Q: Technically it (barely) entered PA until the '50s, but still... why US 46 instead of a 3dus number?
A: Turns out AASHO's original 1930s plan was much broader in scope.
Full article (https://www.usends.com/blog/us-route-wannabes-us-46-edition) with map and snippets from historic AASHO correspondence.
And yet it continues to exist, despite the rules stating that it must enter another state or be at least 300 miles long to exist in one state, neither of which applies to it. However, after seeing plans for an extension to Cleveland, it's very interesting to find out what would've become of US 6.
I'm questioning the out of grid number in addition to its current routing. There are 2 ways I can think of to get a number between 20 and 30 for that corridor, had it actually came in place.
1) Swap US 24 and US 224, and somehow get US 24 onto that combined US 322/46 corridor
2) I had this on a fictional thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=28310.0); current US 22 east of Caditz, OH can be an extension of US 36, and US 22 could be used on US 322/US 46. After all, US 22 was first proposed to go to Cleveland in an early draft before getting routed to Cincinnati.
US 24 wouldn't work in NJ because it would be very close to NJ 24.
Quote from: Henry on January 26, 2021, 12:50:55 PM
And yet it continues to exist, despite the rules stating that it must enter another state or be at least 300 miles long to exist in one state, neither of which applies to it.
They're not really rules, since AASHTO has no ability to enforce. More like guidelines, and there are several other state DOTs besides NJ that have not complied. There are still
19 single-state US routes (https://www.usends.com/intra-state-routes.html) (and from what I can tell it's been about 50 years since the last time AASHTO encouraged the states to get rid of them). But of those, only four are 2dus, which to me seems slightly more egregious. So it was interesting to learn that originally there was a grander plan for US 46.
Quote from: Henry on January 26, 2021, 12:50:55 PM
However, after seeing plans for an extension to Cleveland, it's very interesting to find out what would've become of US 6.
I don't think anything would have happened, because the US 46 proposal was along a separate corridor.
I had no idea US 46 was ever proposed to go west of Portland, PA. Nor that it would go all the way to Cleveland, OH. What could have been.
So if AASHO had taken PA's suggestion what probably would/should have happened was US 46 would go to the trash bin. Then in it's place would be a new route, say US 406, using all of the current US 46 and then multiplex with then US 611 to Scranton to get to US 6. So the route would then be US 406 and US 6 between NYC and Cleveland. That seems reasonable. The AASHO proposed US 46 route and the PA route above both seem to roughly be around 500 miles.
Interesting that the conclusion was "blame PA".
Quote from: Alps on January 26, 2021, 05:46:42 PM
Interesting that the conclusion was "blame PA".
Ironically, 30 years after Pennsylvania rejected routing US-46 through the middle of the state, they approved Interstate 80 along the same general corridor. That baffles me even more since I-80 provides a toll-free alternative to the Pennsylvania Turnpike.
Shoot! I wish they'd sent US 46 that way, it goes right through State College and we'd have a two-digit US route.
Quote from: Ketchup99 on January 26, 2021, 07:58:31 PM
Shoot! I wish they'd sent US 46 that way, it goes right through State College and we'd have a two-digit US route.
dw State College will probably get 4 more interstates under FritzOwl's plan ;)
Quote from: abqtraveler on January 26, 2021, 07:42:13 PM
Ironically, 30 years after Pennsylvania rejected routing US-46 through the middle of the state, they approved Interstate 80 along the same general corridor. That baffles me even more since I-80 provides a toll-free alternative to the Pennsylvania Turnpike.
Didn't PA wanted to toll all of their interstates at some point, especially I-80?
Quote from: SkyPesos on January 26, 2021, 08:00:40 PM
Quote from: Ketchup99 on January 26, 2021, 07:58:31 PM
Shoot! I wish they'd sent US 46 that way, it goes right through State College and we'd have a two-digit US route.
dw State College will probably get 4 more interstates under FritzOwl's plan ;)
Quote from: abqtraveler on January 26, 2021, 07:42:13 PM
Ironically, 30 years after Pennsylvania rejected routing US-46 through the middle of the state, they approved Interstate 80 along the same general corridor. That baffles me even more since I-80 provides a toll-free alternative to the Pennsylvania Turnpike.
Didn't PA wanted to toll all of their interstates at some point, especially I-80?
IIRC, about a decade ago the FHWA denied PennDOT's request to place tolls on I-80 across Pennsylvania.
Quote from: artmalk on January 26, 2021, 01:12:13 PM
US 24 wouldn't work in NJ because it would be very close to NJ 24.
Unless New Jersey elected to renumber NJ-24. Alternatively, they could have used US-26 or US-28. I realize US-26 is used out west, but precedence for disjointed "east" and" west" segments with the same route number has been established with US-2.
Or maybe, reroute US-20 from Cleveland across Pennsylvania to New York City and re-designate US-20 between Cleveland and Boston as a disjointed eastern segment of US-10.
Quote from: abqtraveler on January 26, 2021, 08:35:28 PM
Quote from: artmalk on January 26, 2021, 01:12:13 PM
US 24 wouldn't work in NJ because it would be very close to NJ 24.
Unless New Jersey elected to renumber NJ-24. Alternatively, they could have used US-26 or US-28. I realize US-26 is used out west, but precedence for disjointed "east" and" west" segments with the same route number has been established with US-2.
Or maybe, reroute US-20 from Cleveland across Pennsylvania to New York City and re-designate US-20 between Cleveland and Boston as a disjointed eastern segment of US-10.
US 10 and US 12 can swap alignments east of the Twin Cities to Gary, which would get US 10 into Cleveland by using current US 6 in IN and OH (US 6 will get truncated to Cleveland, since it's parallel to interstates from Utah to Cleveland anyways). Then US 10 can use current US 20 to Boston
Though I still think that my US 22 number idea, with US 36 on current US 22, is my preferred option for this route.
Quote from: artmalk on January 26, 2021, 01:12:13 PM
US 24 wouldn't work in NJ because it would be very close to NJ 24.
NJ 24 should really become an x78 interstate as it does connect to the interstate system at both ends. NJ 24 should have stayed on the streets from day one.
That would free up US 24 for eastward extension per suggested by another user here.
I found no application in the archives of AASHTO that even suggests that NJ asked for NJ 24 to be part of the interstate system so NJ could have done that.
However, this is going into Fictional territory here and away from the OP who found evidence to support the answer to an age old question about a short 2 digit route in a small state.
Wow, PA rejected a US route. There's something you don't see every day.
Quote from: abqtraveler on January 26, 2021, 08:07:37 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on January 26, 2021, 08:00:40 PM
Quote from: Ketchup99 on January 26, 2021, 07:58:31 PM
Shoot! I wish they'd sent US 46 that way, it goes right through State College and we'd have a two-digit US route.
dw State College will probably get 4 more interstates under FritzOwl's plan ;)
Quote from: abqtraveler on January 26, 2021, 07:42:13 PM
Ironically, 30 years after Pennsylvania rejected routing US-46 through the middle of the state, they approved Interstate 80 along the same general corridor. That baffles me even more since I-80 provides a toll-free alternative to the Pennsylvania Turnpike.
Didn't PA wanted to toll all of their interstates at some point, especially I-80?
IIRC, about a decade ago the FHWA denied PennDOT's request to place tolls on I-80 across Pennsylvania.
That, and PA had proposed to build the major corridors as Turnpike spurs prior to the interstates coming to be and the 90% federal share proved too difficult to resist.
Quote from: abqtraveler on January 26, 2021, 08:07:37 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on January 26, 2021, 08:00:40 PM
Quote from: Ketchup99 on January 26, 2021, 07:58:31 PM
Shoot! I wish they'd sent US 46 that way, it goes right through State College and we'd have a two-digit US route.
dw State College will probably get 4 more interstates under FritzOwl's plan ;)
Quote from: abqtraveler on January 26, 2021, 07:42:13 PM
Ironically, 30 years after Pennsylvania rejected routing US-46 through the middle of the state, they approved Interstate 80 along the same general corridor. That baffles me even more since I-80 provides a toll-free alternative to the Pennsylvania Turnpike.
Didn't PA wanted to toll all of their interstates at some point, especially I-80?
IIRC, about a decade ago the FHWA denied PennDOT's request to place tolls on I-80 across Pennsylvania.
It was denied because the Fed rules said tolls had to be used to maintain the route they would be placed on, and PA kept saying they'll use the tolls to maintain mass transit instead. All PA had to do was reallocate funding from other sources for mass transit purposes, but they were so hard-headed about using the tolls for a blatantly unauthorized expenditure, that the feds ultimately just had to deny the application.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 26, 2021, 09:40:04 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on January 26, 2021, 08:07:37 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on January 26, 2021, 08:00:40 PM
Quote from: Ketchup99 on January 26, 2021, 07:58:31 PM
Shoot! I wish they'd sent US 46 that way, it goes right through State College and we'd have a two-digit US route.
dw State College will probably get 4 more interstates under FritzOwl's plan ;)
Quote from: abqtraveler on January 26, 2021, 07:42:13 PM
Ironically, 30 years after Pennsylvania rejected routing US-46 through the middle of the state, they approved Interstate 80 along the same general corridor. That baffles me even more since I-80 provides a toll-free alternative to the Pennsylvania Turnpike.
Didn't PA wanted to toll all of their interstates at some point, especially I-80?
IIRC, about a decade ago the FHWA denied PennDOT's request to place tolls on I-80 across Pennsylvania.
It was denied because the Fed rules said tolls had to be used to maintain the route they would be placed on, and PA kept saying they'll use the tolls to maintain mass transit instead. All PA had to do was reallocate funding from other sources for mass transit purposes, but they were so hard-headed about using the tolls for a blatantly unauthorized expenditure, that the feds ultimately just had to deny the application.
I remember that. It was Act 44 that directed the diversion of $450 million per year from the Pennsylvania Turnpike system to help maintain non-toll roads and bridges managed by PennDOT. Act 44 was amended with Act 89 in 2013 that directed the $450 million payout from the PTC to exclusively subsidize mass transit. The FHWA would not allow Pennsylvania to toll I-80 until Act 44 was repealed or otherwise amended to ensure that funds collected on I-80 stayed on I-80.
https://www.paturnpike.com/business/act44_plan.aspx
46 and 44 should both be branches of 6..
Quote from: kenarmy on January 26, 2021, 11:08:38 PM
46 and 44 should both be branches of 6..
All those fours and sixes... Now I've got this stuck in my head... which is OK by me...
46 should just be NJ 6. You're welcome.
Quote from: kenarmy on January 26, 2021, 11:08:38 PM
46 and 44 should both be branches of 6..
Please don't stray into fictional territory.
omg i'm sorry I was just thinking of a solution. But the NJ 6 idea is immaculate.
Quote from: abqtraveler on January 26, 2021, 07:42:13 PM
Quote from: Alps on January 26, 2021, 05:46:42 PM
Interesting that the conclusion was "blame PA".
Ironically, 30 years after Pennsylvania rejected routing US-46 through the middle of the state, they approved Interstate 80 along the same general corridor. That baffles me even more since I-80 provides a toll-free alternative to the Pennsylvania Turnpike.
There's a big difference between the two. US 46 would have used existing roads. Which PA said a section of which wasn't suitable. While I-80 was a new modern highway which means much better highway geometry.
Plus with 90-10 funding it behooved PA to want I-80 built to help with mobility in northern PA. Routes like US 322 west of Harrisburg, US 120 and US 6 may have become ADHS corridors if I-80 was not built.
Quote from: BrianP on January 27, 2021, 10:17:58 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on January 26, 2021, 07:42:13 PM
Quote from: Alps on January 26, 2021, 05:46:42 PM
Interesting that the conclusion was "blame PA".
Ironically, 30 years after Pennsylvania rejected routing US-46 through the middle of the state, they approved Interstate 80 along the same general corridor. That baffles me even more since I-80 provides a toll-free alternative to the Pennsylvania Turnpike.
There's a big difference between the two. US 46 would have used existing roads. Which PA said a section of which wasn't suitable. While I-80 was a new modern highway which means much better highway geometry.
Plus with 90-10 funding it behooved PA to want I-80 built to help with mobility in northern PA. Routes like US 322 west of Harrisburg, US 120 and US 6 may have become ADHS corridors if I-80 was not built.
The original plan was for an interstate on the US 6 corridor in PA, numbered I-84 and I-80 on the PA turnpike, splitting at Harrisburg with I-80S to Philadelphia and I-80N via I-78 to NYC. If the current I-80 alignment in PA wasn't built, there will most likely be an interstate on current US 6, and an ADHS corridor on US 322 as you mentioned, most likely west into Ohio. After all, State College is pretty important for the state as it contains the state's flagship university, so they would want an expressway link to the west.
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on January 26, 2021, 11:39:33 PM
46 should just be NJ 6. You're welcome.
So back to what it was before the Great Renumberings?
US 46 could have been numbered NJ 46, although that number was already in use at the time of US 46's commissioning in 1936 (NJ 46 became NJ 77 in 1953). Maybe the route should have stayed NJ 6. Too late now.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 27, 2021, 07:46:58 PM
US 46 could have been numbered NJ 46, although that number was already in use at the time of US 46's commissioning in 1936 (NJ 46 became NJ 77 in 1953). Maybe the route should have stayed NJ 6. Too late now.
It is NJ 46 internally. I doubt FHWA is going to force the issue, and I doubt NJDOT would care if they had to renumber it to NJ 46. It would probably take a long time to replace all the signs, though, and that might be the sticking point. If it came down to it, you could extend US 46 along I-80 to meet US 209 in PA and call it multi-state on a technicality.
Quote from: Alps on January 26, 2021, 05:46:42 PM
Interesting that the conclusion was "blame PA".
Interesting, I agree. One of the things that PennDoT objected to was changing a US route designation that had already been established. Given that, and given that the proposed US 46 would have swallowed most of US 322 as it existed at the time (with an east terminus in Lewistown), do you think PennDoT would have been more agreeable if AASHO had suggested numbering the entire NYC-Cleveland route as US 322 (instead of US 46)?
After all, it was just a year or two later that PennDoT agreed to extend US 322 east from Lewistown to Atlantic City. This extension was redundant with other US routes from Lewistown to Hershey, so one could argue that US 322 could have been extended to NYC instead, and the Hershey-Atlantic City route could've been assigned a different number.
Quote from: Alps on January 27, 2021, 09:28:56 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 27, 2021, 07:46:58 PM
US 46 could have been numbered NJ 46, although that number was already in use at the time of US 46's commissioning in 1936 (NJ 46 became NJ 77 in 1953). Maybe the route should have stayed NJ 6. Too late now.
It is NJ 46 internally. I doubt FHWA is going to force the issue, and I doubt NJDOT would care if they had to renumber it to NJ 46. It would probably take a long time to replace all the signs, though, and that might be the sticking point. If it came down to it, you could extend US 46 along I-80 to meet US 209 in PA and call it multi-state on a technicality.
Is that what they call "pulling a 223"?
(Not exactly the same, as US 223 used to go into Toledo proper but now it extends the less than a mile into Ohio probably mainly to technically be a 2-state route)
I wonder, would NY have gone along with a longer 322 entering it, or would it end on the bridge as 46 does? NY seems to hate US routes so one wonders.
Quote from: usends on January 28, 2021, 09:39:45 AM
Quote from: Alps on January 26, 2021, 05:46:42 PM
Interesting that the conclusion was "blame PA".
Interesting, I agree. One of the things that PennDoT objected to was changing a US route designation that had already been established. Given that, and given that the proposed US 46 would have swallowed most of US 322 as it existed at the time (with an east terminus in Lewistown), do you think PennDoT would have been more agreeable if AASHO had suggested numbering the entire NYC-Cleveland route as US 322 (instead of US 46)?
After all, it was just a year or two later that PennDoT agreed to extend US 322 east from Lewistown to Atlantic City. This extension was redundant with other US routes from Lewistown to Hershey, so one could argue that US 322 could have been extended to NYC instead, and the Hershey-Atlantic City route could've been assigned a different number.
The x22s are all a mess.
I believe US 122 was intrastate and that's why that was decommissioned.
US 222 doesn't serve a major purpose south of of Lancaster PA and barely goes into MD. And really, PA 272 is the better route south of Lancaster anyway.
US 322 really could be split into two routes instead of the long concurrency with US 22 (and really, this is where the US 46 routing would make sense.)
US 422 IS split into two routes...and the eastern portion, though important, is an intrastate route and should be a state route.
US 522 really could be split into two routes, where the northern portion could be an state route.
Really...US 46 could travel from Cleveland to Lewisburg PA over US 322, then take over US 522 northward to Sunbury, then take over PA 61 to Ashland, PA 54 to US 209, be concurrent with that until Lehighton, then PA 248 to PA 512 and then head over to NJ.
Quote from: PurdueBill on January 28, 2021, 02:04:20 PM
Quote from: Alps on January 27, 2021, 09:28:56 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 27, 2021, 07:46:58 PM
US 46 could have been numbered NJ 46, although that number was already in use at the time of US 46's commissioning in 1936 (NJ 46 became NJ 77 in 1953). Maybe the route should have stayed NJ 6. Too late now.
It is NJ 46 internally. I doubt FHWA is going to force the issue, and I doubt NJDOT would care if they had to renumber it to NJ 46. It would probably take a long time to replace all the signs, though, and that might be the sticking point. If it came down to it, you could extend US 46 along I-80 to meet US 209 in PA and call it multi-state on a technicality.
Is that what they call "pulling a 223"?
(Not exactly the same, as US 223 used to go into Toledo proper but now it extends the less than a mile into Ohio probably mainly to technically be a 2-state route)
I wonder, would NY have gone along with a longer 322 entering it, or would it end on the bridge as 46 does? NY seems to hate US routes so one wonders.
PennDOT does help out with NJ by way of US 206 entering PA for a tiny distance to US 209. Older maps showed a US 206/US 209 concurrency so that US 206 could meet up with US 6 in Milford.
Quote from: jemacedo9 on January 28, 2021, 02:19:45 PM
Quote from: usends on January 28, 2021, 09:39:45 AM
Quote from: Alps on January 26, 2021, 05:46:42 PM
Interesting that the conclusion was "blame PA".
Interesting, I agree. One of the things that PennDoT objected to was changing a US route designation that had already been established. Given that, and given that the proposed US 46 would have swallowed most of US 322 as it existed at the time (with an east terminus in Lewistown), do you think PennDoT would have been more agreeable if AASHO had suggested numbering the entire NYC-Cleveland route as US 322 (instead of US 46)?
After all, it was just a year or two later that PennDoT agreed to extend US 322 east from Lewistown to Atlantic City. This extension was redundant with other US routes from Lewistown to Hershey, so one could argue that US 322 could have been extended to NYC instead, and the Hershey-Atlantic City route could've been assigned a different number.
The x22s are all a mess.
I believe US 122 was intrastate and that's why that was decommissioned.
US 222 doesn't serve a major purpose south of of Lancaster PA and barely goes into MD. And really, PA 272 is the better route south of Lancaster anyway.
US 322 really could be split into two routes instead of the long concurrency with US 22 (and really, this is where the US 46 routing would make sense.)
US 422 IS split into two routes...and the eastern portion, though important, is an intrastate route and should be a state route.
US 522 really could be split into two routes, where the northern portion could be an state route.
Really...US 46 could travel from Cleveland to Lewisburg PA over US 322, then take over US 522 northward to Sunbury, then take over PA 61 to Ashland, PA 54 to US 209, be concurrent with that until Lehighton, then PA 248 to PA 512 and then head over to NJ.
US 122 was taken over by US 202.
The second US 122 was Northumberland-Oxford (replaced 120 north of Reading).
US 22 has a lot of child routes for a pretty short parent route in comparison. US 40, a formally transcon route, only goes up to 340, and that is still in the east coast states.
Quote from: NE2 on January 28, 2021, 07:27:59 PM
The second US 122 was Northumberland-Oxford (replaced 120 north of Reading).
And now PA 0061
Quote from: SkyPesos on January 28, 2021, 07:31:56 PM
US 22 has a lot of child routes for a pretty short parent route in comparison. US 40, a formally transcon route, only goes up to 340, and that is still in the east coast states.
Not sure why they couldn't have 322 be an x40 from Mays Landing thru Hershey or Harrisburg and let 322 branch out west from there.
As for 46, why not let it go into PA and follow 611 and roads up to Scranton.
Quote from: PurdueBill on January 28, 2021, 02:04:20 PM
Quote from: Alps on January 27, 2021, 09:28:56 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 27, 2021, 07:46:58 PM
US 46 could have been numbered NJ 46, although that number was already in use at the time of US 46's commissioning in 1936 (NJ 46 became NJ 77 in 1953). Maybe the route should have stayed NJ 6. Too late now.
It is NJ 46 internally. I doubt FHWA is going to force the issue, and I doubt NJDOT would care if they had to renumber it to NJ 46. It would probably take a long time to replace all the signs, though, and that might be the sticking point. If it came down to it, you could extend US 46 along I-80 to meet US 209 in PA and call it multi-state on a technicality.
Is that what they call "pulling a 223"?
(Not exactly the same, as US 223 used to go into Toledo proper but now it extends the less than a mile into Ohio probably mainly to technically be a 2-state route)
I wonder, would NY have gone along with a longer 322 entering it, or would it end on the bridge as 46 does? NY seems to hate US routes so one wonders.
More like "pulling a 131". US-131 ended at the Michigan-Indiana state line for years until it was extended a grand total of less than a mile to reach I-80/90.
Quote from: artmalk on January 26, 2021, 01:12:13 PM
US 24 wouldn't work in NJ because it would be very close to NJ 24.
It works fine in Michigan with US-24 being close to M-24.
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 30, 2021, 08:48:42 AM
Quote from: artmalk on January 26, 2021, 01:12:13 PM
US 24 wouldn't work in NJ because it would be very close to NJ 24.
It works fine in Michigan with US-24 being close to M-24.
He means NJ doesn't allow US and State Routes to use the same number.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 30, 2021, 08:50:01 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 30, 2021, 08:48:42 AM
Quote from: artmalk on January 26, 2021, 01:12:13 PM
US 24 wouldn't work in NJ because it would be very close to NJ 24.
It works fine in Michigan with US-24 being close to M-24.
He means NJ doesn't allow US and State Routes to use the same number.
He should have said that instead of very close which my point makes.
Here's a proposal to make US 46 an interesting multi-state route.
1. Remove US 46 from its current routing east of Clifton NJ, restoring NJ 6 from Clifton to Fort Lee.
2. Remove NJ 3 and NJ 495 designation between Clifton and the Lincoln Tunnel, designate as US 46.
3. Use city streets to bring US 46 through Manhattan from the Lincoln Tunnel to the Ed Koch (Queensborough - 59th Street) Bridge.
4. Replace NY 25 designation on Long Island with US 46.
5. Replace NY 25A designation on Long Island with NY 25.
6. Designate the small portion of roadway connecting I-95 and US 1 in New London, with the New London - Orient Point ferry dock as US 46.
7. Replace NY 46 and NY 12D designation with NY 26A.
Quote from: Flint1979 on January 30, 2021, 08:48:42 AM
Quote from: artmalk on January 26, 2021, 01:12:13 PM
US 24 wouldn't work in NJ because it would be very close to NJ 24.
It works fine in Michigan with US-24 being close to M-24.
M-24 is a pseudo-extension of US 24, so it works. This is not the case with US 46 and NJ 24.
So, how many of these fantasy routes posts do we need to move to the 'Fictional Highways' board?
Quote from: Hot Rod Hootenanny on January 30, 2021, 01:06:12 PM
So, how many of these fantasy routes posts do we need to move to the 'Fictional Highways' board?
I've had enough to just lock it. We had a fun time, funtime's over.