much of 135th Street/Santa Fe Street has become. It could have provided a good east-west arterial to connect to the MO 150 expressway.
KS 12 in Johnson County. Similar issue. The arterial road between the eastern end of the Shawnee Mission Parkway freeway and I-35 could have also been designed for better flow, instead of using so many 4-phase traffic signals. Perhaps the frontage roads could have been used for jughandles.
KS 10 in Douglas and Shawnee Counties. Didn't this use to follow what is now US 40 between K-4 and the current K-10? If KDOT had kept it as K-10, US 40 could have followed US 24 instead, giving US 40 a much more logical route instead of the crap routing through Lawrence. [Fictional Highways]Although, I'd still prefer changing the number from K-10 to K-870, or maybe even K-470, making it a state-route continuation of I-470, which could then flow into the southern leg of I-435, which goes to Missouri's I-470.[/Fictional Highways]
Not technically decommissioned, but US 90 through Houston, no signage from the East Loop (I-610) until you hit Katy.
As far as actually decommissioned, US 66 and the portion of US 75 that used to run south of Dallas. I fear eventually US 59 through Houston will make this list as well...
Three of them stick out: US 66, 99 and 91.
Old US-81 north of Wichita (https://goo.gl/maps/QtZwvLMurhNvrpLW8) could have remained a state highway, in my opinion, because it's still a useful link.
Between Wichita and Newton, it's still four lanes. Northwest of Newton, it connects North Newton, Hesston, Moundridge, McPherson, and Lindsborg–all the towns I-135 bypasses.
AADT counts:
2630 = Wichita—Newton
3550 = Newton—Zimmerdale
3660 = Zimmerdale—Hesston
1700 = Hesston—Moundridge
1075 = Moundridge—Elyria
1270 = Elyria—McPherson
3215 = McPherson—Lindsborg
By way of comparison, K-17 south of Hutchinson tops out at 1630 AADT, and K-141 in Ellsworth County tops out at 490 AADT.
MO 465. Not only did they give up on finishing the Branson Beltway, they didn't even come up with a plan to reconfigure the west end to lead directly into its new number mainline, MO 76 West. Google Maps still labels the Strip through Branson as 76 as well as the bypass, despite 76 being completely removed from the Strip except for its name.
I once came up with an idea of how the mainline could be realigned to lead old 76 directly into new 76 instead of 376 with a three-level stack interchange (https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1exCzTCtnMh5Vv7sdnD4NqvRX5ghWK8dM&usp=sharing), but that's purely Fictional territory unless realignment is actually considered.
Quote from: Takumi on September 15, 2020, 10:31:17 PM
Probably made sense at the time, but VA 44 (the second one, near Richmond) being dropped just looks silly in retrospect, given the explosive growth along its corridor within the past 30 years.
Go back much further. When I lived in the Cloverleaf area back in the mid-1980's, SR-711 Huguenot Trail (Robious Road in Chesterfield County) was well-known as the best way west from South-of-the-James. (Think SR-711 to US-522 to I-64 west). Things improved somewhat when VA-76 Powhite Parkway opened up, if you could afford the tolls. It wasn't until VA-288 opened up all the way to I-64 as a Super Two in the early-2000's that SR-711 started to lose its regional importance as a major thoroughfare. But it would have been a traffic mess if it had been trailblazed as a state route.
(Back in those days, I was more adventuresome and often took US-60 to Lexington or US-522 to VA-6 as my primary routes west. I-64 was still 55MPH, so anything shorter was comparable time-wise, especially for a curve-hugging hillbilly from West Virginia).
US-21 through west-central West Virginia. Unfortunately, two facts killed the route: (1) I-77 in Ohio resulted in the old routing being disconnected too many times; and (2) US-21 was entirely multiplexed with other US routes south of Charleston. But the decommissioning of US-21 north of Charleston resulted in most of the suburban growth to push down into Teays Valley (my neck of the woods). I might be wrong, but I think that out-of-state transplants would have been equally likely to relocate north of Charleston along the I-77 corridor if it were perceived to have been a major route alongside the interstate.
[More on this topic in the West Virginia thread].
None as of now, but I would be disappointed beyond description if I-180 in Wyoming is decomissioned.
Quote from: thspfc on September 16, 2020, 02:20:21 PM
None as of now, but I would be disappointed beyond description if I-180 in Wyoming is decomissioned.
That's a special 3di
Special enough to ride the short bus.
Quote from: texaskdog on September 16, 2020, 02:57:22 AM
Quote from: Ketchup99 on September 15, 2020, 04:22:43 PM
I'm not even opposed to gaps in US Routes, if there's a long gap between two important sections of roadway. Take US 22 in Pennsylvania, for instance - the Steubenville-Pittsburgh-Hollidaysburg section is what I'd call a "major" US Route, Hollidaysburg-Lewistown is a minor highway where the faster way is via 99 and 322, the Lehigh Valley Thruway is major, and everything else is basically local roads. So why don't we keep the western part of US 22, demote the middle section to PA 22 (to signify its lesser importance), decommission the Lewistown-Harrisburg-Allentown routing (part is concurrent with 322, part is concurrent with 78, and part is local), and then keep US 22 on the Thruway?
I agree. e.g. US 87 why not just have two parts of 87 instead of a several state duplex?
From Raton, NM to Billings, MT, functionally US 87 is duplicated by I-25 and I-90. The short "independent" segments of US 87 in WY notwithstanding (they could easily be state routes or elongated business loops), the "two 87's" would have all of two relatively large-sized states between them. It would seem optimal to truncate US 87 at Raton and re-sign the MT segment as something like US 289, given that 87 currently strikes out in two directions from US 89 at or near Great Falls. This may be perceived as blasphemy in some quarters, but maintaining Interstate/US multiplexing designations simply for honorific purposes seems gratuitous and wasteful. Now I can see US 87 signed as a multiplex with I-27 in TX, since it's only 120+ miles and US 87 has value as a connector from both ends of that multiplex. But 765 miles between Raton and Billings? Unless the driver's one of us and wants to clinch US 87, I have serious doubts about the commonality of traffic flow between the relevant sections.
Now -- if someone in TxDOT will consider 86'ing their rather vexing section of US 85 (or just re-designating it more appropriately) its southern terminus could effectively be a hair north of Castle Rock (CO). Conversely and closer to home -- Caltrans/DOH could have "saved" US 99 within the state, seeing that the northern part of the state route (Sacramento-Red Bluff vicinity) brings the total in-state independent mileage up to about 418, well over the 300 needed for in-state route retention. But in their infinite wisdom (cough) they didn't do so; it's likely that the thinking at the time was that if it didn't cross state lines under the renumbering plan, it wouldn't remain a US route. Now US 99 is more than just gratuitously historic -- it's the effective "last leg" of the '30's "dust bowl" migration out to CA! But since Caltrans has now effectively decided that the only numbering change to be applied to that route will be, at some point in the future, I-7 or I-9 -- period, the best one can hope for is the posting of "historic" US 99 signage along the route -- even if it's along a newly-anointed Interstate. If I'm still around, and health permitting, I'd be out there (if it weren't 100+ degrees!) with a power wrench, bolts, and straps to help get it done!
Quote from: stridentweasel on September 15, 2020, 05:45:25 PM
Quote from: CapeCodder on September 15, 2020, 02:53:39 PM
Title.
For me, it's US 66. I understand why they did it, but why 66 and not say, US 11? or US 5? I'm even bummed out they got rid of US 99.
This is pretty much Fictional Highways territory, but I'm disappointed they didn't just use the 66 number for the Interstate upgrade of the whole route. It would have fit the grid just fine, but I guess they were married to the perceived importance of I-15, 40, and 55. They could have even extended it along either what's now I-80 or the string of tollways from IL to NJ, and people probably would have been cool with that, because then you'd have a single, well known number for an LA-Chicagoland-New York-area Interstate.
A younger me would have wished they had kept US 66 and allowed it to run concurrently with the Interstates, but these days, I'd say that's a needless doubling of route shields, and now I lean toward the opinion that it's better to just let the US Highway system be gradually phased out.
It will be a very long time, if ever, if the US highway system would be phased out. A lot of US highways fill in voids still left by the interstate system. For example in both Mississippi and Alabama, US 49 fills the gap between Jackson and Gulfport if one is traveling to Florida (avoiding the 2 lane section of US 98 in Alabama next to the AL/MS border). In Alabama, US 231 is a good link between Montgomery and Dothan, and then to I-10 (and eventually Panama City) in Florida...I-65 shunts the drivers all the way to Mobile.
Getting back on topics of decommissioning of highways, the decommissioning US 66 is by far the worst thing that could have happened. Truncation is one thing and it makes sense to truncate the west end to El Reno, OK where it juts off from I-40 and the east end would be Joplin, MO. But to nix the whole thing, I think someone at FHWA just wanted US 66 gone.
There is a ton of truck traffic on US 72 and with more warehouses being built in northwest MS along the route, there will be even more in the future.
US 99 is another one that should have been truncated instead of being axed.
Quote from: capt.ron on September 17, 2020, 11:48:29 AM
Quote from: stridentweasel on September 15, 2020, 05:45:25 PM
Quote from: CapeCodder on September 15, 2020, 02:53:39 PM
Title.
For me, it's US 66. I understand why they did it, but why 66 and not say, US 11? or US 5? I'm even bummed out they got rid of US 99.
This is pretty much Fictional Highways territory, but I'm disappointed they didn't just use the 66 number for the Interstate upgrade of the whole route. It would have fit the grid just fine, but I guess they were married to the perceived importance of I-15, 40, and 55. They could have even extended it along either what's now I-80 or the string of tollways from IL to NJ, and people probably would have been cool with that, because then you'd have a single, well known number for an LA-Chicagoland-New York-area Interstate.
A younger me would have wished they had kept US 66 and allowed it to run concurrently with the Interstates, but these days, I'd say that's a needless doubling of route shields, and now I lean toward the opinion that it's better to just let the US Highway system be gradually phased out.
It will be a very long time, if ever, if the US highway system would be phased out. A lot of US highways fill in voids still left by the interstate system. For example in both Mississippi and Alabama, US 49 fills the gap between Jackson and Gulfport if one is traveling to Florida (avoiding the 2 lane section of US 98 in Alabama next to the AL/MS border). In Alabama, US 231 is a good link between Montgomery and Dothan, and then to I-10 (and eventually Panama City) in Florida...I-65 shunts the drivers all the way to Mobile.
Getting back on topics of decommissioning of highways, the decommissioning US 66 is by far the worst thing that could have happened. Truncation is one thing and it makes sense to truncate the west end to El Reno, OK where it juts off from I-40 and the east end would be Joplin, MO. But to nix the whole thing, I think someone at FHWA just wanted US 66 gone.
There is a ton of truck traffic on US 72 and with more warehouses being built in northwest MS along the route, there will be even more in the future.
US 99 is another one that should have been truncated instead of being axed.
US 209, although somewhat undeserving of having federal highway status, is still an important connector between Millersburg, Pottsville, Jim Thorpe/Lehighton, Stroudsburg, and Milford. I personally might want it downgraded to state route, but you can't have it all.
Quote from: kphoger on September 16, 2020, 04:22:31 PM
Special enough to ride the short bus.
Sorry phoger, but as an autistic person, that personally offends me. :no:
Quote from: Hwy 61 Revisited on September 17, 2020, 11:59:05 AM
Sorry phoger, but as an autistic person, that personally offends me.
:no:
Yeah, that was sophomoric of me, evisited. Sorry.
Speaking of US 61, I never understood why it was decommissioned north of I-35 up to the Canadian border. You'd think such a corridor was worthy of a US designation, no?
Quote from: Dirt Roads on September 16, 2020, 12:09:55 PM
Quote from: Takumi on September 15, 2020, 10:31:17 PM
Probably made sense at the time, but VA 44 (the second one, near Richmond) being dropped just looks silly in retrospect, given the explosive growth along its corridor within the past 30 years.
Go back much further. When I lived in the Cloverleaf area back in the mid-1980's, SR-711 Huguenot Trail (Robious Road in Chesterfield County) was well-known as the best way west from South-of-the-James. (Think SR-711 to US-522 to I-64 west). Things improved somewhat when VA-76 Powhite Parkway opened up, if you could afford the tolls. It wasn't until VA-288 opened up all the way to I-64 as a Super Two in the early-2000's that SR-711 started to lose its regional importance as a major thoroughfare. But it would have been a traffic mess if it had been trailblazed as a state route.
(Back in those days, I was more adventuresome and often took US-60 to Lexington or US-522 to VA-6 as my primary routes west. I-64 was still 55MPH, so anything shorter was comparable time-wise, especially for a curve-hugging hillbilly from West Virginia).
Arguably, had it still been primary at the time, it could have been four-laned earlier and further than it is now. It's four lanes all the way from 60 to 288 now, the last segment around the county line having opened earlier this year, and absolutely feels like a primary route. I think re-upgrading it to primary at least east of 288 is plausible.
Quote from: LilianaUwU on September 17, 2020, 12:24:45 PM
Speaking of US 61, I never understood why it was decommissioned north of I-35 up to the Canadian border. You'd think such a corridor was worthy of a US designation, no?
I know, it's ridiculous! Instead it just got decommissioned and segmented into a US route and a state route.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on September 16, 2020, 12:19:18 PM
US-21 through west-central West Virginia. Unfortunately, two facts killed the route: (1) I-77 in Ohio resulted in the old routing being disconnected too many times; and (2) US-21 was entirely multiplexed with other US routes south of Charleston. But the decommissioning of US-21 north of Charleston resulted in most of the suburban growth to push down into Teays Valley (my neck of the woods). I might be wrong, but I think that out-of-state transplants would have been equally likely to relocate north of Charleston along the I-77 corridor if it were perceived to have been a major route alongside the interstate.
In the Charleston, West Virginia thread https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=27680.0 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=27680.0), S. P. Cook disagrees with me (and I certainly respect his opinion on this one). However, the dialog between us reminded me of an crazy perspective on my post: Decommissioning US-21 north of Charleston turned Sissonville from an exoburb into "Buck Wild".
Quote from: DandyDan on September 16, 2020, 04:33:43 AM
When MN 110 was decommissioned, US 212 should have been extended and not MN 62. Or MN 110 should have taken over MN 62.
I second extending US-212. The Crosstown is an integral part of the Twin Cities' highway network.
As a kid in Connecticut I was disappointed by US Routes that were either truncated or decommissioned through the state's cities. Examples include U5 5 in New Haven, US 5A in Hartford, and US 6A in both Waterbury and Meriden. A related example is rerouting US 6 onto I-84 through Hartford with the bare minimum amount of signage.
Is there a reason US 222 has a state route 222 at either end? It seems sort of pointless to do that.
I wish California had left US 40, 50, 60, and 6 as full cross country routes.
When I-99 does take over US 15 N of Williamsport, I certainly wish US 15 was allowed to take over its old parallel alignment. I think it's good to have parallel alignments to major highways with numbers in case there's a detour, or for simple following from one exit to another for local traffic.
I don't like any of the Indiana truncations like US 33 where there's still state route 933, etc.
Quote from: sbeaver44 on September 20, 2020, 09:14:10 PM
Is there a reason US 222 has a state route 222 at either end? It seems sort of pointless to do that.
I wish California had left US 40, 50, 60, and 6 as full cross country routes.
When I-99 does take over US 15 N of Williamsport, I certainly wish US 15 was allowed to take over its old parallel alignment. I think it's good to have parallel alignments to major highways with numbers in case there's a detour, or for simple following from one exit to another for local traffic.
I don't like any of the Indiana truncations like US 33 where there's still state route 933, etc.
Regarding US 50 the terminus at I-80 is very fitting. US 40 didn't stand a chance with the long multiplex and was the driver that cut back US 6 as also. US 60 might had made it if CA 62 had been developed earlier. US 70 should have never been in California in the first place. US 80 in theory could have gotten close to California given it had a somewhat viable routing in Arizona. US 99 could have stuck around in theory but it likely was doomed because there was no way to get it to a State Line. US 299 and US 399 never made it out of California. US 466 only had independent utility west of I-15.
All of them.
QuoteIs there a reason US 222 has a state route 222 at either end? It seems sort of pointless to do that.
PA 222 exists because AASHTO would not let US 222 be extended to end at PA 145 in Allentown.
I checked MDRoads to see if there was more information on MD 222, but my best guess is that US 222 was truncated by MDSHA to keep trucks out of Port Deposit due to a low railroad bridge. It may have fared better to make MD 222 be MD 275 north of the current MD 222/MD 275/MD 824 intersection and have US 222 follow US 1 to MD 273 to MD 276 to MD 275. I believe that this was previously a MD 222 TRUCK, but it is just posted now as "TO I-95/US 40" SB and "TO US 222 NB" NB (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.689743,-76.1322997,3a,75y,80.41h,76.87t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suzOFY3X54lMQy3V-PrLL2A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).
Quote from: 74/171FAN on October 02, 2020, 01:46:00 PM
QuoteIs there a reason US 222 has a state route 222 at either end? It seems sort of pointless to do that.
PA 222 exists because AASHTO would not let US 222 be extended to end at PA 145 in Allentown.
I checked MDRoads to see if there was more information on MD 222, but my best guess is that US 222 was truncated by MDSHA to keep trucks out of Post Deposit due to a low railroad bridge. It may have fared better to make MD 222 be MD 275 north of the current MD 222/MD 275/MD 824 intersection and have followed US 1 to MD 222 to MD 276 to MD 275. I believe that this was previously a MD 222 TRUCK, but it is just posted now as "TO I-95/US 40" SB and "TO US 222 NB" NB (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.689743,-76.1322997,3a,75y,80.41h,76.87t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suzOFY3X54lMQy3V-PrLL2A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).
The 1995 MD application to truncate US 222 to US 1 confirms this explanation.
https://na4.visualvault.com/app/AASHTO/Default/documentviewer?DhID=cfd00017-04d5-ea11-a98a-ff9beffbfef8&hidemenu=true
The 1990 PA application to extend US 222 to downtown Allentown didn't make much sense to me really. They explicitly said they did not want to extend it all the way to US 22.
https://na4.visualvault.com/app/AASHTO/Default/documentviewer?DhID=70879896-02d5-ea11-a98a-ff9beffbfef8&hidemenu=true
Quote from: sparker on September 17, 2020, 05:44:00 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on September 16, 2020, 02:57:22 AM
I agree. e.g. US 87 why not just have two parts of 87 instead of a several state duplex?
From Raton, NM to Billings, MT, functionally US 87 is duplicated by I-25 and I-90. The short "independent" segments of US 87 in WY notwithstanding (they could easily be state routes or elongated business loops), the "two 87's" would have all of two relatively large-sized states between them. It would seem optimal to truncate US 87 at Raton and re-sign the MT segment as something like US 289, given that 87 currently strikes out in two directions from US 89 at or near Great Falls. This may be perceived as blasphemy in some quarters, but maintaining Interstate/US multiplexing designations simply for honorific purposes seems gratuitous and wasteful. Now I can see US 87 signed as a multiplex with I-27 in TX, since it's only 120+ miles and US 87 has value as a connector from both ends of that multiplex. But 765 miles between Raton and Billings? Unless the driver's one of us and wants to clinch US 87, I have serious doubts about the commonality of traffic flow between the relevant sections.
If US 87 was truncated at Raton, NM, there wouldn't be a need for a new 3dus like US 289. US 310 currently terminates in Laurel, MT, about 15 miles from where US 87 leaves the I-90 duplex. It would be trivial to duplex US 310 from its current terminus to follow current US 87 to its terminus in Havre, MT.
* NE 370 east of US 75 and all of IA 370
* US 460 west of Frankfort, KY: While the Indiana portion stayed fairly close to I-64 and was lower quality, the Illinois portion strays a decent amount from I-64
US 113 north of ilford, DE.
Quote from: DJ Particle on September 18, 2020, 12:29:20 AM
Quote from: DandyDan on September 16, 2020, 04:33:43 AM
When MN 110 was decommissioned, US 212 should have been extended and not MN 62. Or MN 110 should have taken over MN 62.
I second extending US-212. The Crosstown is an integral part of the Twin Cities' highway network.
A bit before my time, but I am somewhat disappointed that US 16 in Wisconsin and Minnesota had to become WI 16 and MN 16 (should that eastern part have become, let's say, 'US 116' instead?), respectively, back in the late 1970s. I'm not disappointed at the past and near term potential future cutbacks of US 141, though.
As for US 212, I wouldn't mind seeing it being extended eastward to replace WI 29 and WI 32 to end at I-41 (Shawano Interchange) in the Green Bay, WI area.
Mike
Quote from: Revive 755 on October 02, 2020, 11:32:20 PM
* NE 370 east of US 75 and all of IA 370
* US 460 west of Frankfort, KY: While the Indiana portion stayed fairly close to I-64 and was lower quality, the Illinois portion strays a decent amount from I-64
As a resident of Papillion, NE when NE 370 was decommissioned, I was disappointed, but not really surprised. For the exact same reason, the old route of US 34 through Plattsmouth should have become an extension of NE 66.
WI-24 now at ends at a county line so illogical ditto for VA-108.
WI-163 it leaves a huge hole without a state highway. Not a fan of that.
IA-91 orphans MN-91 not a fan of that. Also the southern IA-15 orphans MO-15.
Many of the gaps INDOT created in the cities. At least they could still be signed to keep continuous routes. What is the gap on IN-144 all about?
Were the 2 OH-152's ever connected? If so than that.
Few others I would change if I could but those are the ones that bother me the most.
Quote from: dvferyance on October 06, 2020, 08:42:08 PM
WI-24 now at ends at a county line so illogical ditto for VA-108.
WI-163 it leaves a huge hole without a state highway. Not a fan of that.
IA-91 orphans MN-91 not a fan of that. Also the southern IA-15 orphans MO-15.
Many of the gaps INDOT created in the cities. At least they could still be signed to keep continuous routes. What is the gap on IN-144 all about?
Were the 2 OH-152's ever connected? If so than that.
Few others I would change if I could but those are the ones that bother me the most.
WI-24 should be decomissioned IMO. As for WI-163, if the traffic doesn't support it being a state highway, and if it's not an important corridor beyond the communities it connects, then why keep it?
Quote from: dvferyance on October 06, 2020, 08:42:08 PM
IA-91 orphans MN-91 not a fan of that.
My Aunt Sue lives not far from MN-91 in SW Minnesota. When I lived in Nebraska and I would drive to her farm, I'd always look for IA-91 on IA-9. It's a lot harder looking for a county road, although I do believe there is signage pointing the way to Ellsworth, MN, which I went through to get to my aunt's farm.
As a more general statement, the 2003 Iowa highway decommissionings, of which IA-91 was one, were disappointing, also some more so than others.
Quote from: dvferyance on October 06, 2020, 08:42:08 PM
WI-24 now at ends at a county line so illogical ditto for VA-108.
If I-73 ever gets going north of Martinsville VA then there would be a more logical endpoint for VA 108 to have then a secondary route intersection 1.1 miles south of a county line.
The supposed removal of I-70 between I-695 and the Park and Ride just west of Baltimore, although whether this occurred at all is disputed.
QuoteWI-24 now at ends at a county line so illogical ditto for VA-108.
Well VA 162 (http://www.vahighways.com/route-log/va162.htm) was truncated to the York/James City County Line in 1993 turning this into so short of a route that I drove to the nearby McDonald's and turned around when I clinched it (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.2734986,-76.6828564,3a,75y,249.56h,96.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1QStadzY85YlXLtEwIoi1w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).
US-10 going to Detroit.
US-25 going to Port Austin.
US-27 going to Cheboygan.
I-75 can mainly be thanked for scaling these routes back along with a couple other highways.
Quote from: dvferyance on October 06, 2020, 08:42:08 PM
IA-91 orphans MN-91 not a fan of that. Also the southern IA-15 orphans MO-15.
Michigan does that to OH-120 and IN-120. Former M-120 was in between, now a state highway in another part of the state.
Quote from: thspfc on October 06, 2020, 08:46:01 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on October 06, 2020, 08:42:08 PM
WI-24 now at ends at a county line so illogical ditto for VA-108.
WI-163 it leaves a huge hole without a state highway. Not a fan of that.
IA-91 orphans MN-91 not a fan of that. Also the southern IA-15 orphans MO-15.
Many of the gaps INDOT created in the cities. At least they could still be signed to keep continuous routes. What is the gap on IN-144 all about?
Were the 2 OH-152's ever connected? If so than that.
Few others I would change if I could but those are the ones that bother me the most.
WI-24 should be decomissioned IMO. As for WI-163, if the traffic doesn't support it being a state highway, and if it's not an important corridor beyond the communities it connects, then why keep it?
WI-163 was a state highway for along time. I am just not a fan of huge holes without state highways regardless of traffic counts. And I am sure you could fine other state highways with similar or even lower traffic counts. I should not I would also extend WI-96 back east to end at WI-163. As for WI-24 it's plenty busy enough to keep it a state highway. I would just end it in Big Bend to give it a logical endpoint. That is just how I feel I know there are some who disagree.
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 07, 2020, 11:35:20 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on October 06, 2020, 08:42:08 PM
IA-91 orphans MN-91 not a fan of that. Also the southern IA-15 orphans MO-15.
Michigan does that to OH-120 and IN-120. Former M-120 was in between, now a state highway in another part of the state.
I didn't think of that one otherwise that one would also be on my list. Bring back the real M-120 and the current M-120 can be M-128 since that was the lowest number never used in the state. I would also bring back M-205 so IN-19 would not be orphaned. It was only like what a mile long big deal saving MDOT one mile of maintaince cost.
US-33 in Michigan
Quote from: dvferyance on October 07, 2020, 01:29:12 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 07, 2020, 11:35:20 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on October 06, 2020, 08:42:08 PM
IA-91 orphans MN-91 not a fan of that. Also the southern IA-15 orphans MO-15.
Michigan does that to OH-120 and IN-120. Former M-120 was in between, now a state highway in another part of the state.
I didn't think of that one otherwise that one would also be on my list. Bring back the real M-120 and the current M-120 can be M-128 since that was the lowest number never used in the state. I would also bring back M-205 so IN-19 would not be orphaned. It was only like what a mile long big deal saving MDOT one mile of maintaince cost.
Almost two miles I think. Indiana does it back to Michigan with M-217 becoming a County Road in Indiana.
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 08, 2020, 01:03:37 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on October 07, 2020, 01:29:12 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on October 07, 2020, 11:35:20 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on October 06, 2020, 08:42:08 PM
IA-91 orphans MN-91 not a fan of that. Also the southern IA-15 orphans MO-15.
Michigan does that to OH-120 and IN-120. Former M-120 was in between, now a state highway in another part of the state.
I didn't think of that one otherwise that one would also be on my list. Bring back the real M-120 and the current M-120 can be M-128 since that was the lowest number never used in the state. I would also bring back M-205 so IN-19 would not be orphaned. It was only like what a mile long big deal saving MDOT one mile of maintaince cost.
Almost two miles I think. Indiana does it back to Michigan with M-217 becoming a County Road in Indiana.
CR 17 was never a state highway though (but really ought to be), so M-217 really orphaned itself.
US 66 should at least still exist from Victorville CA to Ash Fork AZ. The road alone has inspired songs, a TV show, and countless kitschy collectable trinkets. It's far enough from the interstates to have inspired Pixar's Cars after its decommissioning. Driving the old highway is quite popular with tourists, including a lot of foreign tourists. CA 66 still runs along Foothill Blvd between San Dimas and San Bernardino, but it's mostly an ugly suburban racetrack with strip malls and crappy chain restaurants. It may be decommissioned from being CA 66 at this point; just marked that way in Google Maps and marked by "Historic 66" signs. (When there are signs at all. Caltrans often doesn't mark routes in urban environments.) It might attract more tourists if the new recommissioned US 66 ran west from Victorville by some routing to the Santa Monica Pier.
I still think more US highways need to be decommissioned than restored.
MA 126 to Chelmsford.
Quote from: skluth on October 08, 2020, 05:20:12 PM
US 66 ... might attract more tourists if the new recommissioned US 66 ran ...
I wonder about that argument. Isn't part of old US-66's allure the fact that it's no longer a commissioned highway? If it were once again a commissioned highway, then in some sense it would cease to be a thing of the nostalgic past.
CR-17 in Indiana which becomes M-217 in Michigan is a high quality county road until at least the west side of Goshen. Then south of there it becomes a two lane county road and then becomes a dirt road further south.
Quote from: 1 on October 08, 2020, 05:23:02 PM
MA 126 to Chelmsford.
Never understood why that went away, especially since it directly passes a state park. Especially since the state already has significant miles of routes not state maintained anyways.
I guess if there was a "closest truncation or decommissioning near you" thread, this would be my winner.
I'm disappointed that US 410 in Washington and a little in Idaho was demoted from a US route to a greatly truncated state route. Replacing parts of it with US 12 made sense so I'm not sorry that happened, but a lengthy US 410 could have remained from US 12 at Elma to US 12 at Naches.
US 66 was decommissioned in part because in many locations, there are several alignments. There are 3 alignments in Tulsa (Admiral Place, 11th Street and Skelly Drive) and some places have even more, and having an "official" US 66 was confusing.
The numbering of US 425 aside, I never liked how US 65 got truncated from US 61/84 in Natchez, MS to tiny Clayton, LA. Having a 6x end at another 6x just felt nice.
iPhone
beyond the obvious 66/99 in California...
- Route 82 south of I-880 (which is still somewhat signed anyway in downtown San Jose along the 1980s realignment that was created to improve access to Route 87). This essentially was the southern link back to US 101, which no longer has any direct connection to any of the route, even though all of 82 is historic 101. Kinda similar to how Route 72 south of La Habra was eliminated in the early 1980s.
- Route 85 between Cupertino and Route 9, which itself is a pre-1964 segment of Route 9. I get that 85 eventually was used to cover the whole West Valley Freeway segment, but then would feel that 9 should have been restored on that De Anza Boulevard trajectory, as opposed to it currently doubling back awkwardly southeast to Route 17.
- Route 160 between the North Sacramento Freeway and Freeport. I get why this was removed off city streets but always liked the idea of a numbered route passing by Capitol Park, along historic segments of US 40 and US 99.
- Route 16 between Woodland and Sacramento. I-5 did replace it as a through route, but passes in a corridor so different that having 16 marked as an alternate would have been cool.
- Route 170 along Highland Avenue in Hollywood. I enjoyed the randomness of its existence (and the fact it was in part a vestige of the never-built Laurel Canyon Freeway project connecting Universal City with the La Cienega Boulevard freeway segment and then to LAX).
- Route 274 in San Diego, another "this randomly exists" route (though it primarily served as an arterial while Route 52 was being built).
US 10 could go further west. US 61 in Minnesota should go to the border. US 60 could go further west. US 70 also should go further west. US 41 should go all the way to SR A1A like it did in the past. Goofy why FL cut it back. US 89 in AZ.
Quote from: TheStranger on October 16, 2020, 01:31:36 AM
beyond the obvious 66/99 in California...
- Route 82 south of I-880 (which is still somewhat signed anyway in downtown San Jose along the 1980s realignment that was created to improve access to Route 87). This essentially was the southern link back to US 101, which no longer has any direct connection to any of the route, even though all of 82 is historic 101. Kinda similar to how Route 72 south of La Habra was eliminated in the early 1980s.
- Route 85 between Cupertino and Route 9, which itself is a pre-1964 segment of Route 9. I get that 85 eventually was used to cover the whole West Valley Freeway segment, but then would feel that 9 should have been restored on that De Anza Boulevard trajectory, as opposed to it currently doubling back awkwardly southeast to Route 17.
- Route 160 between the North Sacramento Freeway and Freeport. I get why this was removed off city streets but always liked the idea of a numbered route passing by Capitol Park, along historic segments of US 40 and US 99.
- Route 16 between Woodland and Sacramento. I-5 did replace it as a through route, but passes in a corridor so different that having 16 marked as an alternate would have been cool.
- Route 170 along Highland Avenue in Hollywood. I enjoyed the randomness of its existence (and the fact it was in part a vestige of the never-built Laurel Canyon Freeway project connecting Universal City with the La Cienega Boulevard freeway segment and then to LAX).
- Route 274 in San Diego, another "this randomly exists" route (though it primarily served as an arterial while Route 52 was being built).
Unfortunately, despite myself and other locals pushing to have the original US 101 alignment through San Jose (at least south from the "legal" end of CA 82 at I-880) signed as "Historic US 101", no one has so far come up with the requisite funding to deploy signage. Hey, a couple of us volunteered to get up on ladders and do much of the work, but the city's liability coverage won't allow for that! So the route goes unsigned and unremarked except for the BGS' on CA 87, I-280, and US 101 down at Blossom Hill. Re the CA 9/CA 85 conundrum: CA 9 got signed where it is over an unsigned pre-'64 portion of former LRN 42 into Los Gatos as an over-the-hill alternative to CA 17. While CA 85 got signed up De Anza Blvd. back in '66 when the first freeway section of its corridor opened, it was always intended to relinquish it once the freeway extended south to at least CA 17. Remember Caltrans signs based on maintenance rather than utility (or even simple logic!), so unless that policy can be altered from within, CA 9 and others will stay where they are. And I'm surprised CA 160 signage wasn't maintained (as per legal requirements of relinquishments) by the city, seeing it was only three blocks east of Caltrans HQ! To me, that in itself is evidence that the current Caltrans management has little interest in general signage much less enforcing relinquishment codicils. Two issues prompted the full relinquishment of old CA 16 between Woodland and Sacramento: the stretch through the Yolo Bypass floodplain just north of and parallel to the I-5 causeway, and the portion atop the levee near West Sacramento and Bryte. That was and is narrow (particularly the part over the weirs) and accident-prone (this was a real problem with large trucks when 16 was used as a shortcut for old US 99W prior to I-5 deployment). Caltrans, and D3 in particular, really doesn't want to promote usage of that road as an alternate to I-5 because of those issues. 170 in Hollywood made for a real nice shortcut from US 101 over to westward CA 2; relinquishments of portions of the latter have likely prompted the same for the short 170 surface segment. And 274 was simply part of Caltrans' 55-year effort to rid itself of urban surface routes, particularly when there is a relatively close parallel freeway (here, CA 52).
US 104. I always like the looks of a US 104 route marker and it was kind of nifty having a US route number that didn't really make sense in our neck of the woods. I remember a lot of US 104 markers going up in the early and mid 1980s, even though it'd been over a decade since the US route designation was removed. Many lingered into the 90s, but then NYSDOT went through and replaced the vast majority of them.
There were even a few US 104 markers on the section of NY 104 that had formerly been NY 126 for a few years after I had gotten my license in 1985.