A while ago I stumbled across some documents about the creation of US 412 and how it was intended to connect to the US 12 family. Now, with the AASHTO route numbering database I've been able to unearth them and many more proposals, suggesting they were planning a major overhaul of the US route network to complement the Interstate system. Some major pearls:
- As noted back then, US 412 was to run on its present route to Hardy, Arkansas, then on a Northwesterly direction to Belle Forche, South Dakota. There's also a proposal to continue it to Miles City and to extend US 312 instead. And as I supposed, US 412 was to extend beyond Columbia, Tennessee, on TN 50, Alt US 31, TN 64, Alt US 41, TN 56, AL 117, GA 48, US 27, GA 140 and GA 20 to Lawrenceville, Georgia. Now that would have been long, beating US 287.
- But I'm not sure if this could have been carried out, because at the same time, US 10 was to replace US 12 West of the Twin Cities! I guess they wanted to bring it back to the West Coast. US 52 was proposed to be moved to the US 10 alignment in Minnesota, akin to how US 12 replaced US 112 in Michigan.
- Considering what they had done in 1964, I'm surprised at California's plan to bring back US 60 along CA 62. However, knowing their reluctance to concurrencies, I'm not sure if they would have upgraded CA 60 to US 60, as it would have required one with I-10. Most likely they would have renumbered it to CA 62. It appears they were trying to reroute US 6 to the Bay Area as well, but they desisted as it would have required passing Yosemite.
- Also noteworthy is the plan to combine US 202 and US 301 into one route. Maine also pointed out they would extend it on ME 9 to Canada. That would be worthy of 2 digit number (US 37?) but it appears the whole thing was to be named US 301.
- A few items of the shortlist made it to reality. The US 191 reroute came to be a reality, although the original plan was to co-sign it with US 666 from Sanders, Arizona down to the Mexican border, but as we knew Arizona grew tired of sign stealing and outright replaced it. Also included is the many times rejected US 385 extension to Canada. And how I can forget the US 377 thing.
There are many more (such as US 169 eventually becoming US 73 after its original routing was taken over by US 412 and US 75, a new US 102 replacing the various state route 200s, etc), but this is just a selection. Fortunately AASHTO took its time to compile every proposal for study in future meetings, and it's now available here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ).
Any thoughs on this? Should it have been carried out? And happy Maundy Thursday.
A lot of these changes were proposed by the Nixon administration to distract from the Watergate scandal and the gasoline crisis, and were one of the first instances of highway designation changes being put forward in a bill (S. 401) in the US Congress. Of course, Speaker of the House Carl Albert (D-OK) opposed them, so he was quietly able to kill the bill in the House. I actually first found out about this from a footnote in my Oklahoma History textbook in high school.
Regarding US 6 through Yosemite, I don't see what the big would have been there. There are plenty of precedent for US Routes have a seasonal closure or gap through a National Park. Getting US 6 straighten would have maintained it's east/west continuity.
What year did you find this US 60 proposal? For that matter what about US 6? Or does this have something to do with the day being 4/1/21?
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on April 01, 2021, 04:44:20 AM
- But I'm not sure if this could have been carried out, because at the same time, US 10 was to replace US 12 West of the Twin Cities! I guess they wanted to bring it back to the West Coast. US 52 was proposed to be moved to the US 10 alignment in Minnesota, akin to how US 12 replaced US 112 in Michigan.
This would've been nice had it actually got carried out. US 52 would have a bit more independent section, and US 10 would be longer for a x0. Had anything get mentioned about US 212 in that proposal, like renumbering it to an x10 or 12 if US 10 took over US 12's routing west of Minneapolis?
Actually a better question, if FritzOwl was alive back then, would the government take consideration of his plans, which will do the US route cleanup too by removing them :)
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 01, 2021, 04:50:01 AM
I actually first found out about this from a footnote in my Oklahoma History textbook in high school.
I'll be interested to read a generic history class textbook with information about road proposals. We don't get those here.
:clap:
Quote from: SkyPesos on April 01, 2021, 11:49:53 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 01, 2021, 04:50:01 AM
I actually first found out about this from a footnote in my Oklahoma History textbook in high school.
I'll be interested to read a generic history class textbook with information about road proposals. We don't get those here.
The creation of the Interstate system had a brief mention in mine. I don't think the US highway system did, but that could be because the roads themselves existed even before the nationwide unified numbering, making the numbering itself not that important.
Quote from: SkyPesos on April 01, 2021, 11:49:53 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 01, 2021, 04:50:01 AM
I actually first found out about this from a footnote in my Oklahoma History textbook in high school.
I'll be interested to read a generic history class textbook with information about road proposals. We don't get those here.
Be sure to check out the video in the OP for more of this sort of stuff. It's very insightful.
Quote from: 1 on April 01, 2021, 11:52:30 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on April 01, 2021, 11:49:53 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 01, 2021, 04:50:01 AM
I actually first found out about this from a footnote in my Oklahoma History textbook in high school.
I'll be interested to read a generic history class textbook with information about road proposals. We don't get those here.
The creation of the Interstate system had a brief mention in mine. I don't think the US highway system did, but that could be because the roads themselves existed even before the nationwide unified numbering, making the numbering itself not that important.
In my 10th grade American history class, we had to do a project of a post WW2 historical event that is only mentioned briefly in the textbook or not mentioned at all, going through that event more in-depth and present it to the class. The interstate system creation was one of the events only mentioned briefly (forgot what exactly it mentioned besides the name "Eisenhower" and "Federal-aid Highway Act of 1956"), and as a roadgeek, naturally, I called dibs on it.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 01, 2021, 04:50:01 AM
A lot of these changes were proposed by the Nixon administration to distract from the Watergate scandal and the gasoline crisis, and were one of the first instances of highway designation changes being put forward in a bill (S. 401) in the US Congress. Of course, Speaker of the House Carl Albert (D-OK) opposed them, so he was quietly able to kill the bill in the House. I actually first found out about this from a footnote in my Oklahoma History textbook in high school.
So there was actually an attempt to federalize the US highway system the same way that interstate highways are numbered?
Maybe Calrog was on to something. :bigass:
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 01, 2021, 10:11:53 AM
Regarding US 6 through Yosemite, I don't see what the big would have been there. There are plenty of precedent for US Routes have a seasonal closure or gap through a National Park. Getting US 6 straighten would have maintained it's east/west continuity.
What year did you find this US 60 proposal? For that matter what about US 6? Or does this have something to do with the day being 4/1/21?
I suspect that the principal obstacle to realigning US 6 through Yosemite on CA 120 and its continuation through Yosemite is not the section over Tioga Pass, which was upgraded nearly 40 years ago, but the section between US 395 and US 6, which has a decidedly low AADT, as US 395 functions as the major collector/distributor of traffic from the park; very little continues east toward US 6 and NV. Thus there's little if any official interest in upgrading that facility to handle higher volumes, which would require upgrades to both curvature and gradients. Personally, the idea of US 6 simply subsuming CA 120 is intriguing; terminating it at I-5 at Manteca would provide both a major artery at which to end plus a proximate segue onto the I-205/580 corridor right into the Bay Area -- a considerably more fitting terminus than US 6 has currently.
Quote from: sparker on April 01, 2021, 06:06:40 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 01, 2021, 10:11:53 AM
Regarding US 6 through Yosemite, I don't see what the big would have been there. There are plenty of precedent for US Routes have a seasonal closure or gap through a National Park. Getting US 6 straighten would have maintained it's east/west continuity.
What year did you find this US 60 proposal? For that matter what about US 6? Or does this have something to do with the day being 4/1/21?
I suspect that the principal obstacle to realigning US 6 through Yosemite on CA 120 and its continuation through Yosemite is not the section over Tioga Pass, which was upgraded nearly 40 years ago, but the section between US 395 and US 6, which has a decidedly low AADT, as US 395 functions as the major collector/distributor of traffic from the park; very little continues east toward US 6 and NV. Thus there's little if any official interest in upgrading that facility to handle higher volumes, which would require upgrades to both curvature and gradients. Personally, the idea of US 6 simply subsuming CA 120 is intriguing; terminating it at I-5 at Manteca would provide both a major artery at which to end plus a proximate segue onto the I-205/580 corridor right into the Bay Area -- a considerably more fitting terminus than US 6 has currently.
I supposed NV 359 wouldn't really serve as all that great of a way for continuity for US 6 by way of CA 167 given that swings all the way up to Hawthorne. That said, it would somewhat simplistic to just multiplex US 6 northward on US 395 (a big no in California) to reach CA 120 west towards Tioga Pass. CA 120 west of Benton towards Lee Vining as you said is very low quality by modern convention.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 01, 2021, 11:52:58 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on April 01, 2021, 11:49:53 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 01, 2021, 04:50:01 AM
I actually first found out about this from a footnote in my Oklahoma History textbook in high school.
I'll be interested to read a generic history class textbook with information about road proposals. We don't get those here.
Be sure to check out the video in the OP for more of this sort of stuff. It's very insightful.
The video really goes into how they just gave up on these grand plans.
Quote from: SectorZ on April 01, 2021, 06:36:10 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 01, 2021, 11:52:58 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on April 01, 2021, 11:49:53 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 01, 2021, 04:50:01 AM
I actually first found out about this from a footnote in my Oklahoma History textbook in high school.
I'll be interested to read a generic history class textbook with information about road proposals. We don't get those here.
Be sure to check out the video in the OP for more of this sort of stuff. It's very insightful.
The video really goes into how they just gave up on these grand plans.
Really a letdown.
Quote from: SectorZ on April 01, 2021, 06:36:10 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 01, 2021, 11:52:58 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on April 01, 2021, 11:49:53 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 01, 2021, 04:50:01 AM
I actually first found out about this from a footnote in my Oklahoma History textbook in high school.
I'll be interested to read a generic history class textbook with information about road proposals. We don't get those here.
Be sure to check out the video in the OP for more of this sort of stuff. It's very insightful.
The video really goes into how they just gave up on these grand plans.
Imagine if it was this easy for FritzOwl to give up his plans.
Quote from: SkyPesos on April 01, 2021, 06:41:43 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on April 01, 2021, 06:36:10 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 01, 2021, 11:52:58 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on April 01, 2021, 11:49:53 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 01, 2021, 04:50:01 AM
I actually first found out about this from a footnote in my Oklahoma History textbook in high school.
I'll be interested to read a generic history class textbook with information about road proposals. We don't get those here.
Be sure to check out the video in the OP for more of this sort of stuff. It's very insightful.
The video really goes into how they just gave up on these grand plans.
Imagine if it was this easy for FritzOwl to give up his plans.
A full commitment to revamping the Interstate system is what I'm thinking of. You wouldn't get this from any other guy but Fritz.
Senator Rick Durbin of Illinois headed the Senate Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure at the time, in charge of funding for the initiative. Constituents were worried that Congress was going to give this up (and let them down); Durbin's inability to help push this through was known informally as the "Rick role".
I see how this year's April fools prank has gone along nicely. It was almost a last minute thought, but at least I could elaborate it a bit, starting from the one I did two years ago. I really was wanting to Rick Roll someone, and this was my chance. A quick search of the video code shows this is actually the 10th time this video has been linked or embedded in this forum.
:rofl:
That was a nice prank indeed. I was hoping to see the document, only to get Mr. Astley's best-known hit.
Regarding US 412, I think angling it northwest from Hardy to Belle Forche would've been a more plausible routing for it. A little awkward, but it would've worked.