The first two that come to mind are US 61 and US 75. Old US 61 north of Duluth is a major route and the main route for a large part of Minnesota. Old US 75 south of Dallas has a very lengthy section that does not duplex with I-45. What are some other boneheaded decommissionings that have occurred?
easily US-99.
come to think of it, does any route use the "greater than 300 miles, but in a single state" exemption to declassification? Maybe some three-digit routes in Texas?
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 25, 2010, 06:44:58 PM
easily US-99.
come to think of it, does any route use the "greater than 300 miles, but in a single state" exemption to declassification? Maybe some three-digit routes in Texas?
US 290 is close, though it is only 261 miles long. (At one point, pre-Interstate 10, it was 560+ miles.)
Now, on the other hand, not only has North Carolina retained the short remnant of US 311, it has actually extended it in recent years! (Once I-74 is signed southeast of Winston-Salem, I don't know how long this will last though.)
Quote from: TheStranger on June 25, 2010, 06:53:25 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 25, 2010, 06:44:58 PM
easily US-99.
come to think of it, does any route use the "greater than 300 miles, but in a single state" exemption to declassification? Maybe some three-digit routes in Texas?
US 290 is close, though it is only 261 miles long. (At one point, pre-Interstate 10, it was 560+ miles.)
Now, on the other hand, not only has North Carolina retained the short remnant of US 311, it has actually extended it in recent years! (Once I-74 is signed southeast of Winston-Salem, I don't know how long this will last though.)
Last I heard the north extension of US 311 was unsigned. Is this still the case?
I think it's silly to have a US route end at a state route. Either extend US 311 into Virginia or cut it back to US 220.
A bit of an unorthodox choice, but US-410. Admittedly, with US-12 existing as it does today 410 wouldn't be great, but the routing that 410 took was far more useful than the one that 12 takes today through Washington. 12 bypasses Mt Rainier National Park, doesn't serve any major cities, and goes to what...Aberdeen? Who cares about Aberdeen? That's a meth house, not a tourist area. The only good parts of the Washington coast are already served indirectly by US 101, and US 12 doesn't serve any of the cool parts. Heck, it doesn't even facilitate interstate commerce. What two significant areas are connected by the 12 corridor west of Yakima? Centralia? Not to mention, most of the coastbound traffic that would benefit from US-12 being there comes from the Puget Sound region to the coasts, and 410-101 is a simpler way to navigate by than 101-8-12-101.
Bring back US-410! You can call it 12, I guess, but decommissioning the routing of 410 was silly.
Quote from: bugo on June 25, 2010, 06:57:47 PM
I think it's silly to have a US route end at a state route.
The exception I would make are "coastlines" in which the state route is the furthest extent that the US route can end at (i.e. several locations in Texas, or US 466 when it was in California).
For that matter, should 466 really have been decommissioned? Its remnant from Morro Bay to Barstow was just a tad short of the 300 mile rule, but US 290 is about the same length today (260 miles), and the corridor is still pretty important. The impression I get is that California wanted to really cut back on excessive route concurrencies, but cut back way beyond necessary (definitely the case for 99, and very arguably so for 466).
Even the former US 299, at the current length of State Route 299 (305 miles), could have been retained as well (though ending at a dirt road at the state line probably wouldn't have been great for a US route).
Quote from: TheStranger on June 25, 2010, 08:47:36 PM
For that matter, should 466 really have been decommissioned? Its remnant from Morro Bay to Barstow was just a tad short of the 300 mile rule, but US 290 is about the same length today (260 miles), and the corridor is still pretty important. The impression I get is that California wanted to really cut back on excessive route concurrencies, but cut back way beyond necessary (definitely the case for 99, and very arguably so for 466).
wow, I didn't realize it was that long! Is the section from 1 to 101 all that important? I'd always thought of it as a winding road with little traffic. 101 to 5 to 99, certainly, that serves a lot of truck traffic.
QuoteEven the former US 299, at the current length of State Route 299 (305 miles), could have been retained as well (though ending at a dirt road at the state line probably wouldn't have been great for a US route).
the original end of US-299 was at US-395; it was extended only as a state route in 1964.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 25, 2010, 08:54:18 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on June 25, 2010, 08:47:36 PM
For that matter, should 466 really have been decommissioned? Its remnant from Morro Bay to Barstow was just a tad short of the 300 mile rule, but US 290 is about the same length today (260 miles), and the corridor is still pretty important. The impression I get is that California wanted to really cut back on excessive route concurrencies, but cut back way beyond necessary (definitely the case for 99, and very arguably so for 466).
wow, I didn't realize it was that long! Is the section from 1 to 101 all that important? I'd always thought of it as a winding road with little traffic. 101 to 5 to 99, certainly, that serves a lot of truck traffic.
I've been on 46 between 1 and 101 (as opposed to 41/former 466 between the two) and was surprised how much traffic I saw - probably tourists coming back from Hearst Castle like I was. Not sure if 41/old 466 is busy.
Quote from: agentsteel53
QuoteEven the former US 299, at the current length of State Route 299 (305 miles), could have been retained as well (though ending at a dirt road at the state line probably wouldn't have been great for a US route).
the original end of US-299 was at US-395; it was extended only as a state route in 1964.
Yeah, based on the strict definition of the AASHTO 300-or-less rule, 299 wouldn't have been "long enough," but considering the continued existence of 46, 311, et al...
I think it's one thing to decommission a route based on a direct Interstate replacement/redesignation or parallel route (i.e. US 101 being taken off the concurrency with I-5 south of Los Angeles, US 91 and 466 being supplanted on I-15 from Devore to Las Vegas), but when the existing route is a standalone corridor of some function, no reason to demote the highway from US to state.
(399 I always thought was a bit of an oddball L-shaped route though.)
US 66 was a pretty stupid decommissioning. Yes, the 66 designation was redundant to 55-44-40, but when you get something with as much cultural mindshare as 66, things like that should really be looked at in a different light. I'd really like to see 66 recommissioned in some form. Hell, while they're resigning it, crank out a few hundred spare 66 shields and sell 'em off to the public to defray the costs...
Quote from: TheStranger on June 25, 2010, 09:03:19 PM
I've been on 46 between 1 and 101 (as opposed to 41/former 466 between the two) and was surprised how much traffic I saw - probably tourists coming back from Hearst Castle like I was. Not sure if 41/old 466 is busy.
it is not. It's a fun drive but pretty narrow and winding.
Quote(399 I always thought was a bit of an oddball L-shaped route though.)
I figured they wanted another 99-to-101 connection. Extending 33 over most of it makes a lot of sense, actually. Now 33 all the way from Tracy or wherever could be US-399! :-D
Quote from: corco on June 25, 2010, 07:41:50 PM
Bring back US-410! You can call it 12, I guess, but decommissioning the routing of 410 was silly.
Instead of bringing back US 410, they can rename the mainline between Olympia and Aberdeen under a single number, and have US 101 terminate at Mud Bay and US 12 terminate at Elma. If they could get it up to interstate standards they could call it Interstate 105.
I also think they should extend Interstate 82 west along portions of SR-410 to Tacoma and eventually on to Port Angeles.
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 25, 2010, 09:04:20 PM
US 66 was a pretty stupid decommissioning. Yes, the 66 designation was redundant to 55-44-40, but when you get something with as much cultural mindshare as 66, things like that should really be looked at in a different light. I'd really like to see 66 recommissioned in some form. Hell, while they're resigning it, crank out a few hundred spare 66 shields and sell 'em off to the public to defray the costs...
I recall that it was the decommissioning itself that brought MORE attention to 66 than previously. Honestly, considering the tourist industry built upon the route, why not resurrect it as a navigable, continuous highway from Santa Monica to Chicago?
For that matter, at the Four-Level in Los Angeles, having the Arroyo Seco Parkway (Pasadena Freeway) as just US 66, with I-110 being in use from 101 south to San Pedro, would make more sense than it'd seem at first - that freeway is almost entirely east-west in its scope, compared to the Harbor Freeway (signed as Interstate 110 in its entirety southbound, but as Route 110 northbound from I-10 to US 101).
Quote from: TheStranger on June 25, 2010, 09:43:54 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 25, 2010, 09:04:20 PM
US 66 was a pretty stupid decommissioning. Yes, the 66 designation was redundant to 55-44-40, but when you get something with as much cultural mindshare as 66, things like that should really be looked at in a different light. I'd really like to see 66 recommissioned in some form. Hell, while they're resigning it, crank out a few hundred spare 66 shields and sell 'em off to the public to defray the costs...
I recall that it was the decommissioning itself that brought MORE attention to 66 than previously. Honestly, considering the tourist industry built upon the route, why not resurrect it as a navigable, continuous highway from Santa Monica to Chicago?
We were just discussing that on another list today.
I think resurrecting 66 would detract from the Historic Route/Scenic Byway that has grown up around it. Efforts have been made to preserve the flavor & feeling of old 66 and IMHO, bringing the route back would have an adverse effect on those efforts. You would risk losgin the historical aspects of 66 that make it unique. Better by far to leave it as is for future generations and to impress upon them its significance.
Besides, which alignment would you choose? Each state has at least 2 or 3 different alignments :hmm:
Quote from: US71 on June 25, 2010, 10:08:00 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on June 25, 2010, 09:43:54 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 25, 2010, 09:04:20 PM
US 66 was a pretty stupid decommissioning. Yes, the 66 designation was redundant to 55-44-40, but when you get something with as much cultural mindshare as 66, things like that should really be looked at in a different light. I'd really like to see 66 recommissioned in some form. Hell, while they're resigning it, crank out a few hundred spare 66 shields and sell 'em off to the public to defray the costs...
I recall that it was the decommissioning itself that brought MORE attention to 66 than previously. Honestly, considering the tourist industry built upon the route, why not resurrect it as a navigable, continuous highway from Santa Monica to Chicago?
We were just discussing that on another list today.
I think resurrecting 66 would detract from the Historic Route/Scenic Byway that has grown up around it. Efforts have been made to preserve the flavor & feeling of old 66 and IMHO, bringing the route back would have an adverse effect on those efforts. You would risk losgin the historical aspects of 66 that make it unique. Better by far to leave it as is for future generations and to impress upon them its significance.
Besides, which alignment would you choose? Each state has at least 2 or 3 different alignments :hmm:
I'm thinking, at the very least though, make it a LOT easier for one to navigate along the route from point-to-point (which is difficult as is).
US 66 was the most obvious one I thought of too, but its decommisioning at least made sense since it's usefulness as a through route has been completely superseded by its parallel interstate routes, so resurrecting it would be fairly redundant. But then again, how is the old US 66 much different than most of US 11? The only portions of US 11 that are really independent of any interstate routing are N. of Watertown, NY, btw. Wilkes-Barre and Harrisburg, PA, and the split routing btw. Bristol and Knoxville, TN. The rest(the vast majority of it) is rarely more than about 5 miles from a parallel interstate. How has US 11 managed to stay around in its entire length, despite its usefulness as a long-distance through route being superseded by parallel interstates?
the east coast, midwest, and south tend to have fewer decommissionings. US-5, for example, is entirely superseded by I-91, as well, but the old road tends to be at least a few miles away from the new freeway because the towns are so much closer together that the western model of putting the new interstate right over the old road, and making business loops, is less sensible.
even out in the sticks of, say, rural Vermont, there is a house every mile or so at most along US-5 - and similarly for US-11 in Virginia - so the eminent domain issues would be significantly greater than buying up some farm or ranch land, or sectional roads that belong to the county or state as public right-of-way already. It's significantly less problematic to lose a small percent of your cattle grazing area for a fair price, than it is to have your house demolished!
I can see US 66 recommissioned from El Reno, OK to Springfield, MO, but not any further than that. That's the longest stretch of old 66 that is still a major highway.
In Ohio, one of the dumbest decommissions was US 223 in Toledo.
Monroe Street )Former US 223) was a straight shot from US 23 in Sylvania to downtown Toledo (still is). But in 1986, during the "Great Toledo Route Swap", ODOT thought it was a better idea to extend SR-51 along US 223's Monroe Street alignment to create a single Northwest to Southeast route connecting US 23 in Sylvania to US 20 near Elmore. Why they didn't just rename SR-51 US-223? :hmmm:
It would have made more sense to ultimately have a single route number connecting Southeast Toledo to Adrian, MI, than to have the current US-223 Alignment: Starting US 223 in a multiplex with US 23 at a suburban exit, less than a mile from the state line, then finally turning onto it's own roadway 15 minutes to the north. :pan:
If the powers that were in 1986 were going to truncate US-223 properly, they should have ended US-223 at it's intersection with US-23 near Blissfield, MI and eliminated the needless multiplex altogether. And why they decided to switch the rest of the routes in Toledo is another story. :banghead:
Quote from: corco on June 25, 2010, 07:41:50 PM
A bit of an unorthodox choice, but US-410. Admittedly, with US-12 existing as it does today 410 wouldn't be great, but the routing that 410 took was far more useful than the one that 12 takes today through Washington. 12 bypasses Mt Rainier National Park, doesn't serve any major cities, and goes to what...Aberdeen? Who cares about Aberdeen? That's a meth house, not a tourist area. The only good parts of the Washington coast are already served indirectly by US 101, and US 12 doesn't serve any of the cool parts. Heck, it doesn't even facilitate interstate commerce. What two significant areas are connected by the 12 corridor west of Yakima? Centralia? Not to mention, most of the coastbound traffic that would benefit from US-12 being there comes from the Puget Sound region to the coasts, and 410-101 is a simpler way to navigate by than 101-8-12-101.
Bring back US-410! You can call it 12, I guess, but decommissioning the routing of 410 was silly.
I can't claim to really know what was the actual basis of the decision, but I'd guess the fact White Pass is open year round while Chinook Pass is closed in winter and 410 passes through a national park is the likely reason 12 doesn't follow the original 410 between Naches and Elma.
QuoteI can't claim to really know what was the actual basis of the decision, but I'd guess the fact White Pass is open year round while Chinook Pass is closed in winter and 410 passes through a national park is the likely reason 12 doesn't follow the original 410 between Naches and Elma.
That's a good call- I completely forgot about that major detail, although I suppose if US-212 can be closed during winters, 410 could be able to be too. White Pass just doesn't serve much of a national purpose in my mind- to get any decent sized city besides Centralia or Aberdeen or maybe Longview from Yakima, you'd take 82 to 90 or 97 down Satus Pass to I-84. But yeah, that's definitely a really important factor that I totally spaced.
Quote from: huskeroadgeek on June 25, 2010, 10:42:27 PM
US 66 was the most obvious one I thought of too, but its decommisioning at least made sense since it's usefulness as a through route has been completely superseded by its parallel interstate routes, so resurrecting it would be fairly redundant. But then again, how is the old US 66 much different than most of US 11? The only portions of US 11 that are really independent of any interstate routing are N. of Watertown, NY, btw. Wilkes-Barre and Harrisburg, PA, and the split routing btw. Bristol and Knoxville, TN. The rest(the vast majority of it) is rarely more than about 5 miles from a parallel interstate. How has US 11 managed to stay around in its entire length, despite its usefulness as a long-distance through route being superseded by parallel interstates?
US 66, at least for large parts in Missouri and Illinois, would be pretty much 80% outer road if the last pre-interstate alignment was used. US 11 appears to be more than an outer road.
As for dumbest decommission, I'll second US 99. Second dumbest would be US 460 west of Frankfort, Kentucky. Sure most of the Indiana section stays close to I-64 and is somewhat low quality, but the Illinois section strays a bit from I-64, especially west of Mount Vernon. The indirect section using IL 1 in eastern Illinois could have always been relocated or had a more direct alignment later added, possibly feeding into the IN 62 toll bridge.
Third dumbest would be US 32. That one should have stayed instead of having an extra-long, out of place US 6.
Quote from: Revive 755 on June 26, 2010, 12:49:57 AM
US 66, at least for large parts in Missouri and Illinois, would be pretty much 80% outer road if the last pre-interstate alignment was used. US 11 appears to be more than an outer road.
Interestingly, except from Pasadena to Victorville, a surprising amount of former US 66 in California is far enough from parallel routes to be considered more than just a nearby frontage.
Quote from: Revive 755
As for dumbest decommission, I'll second US 99. Second dumbest would be US 460 west of Frankfort, Kentucky. Sure most of the Indiana section stays close to I-64 and is somewhat low quality, but the Illinois section strays a bit from I-64, especially west of Mount Vernon. The indirect section using IL 1 in eastern Illinois could have always been relocated or had a more direct alignment later added, possibly feeding into the IN 62 toll bridge.
Third dumbest would be US 32. That one should have stayed instead of having an extra-long, out of place US 6.
460 in Indiana actually passed far enough south from I-64 at times, particularly in Evansville (which 64 stays north of, using I-164/future I-69 to access).
As for 32, I do wonder - the "Grand Army Of The Republic Highway" designation for the whole of US 6 was designated in 1939 or so, including the run to Long Beach. I don't think a single named trail applied to that route when US 32 and US 38 existed...
I know this a state route but its worth putting up:
In 1928's state highway expansion of Pennsylvania, PennDOH created Route 415 and Route 515 to basically circumnavigate Harveys Lake, PA. Now PA 415 goes further out than that (then and today), but Route 515 basically was a spur of 415 on the eastern side of the lake. In the 1946ish mass decommissioning, PA 515 was taken out in favor of basically a 2nd PA 415 alignment on the eastern side of the lake. Meaning PA 415, both two-way roads, went on both sides of the lake, and still does I may add. I've been on it, signage can confuse you, and although PA 515 is now SR 1415 to disambiguate, using 515 wouldn't be a bad idea, but its really a strange way to set up a route.
Quote from: TheStranger on June 26, 2010, 01:01:29 AM
As for 32, I do wonder - the "Grand Army Of The Republic Highway" designation for the whole of US 6 was designated in 1939 or so, including the run to Long Beach. I don't think a single named trail applied to that route when US 32 and US 38 existed...
indeed, 6 is kind of a hodgepodge - though it does faithfully follow the Midland Trail from at least west of Denver, as far as I know.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 26, 2010, 02:19:31 AM
Quote from: TheStranger on June 26, 2010, 01:01:29 AM
As for 32, I do wonder - the "Grand Army Of The Republic Highway" designation for the whole of US 6 was designated in 1939 or so, including the run to Long Beach. I don't think a single named trail applied to that route when US 32 and US 38 existed...
indeed, 6 is kind of a hodgepodge - though it does faithfully follow the Midland Trail from at least west of Denver, as far as I know.
In 1934 (the initial signage of California state routes), this would have been covered by multiple designations, certainly not under one number (and I don't think in any case, really warranting an east-west number in California) all the way to Denver:
Route 3 from Long Beach to San Pedro
Route 11 from San Pedro to the Chavez Ravine area of Los Angeles
US 99 from Chavez Ravine to Newhall Pass
Route 7 from San Fernando north to Bishop
Route 168 from Bishop to the Nevada state line (today's remnant of US 6 in California)
in Nevada, Wikipedia notes several predecessor routes as well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Route_6_in_Nevada
Much of the route through Utah was at one point US 50 (though I don't think it always was US 50 on the west end). Not sure what the segment from Grand Junction to Denver was - US 38?
As small an unimportant as it is, I would've liked to see US 46 cross the Delaware still.
I agree that US 99 should've been kept, at least in OR and CA. I generally think it's pointless to change a US route to a state route with the same number, as in US/AZ 89, US/MN 61, etc.
Also minor, but I would've liked US 126 in Oregon to remain, and even have been extended to Florence. While it was intrastate and shorter than 300 miles, it made sense as a branch of US 26, and since the number was retained in OR 126, there was little sense for it to lose its US Highway status.
I-170 in Baltimore. They destroyed a neighborhood to build it, at least sign it even if it doesn't go anywhere. Plus, I-278 needs some company in the Most Ill-Fated category.
Well, it's not technically a decommissioning, but one I'd nominate is US-89A in Utah. Granted, the issue's been fixed,* and the UT-11 designation is a result of the early Utah plan, but the fact that they had to sign a separate number, UT-11, over an alternate US route is preposterous. Methinks it's the same process, in that UDOT assigns separate route numbers to Interstate (and US-6) business loops, and any other kind of bannered route, combined with the hidden UT-11 route designation, that led to the "absence of US-89A in Utah" situation. Combine that with the fact that US-89A is the only alternate/suffixed (not business or otherwise) route in Utah and you'll end up seeing "South UT-11, TO US-89A" signs in Kanab at one point in time.
I'll agree that the whole US-89/AZ-89 and the southern US-89A/AZ-89A decommissionings are a bit redundant, along with US-61/MN-61.
US-466, at least west of Barstow, would have been a useful US Route. Another nomination, though in the same vein as US-89A in Utah, is US-85 in New Mexico. Sure, I-25 and I-10 have supplanted it, but why not reroute it down NM-3 and US-54 and eliminate the oddball US-54 alignment south of Tucumcari giving it a true north-south number? Why not go the way of Colorado and use the US Route as the business loops or other through routes?
*Signs will be posted soon; the signing dept. at UDOT said that they will overhaul the signing in Kanab (possibly the hanging wire signs, as well), and they plan to do so all at once.
Quote from: Rover_0 on June 26, 2010, 08:06:36 PM
US-466, at least west of Barstow, would have been a useful US Route. Another nomination, though in the same vein as US-89A in Utah, is US-85 in New Mexico. Sure, I-25 and I-10 have supplanted it, but why not reroute it down NM-3 and US-54 and eliminate the oddball US-54 alignment south of Tucumcari giving it a true north-south number? Why not go the way of Colorado and use the US Route as the business loops or other through routes?
This reminds me of something I liked from Michigan's DOT: rerouting US 12 to what was then US 112 when I-94 took over the original US 12 corridor between Lake Michigan and Ypsilanti. This doesn't work in all cases, but would be great for US 85 in New Mexico (along what you suggested).
Quote from: TheStranger on June 26, 2010, 11:08:52 PM
Quote from: Rover_0 on June 26, 2010, 08:06:36 PM
US-466, at least west of Barstow, would have been a useful US Route. Another nomination, though in the same vein as US-89A in Utah, is US-85 in New Mexico. Sure, I-25 and I-10 have supplanted it, but why not reroute it down NM-3 and US-54 and eliminate the oddball US-54 alignment south of Tucumcari giving it a true north-south number? Why not go the way of Colorado and use the US Route as the business loops or other through routes?
This reminds me of something I liked from Michigan's DOT: rerouting US 12 to what was then US 112 when I-94 took over the original US 12 corridor between Lake Michigan and Ypsilanti. This doesn't work in all cases, but would be great for US 85 in New Mexico (along what you suggested).
Well, I got to thinking, and at the risk of turning this into a fictional-type highways discussion board, but what about duplexing US-85 with US-160 west out of Walsenburg, CO to Ft. Garland, then down CO-159/NM-522 to Taos, then down NM-68 and NM-518 to Las Vegas, then down US-84 and NM-219 to US-54 down to Patura, NM? Or down NM-68, US-84/285, I-25 (wrong way overlay), and down NM-41 and NM-42 to US-54 at Corona (if NM-518 isn't an all-weather route)?
Oops, sorry. That is an excellent idea Rover. Bring back the old US 85 as an alternate to I-25 and eliminate the useless little routes that NM is so fond of. And it is a rather scenic alternative as well.
Use the edit button next time. And one space between words is quite sufficient. -DTP
A state highway in Michigan I resent being decommissioned is M-209 in the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore. It had the distinction of being Michigan's shortest state highway, 3/10 of a mile long and a maximum speed limit of 25 m.p.h. :coffee:
I unfortunately can understand the decommissioning of that one, though I very much sympathize. Leaving it up wouldn't have hurt anything.
I don't like that CA-126 now ends at I-5. It used to extend southeast to CA-14.
Speaking of decommissioned routes, where was the western terminus of CA 30?
Quote from: ausinterkid on September 24, 2010, 06:34:24 AM
Speaking of decommissioned routes, where was the western terminus of CA 30?
The western terminus of Route 30 was always in the San Dimas area, originally at US 66 in the 1950s, later at I-210.
Quote from: QuillzI don't like that CA-126 now ends at I-5. It used to extend southeast to CA-14.
What annoys me is that the 126 corridor between 5 and 14 HAS been built as an arterial...and I want to even say (but can't say for sure) some state funds were used...but nope, not part of 126. (The insistence on legislative/maintenance reasons for signing, instead of navigational aids, is one of my biggest pet peeves about California's state route system.)
Quote from: njroadhorse on June 26, 2010, 09:28:33 AM
As small an unimportant as it is, I would've liked to see US 46 cross the Delaware still.
I don't know what they were thinking when they downgraded NJ 24 west of I-287. If they didn't want people to confuse it with the 24 freeway they could at least have kept it as a state highway. Wasn't it NJ 124 for a time?
Quote from: corco on June 25, 2010, 07:41:50 PM
A bit of an unorthodox choice, but US-410. Admittedly, with US-12 existing as it does today 410 wouldn't be great, but the routing that 410 took was far more useful than the one that 12 takes today through Washington. 12 bypasses Mt Rainier National Park, doesn't serve any major cities, and goes to what...Aberdeen? Who cares about Aberdeen? That's a meth house, not a tourist area. The only good parts of the Washington coast are already served indirectly by US 101, and US 12 doesn't serve any of the cool parts. Heck, it doesn't even facilitate interstate commerce. What two significant areas are connected by the 12 corridor west of Yakima? Centralia? Not to mention, most of the coastbound traffic that would benefit from US-12 being there comes from the Puget Sound region to the coasts, and 410-101 is a simpler way to navigate by than 101-8-12-101.
Bring back US-410! You can call it 12, I guess, but decommissioning the routing of 410 was silly.
Doesn't WA-410 close in the winter? I think a USH should be open year round.
Quote from: Michael in Philly on September 28, 2010, 01:20:08 PM
Quote from: njroadhorse on June 26, 2010, 09:28:33 AM
As small an unimportant as it is, I would've liked to see US 46 cross the Delaware still.
I don't know what they were thinking when they downgraded NJ 24 west of I-287. If they didn't want people to confuse it with the 24 freeway they could at least have kept it as a state highway. Wasn't it NJ 124 for a time?
I don't know if it was 124 at one time because I never saw an NJ 124 shield along either route, but I definitely agree with you about NJ 24's decomissioning.
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 25, 2010, 09:04:20 PM
US 66 was a pretty stupid decommissioning. Yes, the 66 designation was redundant to 55-44-40, but when you get something with as much cultural mindshare as 66, things like that should really be looked at in a different light. I'd really like to see 66 recommissioned in some form. Hell, while they're resigning it, crank out a few hundred spare 66 shields and sell 'em off to the public to defray the costs...
Sorry for the late post, but I have been busy driving Route 66....
Back in the 70's and 80's as I-55/44/40 et al replaced US-66 the old route did not have the nostalgia value it has now, in fact had it NOT been decommissioned when its transportation value was superseded by the Interstates it would arguably not be the famous road it is today. While it certainly had reputation and fame for decades before it was replaced as a transportation asset it is likely that the road would not have near the tourism and nostalgia value it has now if it still existed as a posted US Route.
Like the art world, where the death of the artist often makes his work more valuable, it was the death of Route 66 that made it much more famous and an attractive destination.
Quote from: N9JIG on October 15, 2010, 08:09:05 AM
Back in the 70's and 80's as I-55/44/40 et al replaced US-66 the old route did not have the nostalgia value it has now, in fact had it NOT been decommissioned when its transportation value was superseded by the Interstates it would arguably not be the famous road it is today. While it certainly had reputation and fame for decades before it was replaced as a transportation asset it is likely that the road would not have near the tourism and nostalgia value it has now if it still existed as a posted US Route.
Like the art world, where the death of the artist often makes his work more valuable, it was the death of Route 66 that made it much more famous and an attractive destination.
when did it seemingly lose its cachet? When it got knocked out of California in '74? It seems to me that in the 40s, Route 66 was well-known enough that, hell, Bobby Troup wrote a song about it. The Phillips 66 gas station chain was named, in part, after it. John Steinbeck specifically chose that route to write about, even implying it went to Bakersfield to meet 99 (never mind about US-466, not interesting enough a number).
I have seen more tourist-oriented reference materials for route 66 from the 40s, 50s, and 60s, than for every other route combined. The occasional US-40 item comes up, and sometimes 50 and 80 make an appearance, but for the most part it's 66 all the way.
Quote from: njroadhorse on September 29, 2010, 11:10:06 AM
Quote from: Michael in Philly on September 28, 2010, 01:20:08 PM
Quote from: njroadhorse on June 26, 2010, 09:28:33 AM
As small an unimportant as it is, I would've liked to see US 46 cross the Delaware still.
I don't know what they were thinking when they downgraded NJ 24 west of I-287. If they didn't want people to confuse it with the 24 freeway they could at least have kept it as a state highway. Wasn't it NJ 124 for a time?
I don't know if it was 124 at one time because I never saw an NJ 124 shield along either route, but I definitely agree with you about NJ 24's decomissioning.
To my knowledge, the length of NJ 124 was NJ 24 until the freeway segments of NJ 24 opened, the last in 1992, I believe. It is still a state highway from the Morristown Green eastward, which includes a piece west of I-287. West of the Green was designated NJ 24 for a time, but I think not maintained by the State. Not as sure on the history of that westerly segment, though.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 28, 2010, 04:21:08 PM
Doesn't WA-410 close in the winter? I think a USH should be open year round.
There are several "US routes" that are closed in winter - oh wait - they don't exist in national parks :-D
Quote from: akotchi on October 15, 2010, 01:14:28 PM
Quote from: njroadhorse on September 29, 2010, 11:10:06 AM
Quote from: Michael in Philly on September 28, 2010, 01:20:08 PM
I don't know what they were thinking when they downgraded NJ 24 west of I-287. If they didn't want people to confuse it with the 24 freeway they could at least have kept it as a state highway. Wasn't it NJ 124 for a time?
I don't know if it was 124 at one time because I never saw an NJ 124 shield along either route, but I definitely agree with you about NJ 24's decomissioning.
To my knowledge, the length of NJ 124 was NJ 24 until the freeway segments of NJ 24 opened, the last in 1992, I believe. It is still a state highway from the Morristown Green eastward, which includes a piece west of I-287. West of the Green was designated NJ 24 for a time, but I think not maintained by the State. Not as sure on the history of that westerly segment, though.
Hello, your friendly answer man here. No, it was always NJ 24 west of Morristown, all the way out to Phillipsburg via NJ 57. NJ 182 was then known as S-24, and later became NJ 57. Post-1953, NJ 24 swapped with 57 and the state-maintained piece of 24 became 182. NJ 24 from Hackettstown to Morristown was ALWAYS county maintained, even before the 5xx system was numbered. That's why it was dropped upon completion of the NJ 24 freeway. The counties still do sign NJ 24 along the roads, but I think people are starting to understand that it's not Route 24 anymore. A lot of the signs are older, and the new signs near state highways make no reference to NJ 24 whatsoever.
Quote from: US71 on June 25, 2010, 10:08:00 PM
Besides, which alignment would you choose? Each state has at least 2 or 3 different alignments :hmm:
I liked, and agreed with, all of your points except this one, which I think is rather weak. Alignments change all the time. If the route were to be resurrected, which I agree would be a mistake, it'd be easy enough to reestablish the last existing alignment and begin any necessary new realignments from that point. I suppose that, for such a long route, it might not be possible to re-establish the last existing alignment in some places, owing to reconstruction that may have taken place since the decommissioning, but I seriously doubt that a reasonable alternative couldn't be easily substituted.
Quote from: TheStranger on September 24, 2010, 01:21:30 PM
Quote from: ausinterkid on September 24, 2010, 06:34:24 AM
Speaking of decommissioned routes, where was the western terminus of CA 30?
The western terminus of Route 30 was always in the San Dimas area, originally at US 66 in the 1950s, later at I-210.
Quote from: QuillzI don't like that CA-126 now ends at I-5. It used to extend southeast to CA-14.
What annoys me is that the 126 corridor between 5 and 14 HAS been built as an arterial...and I want to even say (but can't say for sure) some state funds were used...but nope, not part of 126. (The insistence on legislative/maintenance reasons for signing, instead of navigational aids, is one of my biggest pet peeves about California's state route system.)
I agree. And it's the reason why CA-2, CA-91, CA-133 and several others that apparently head towards the coast never actually touch (and terminate) at CA-1, like they probably would in any other state.
2 is definitely signed as though it terminates at 1. Don't remember 91 and 133 offhand.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 19, 2010, 03:23:03 PM
2 is definitely signed as though it terminates at 1. Don't remember 91 and 133 offhand.
It's signed as if it does but it legally does not, and it's really annoying. And the same goes with the other routes I mentioned.
Quote from: Quillz on October 19, 2010, 03:33:16 PM
It's signed as if it does but it legally does not, and it's really annoying. And the same goes with the other routes I mentioned.
if it is signed to terminate, then it does its job correctly. I don't care if, legally, CA-2 exists in Santa Monica, hugs the outskirts of Bishop, jogs down three side streets in Markleeville, and even features a brief segment on an unconstructed overpass in Kuala Lumpur.
I really do not
care what is written in an obscure reference manual, hidden somewhere on the basement floor of the California State Assembly, inside a locked file cabinet, behind an unused lavatory and protected by a sign that says "beware of the leopard".
If it's signed to terminate at CA-1, then by golly,
it does terminate at CA-1. Good to know that our highway sign planners have more sense than our legislature. Now can we slap a few CA-39 shields on county route N6?
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 19, 2010, 03:46:25 PM
If it's signed to terminate at CA-1, then by golly, it does terminate at CA-1. Good to know that our highway sign planners have more sense than our legislature.
My guess is that this may actually be one of those silly cases in which the legislative redefinition SPECIFICALLY authorizes for signing to continue on a "non-state-maintained" portion of the original route.
to which i say, then why bother with the legislative handling of this in the first place?
I think part of Route 1 along the PCH has this "exception," which should be the rule by default - let sign people determine signed routes, and the legislature can handle who maintains what (which should not be directly correlated).
Quote from: agentsteel53Now can we slap a few CA-39 shields on county route N6?
Or for that matter, Route 93 shields on the Richmond Parkway! I know the city of Richmond (according to Wikipedia) has not had success getting CalTrans to start maintaining the route...fine, but I'd think that a signed Route 93 along a city-maintained road beats the current "TO 580" that the road is signed for at present.
Amazingly, CalTrans has gotten better at identifying certain hidden routes even on a sporadic basis (259, 262, and a complete stretch, but I'd include 275 compared to how it had been signed previously).
Quote from: agentsteel53Now can we slap a few CA-39 shields on county route N6?
N8.
WIS 24 went from then WIS 15 (now I-43) in East Troy northeast into Milwaukee ending at then US 41 (Now WIS 241). Racine, Walworth, and Waukesha counties decommissioned the route within their borders, but Milwaukee County didn't, so the highway stubs at the county line and becomes CTH L.
Speaking of WIS 241, it and WIS 24 meet and end at each other :eyebrow:
Quote from: bugo on June 25, 2010, 06:19:36 PM
The first two that come to mind are US 61 and US 75. Old US 61 north of Duluth is a major route and the main route for a large part of Minnesota. Old US 75 south of Dallas has a very lengthy section that does not duplex with I-45. What are some other boneheaded decommissionings that have occurred?
I agree on 61. Minnesota doesn't like duplexing the US highways on to interstates much. But why 61 has to run from Saint Paul to Wyoming still I have no clue.
US 75 hugs I-45 the whole way, why would it not have been decommissioned? I could see changing US 175 into 75.
For me, I'd say US 31 and 40 and SR 37 in Indianapolis, also California 1, they may be redundant in some ways, but still would be useful for travelers unfamiliar with the area.
Quote from: texaskdog on May 12, 2015, 10:30:35 AM
Quote from: bugo on June 25, 2010, 06:19:36 PM
The first two that come to mind are US 61 and US 75. Old US 61 north of Duluth is a major route and the main route for a large part of Minnesota. Old US 75 south of Dallas has a very lengthy section that does not duplex with I-45. What are some other boneheaded decommissionings that have occurred?
I agree on 61. Minnesota doesn't like duplexing the US highways on to interstates much. But why 61 has to run from Saint Paul to Wyoming still I have no clue.
US 75 hugs I-45 the whole way, why would it not have been decommissioned? I could see changing US 175 into 75.
I would like to know why TexDOT kept US 181 alive, considering it goes from San Antonio to Corpus Christi like I-35 now does. Considering all other roads have been decommissioned that run where interstates do in a state that loves to either truncate, decommission, or not sign US routes where interstate freeways have taken over, this is very strange.
Yes, US 181 is a pretty useless US highway.
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 12, 2015, 11:16:26 AM
also California 1, they may be redundant in some ways, but still would be useful for travelers unfamiliar with the area.
Route 1 hasn't been decommissioned anywhere except for the portion north of Route 211 on the north coast that was never fully constructed.
Quote from: TheStranger on May 12, 2015, 11:54:00 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 12, 2015, 11:16:26 AM
also California 1, they may be redundant in some ways, but still would be useful for travelers unfamiliar with the area.
Route 1 hasn't been decommissioned anywhere except for the portion north of Route 211 on the north coast that was never fully constructed.
o really? I stand corrected, I thought it had been decommissioned south of I-10 for a few miles in santa monica
CA 1 (and 2) have been segmented and the localities are required to maintain guide signs to the next portion of the route. The reason they might as well have just outright decommissioned along those segments is because the trailblazers and reassurance markers aren't there post-maintenance turnback.
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 12, 2015, 12:26:07 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on May 12, 2015, 11:54:00 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 12, 2015, 11:16:26 AM
also California 1, they may be redundant in some ways, but still would be useful for travelers unfamiliar with the area.
Route 1 hasn't been decommissioned anywhere except for the portion north of Route 211 on the north coast that was never fully constructed.
o really? I stand corrected, I thought it had been decommissioned south of I-10 for a few miles in santa monica
SR 1 is too much of a tourist destination to go away. It's a well-known scenic drive and Caltrans knows that.
Routes 66 and 99, for sure!
If anything, US 66 should be brought back as a continuously-signed historic route sticking to the original routing as much as possible, if only so people can follow it. Doesn't have to be brought up to NHS standards (and it shouldn't be), but there's enough of a tourist trade based around it.
I've always disliked the decommissioning of US 25 north of the Ohio River. Much of the route is still traversable and serves as a local alternative to I-75 and I-94. Certain sections retain state maintenance.
Another one you can blame on Minnesota is US 16 east of Rapid City, SD. US 16 had a separate existence from the current west end of MN 16 near Austin to the Milwaukee area. If Minnesota wanted to pretend US 16 didn't exist from the Austin area west, I suppose that's all right, but they didn't have to make Wisconsin decommission US 16.
If you want another one to blame on Minnesota, there's also US 55. Extending US 52 westward from Indiana as they did is quite ridiculous.
Quote from: DandyDan on May 13, 2015, 02:59:25 AM
Another one you can blame on Minnesota is US 16 east of Rapid City, SD. US 16 had a separate existence from the current west end of MN 16 near Austin to the Milwaukee area. If Minnesota wanted to pretend US 16 didn't exist from the Austin area west, I suppose that's all right, but they didn't have to make Wisconsin decommission US 16.
If you want another one to blame on Minnesota, there's also US 55. Extending US 52 westward from Indiana as they did is quite ridiculous.
I don't know why gaps are such a bad thing. I don't think anyone who travels US 52 to Saint Paul is dying to travel the part in ND, or would be confused by it being a separate road.
Quote from: texaskdog on May 13, 2015, 08:19:36 AM
Quote from: DandyDan on May 13, 2015, 02:59:25 AM
Another one you can blame on Minnesota is US 16 east of Rapid City, SD. US 16 had a separate existence from the current west end of MN 16 near Austin to the Milwaukee area. If Minnesota wanted to pretend US 16 didn't exist from the Austin area west, I suppose that's all right, but they didn't have to make Wisconsin decommission US 16.
If you want another one to blame on Minnesota, there's also US 55. Extending US 52 westward from Indiana as they did is quite ridiculous.
I don't know why gaps are such a bad thing. I don't think anyone who travels US 52 to Saint Paul is dying to travel the part in ND, or would be confused by it being a separate road.
I think gaps should be avoided whenever possible, continuity should be preserved, even if people don't travel the whole route anymore. I see your point, but when a route constantly disappears and reappears it can get very confusing in the situations when someone actually is trying to use the route as a through route
Having grown up in So. California, all of Cali's decommissionings for US highways were dumb, especially US 6, 99 and 101 as well as US 60&70.
Quote from: ATLRedSoxFan on May 13, 2015, 12:09:05 PM
Having grown up in So. California, all of Cali's decommissionings for US highways were dumb, especially US 6, 99 and 101 as well as US 60&70.
Put in US 299 too. It went from border to border and was over 300 miles.
US 211 with US 29 from Warrenton to Washington, DC. I know it was done when I-66 became complete as that now functions as what US 211 used to do which was connect US 11, later I-81 to our nation's capital. Then when the final segment west of US 29 opened, it assumed the role that US 211 played, so that was the logic of truncating US 211 back to Warrenton to avoid the long overlap with US 29.
Even though it was not dumb to eliminate dual signage from Warrenton to the Key Bridge, being that they did not commission all of US 211 is dumb. VDOT should have made it VA 211 instead.
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 13, 2015, 11:12:24 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on May 13, 2015, 08:19:36 AM
Quote from: DandyDan on May 13, 2015, 02:59:25 AM
Another one you can blame on Minnesota is US 16 east of Rapid City, SD. US 16 had a separate existence from the current west end of MN 16 near Austin to the Milwaukee area. If Minnesota wanted to pretend US 16 didn't exist from the Austin area west, I suppose that's all right, but they didn't have to make Wisconsin decommission US 16.
If you want another one to blame on Minnesota, there's also US 55. Extending US 52 westward from Indiana as they did is quite ridiculous.
I don't know why gaps are such a bad thing. I don't think anyone who travels US 52 to Saint Paul is dying to travel the part in ND, or would be confused by it being a separate road.
I think gaps should be avoided whenever possible, continuity should be preserved, even if people don't travel the whole route anymore. I see your point, but when a route constantly disappears and reappears it can get very confusing in the situations when someone actually is trying to use the route as a through route
I don't mean the little hops, I mean like US 85, US 87, US 52 that break for hundreds of miles.
Three dumb decommissionings to me
1. I concur with US 25 north of Kentucky. in Ohio, CR 25A is a pretty busy stretch of road from Dayton north to Toledo in its various incarnations....
2. Why did Michigan decommission US 27 in favor of US 127? Woulda made more sense to realign 27 onto its child route and abolished 127....
3. US 6 in California. So it ran concurrent with US 395 for a stretch...so what? It became its own route and headed to LA....
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 13, 2015, 11:12:24 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on May 13, 2015, 08:19:36 AM
Quote from: DandyDan on May 13, 2015, 02:59:25 AM
Another one you can blame on Minnesota is US 16 east of Rapid City, SD. US 16 had a separate existence from the current west end of MN 16 near Austin to the Milwaukee area. If Minnesota wanted to pretend US 16 didn't exist from the Austin area west, I suppose that's all right, but they didn't have to make Wisconsin decommission US 16.
If you want another one to blame on Minnesota, there's also US 55. Extending US 52 westward from Indiana as they did is quite ridiculous.
I don't know why gaps are such a bad thing. I don't think anyone who travels US 52 to Saint Paul is dying to travel the part in ND, or would be confused by it being a separate road.
I think gaps should be avoided whenever possible, continuity should be preserved, even if people don't travel the whole route anymore. I see your point, but when a route constantly disappears and reappears it can get very confusing in the situations when someone actually is trying to use the route as a through route
Sure, I agree in concept, but is it worth thousands of dollars in signage to give the four people that drive from Dubuque to Minot every year via US 52 a single route number, or is it easier to say "take US 52 to I-94, then get on I-94 until central North Dakota, then get back on US-52."
I was driving from Phoenix to Vegas a number of years ago with some non-roadgeeks. We were discussing how to get there, and I said "just take US 93 the whole way" and then they felt like I was full of shit and didn't know what I was doing when we had to get on I-40 for a few miles, even though that road is part of and signed as US 93. In their minds, the route was US 93 to I-40 to US 93, and I don't think that thought process is that uncommon outside of roadgeek circles.
I'd hazard that if you directed somebody going from Great Falls MT to San Angelo TX to take US 87 the whole way, they'd get confused, and not because the route is unsigned in Colorado (or leaves I-25/90 in a couple places in Wyoming), but because in their mind the portion of US 87 that is concurrent with I-25 is I-25, not US 87. US 87 to I-90 to I-25 to US 87 is more steps, but is arguably more intuitive because it reflects the major route movements.
Quote from: andy3175 on May 13, 2015, 12:08:34 AM
I've always disliked the decommissioning of US 25 north of the Ohio River. Much of the route is still traversable and serves as a local alternative to I-75 and I-94. Certain sections retain state maintenance.
Why do local alternative roads need to be US highways?
To me, Michigan and Ohio's decommissioning make sense. Only those taking "the old road" for nostalgic or road-geek reasons care about the old US numbers. Granted, some of these roads do have enough local traffic to warrant being a state route, or in some cases being a "hidden" state maintained route.
Incidentally, Michigan also decommissioned or truncated several state highways that were replaced by Interstates: M-21, M-76, M-78.
KY and TN could follow MI and OH and decommission US-25 north of Corbin and all of US-25W, making US-25E just US-25.
Quote from: ctsignguy on May 13, 2015, 07:44:54 PM
2. Why did Michigan decommission US 27 in favor of US 127? Woulda made more sense to realign 27 onto its child route and abolished 127....
Because the remaining section could be attached to US-127 as is. If it were to be US-27, all the signs from Cincinnati to Fort Wayne and from Cincinnati to Grayling would have had to be reversed (swapping 27 for 127).
why not just have both? (us 27 and 127)
Quote from: corco on May 13, 2015, 07:51:49 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 13, 2015, 11:12:24 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on May 13, 2015, 08:19:36 AM
Quote from: DandyDan on May 13, 2015, 02:59:25 AM
Another one you can blame on Minnesota is US 16 east of Rapid City, SD. US 16 had a separate existence from the current west end of MN 16 near Austin to the Milwaukee area. If Minnesota wanted to pretend US 16 didn't exist from the Austin area west, I suppose that's all right, but they didn't have to make Wisconsin decommission US 16.
If you want another one to blame on Minnesota, there's also US 55. Extending US 52 westward from Indiana as they did is quite ridiculous.
I don't know why gaps are such a bad thing. I don't think anyone who travels US 52 to Saint Paul is dying to travel the part in ND, or would be confused by it being a separate road.
I think gaps should be avoided whenever possible, continuity should be preserved, even if people don't travel the whole route anymore. I see your point, but when a route constantly disappears and reappears it can get very confusing in the situations when someone actually is trying to use the route as a through route
Sure, I agree in concept, but is it worth thousands of dollars in signage to give the four people that drive from Dubuque to Minot every year via US 52 a single route number, or is it easier to say "take US 52 to I-94, then get on I-94 until central North Dakota, then get back on US-52."
I was driving from Phoenix to Vegas a number of years ago with some non-roadgeeks. We were discussing how to get there, and I said "just take US 93 the whole way" and then they felt like I was full of shit and didn't know what I was doing when we had to get on I-40 for a few miles, even though that road is part of and signed as US 93. In their minds, the route was US 93 to I-40 to US 93, and I don't think that thought process is that uncommon outside of roadgeek circles.
I'd hazard that if you directed somebody going from Great Falls MT to San Angelo TX to take US 87 the whole way, they'd get confused, and not because the route is unsigned in Colorado (or leaves I-25/90 in a couple places in Wyoming), but because in their mind the portion of US 87 that is concurrent with I-25 is I-25, not US 87. US 87 to I-90 to I-25 to US 87 is more steps, but is arguably more intuitive because it reflects the major route movements.
I see your point and completely agree, non road geeks don't really notice a cosigned route, they perceive it as just 1, especially when any non interstate highway is cosigned with an interstate. with that in mind it makes sense to not cosign routes in some situations.
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 14, 2015, 12:07:35 PM
why not just have both? (us 27 and 127)
Michigan has always decommissioned US Routes that parallel Interstates for a significant distance (exceptions: US-23 and US-31, and that's only because there are significant portions on either side of their respective Interstate concurrencies). For US-27, it seems like MDOT's goal was to eliminate the 100-mile "useless" concurrency with I-69, so they found a way to preserve the US highway status of the section north of Lansing. As a result, the logical endpoint of US-27 became Fort Wayne.
Personally, I don't agree with this practice (although I can understand now MDOT doesn't have as much roadway to maintain), and I think the decommissioning of (at least parts of) US highways 10, 112, 16, 25, and 27 in Michigan were among the dumbest.
Quote from: corco on May 13, 2015, 07:51:49 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 13, 2015, 11:12:24 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on May 13, 2015, 08:19:36 AM
Quote from: DandyDan on May 13, 2015, 02:59:25 AM
Another one you can blame on Minnesota is US 16 east of Rapid City, SD. US 16 had a separate existence from the current west end of MN 16 near Austin to the Milwaukee area. If Minnesota wanted to pretend US 16 didn't exist from the Austin area west, I suppose that's all right, but they didn't have to make Wisconsin decommission US 16.
If you want another one to blame on Minnesota, there's also US 55. Extending US 52 westward from Indiana as they did is quite ridiculous.
I don't know why gaps are such a bad thing. I don't think anyone who travels US 52 to Saint Paul is dying to travel the part in ND, or would be confused by it being a separate road.
I think gaps should be avoided whenever possible, continuity should be preserved, even if people don't travel the whole route anymore. I see your point, but when a route constantly disappears and reappears it can get very confusing in the situations when someone actually is trying to use the route as a through route
Sure, I agree in concept, but is it worth thousands of dollars in signage to give the four people that drive from Dubuque to Minot every year via US 52 a single route number, or is it easier to say "take US 52 to I-94, then get on I-94 until central North Dakota, then get back on US-52."
MNDOT takes the best approach for these situations: "US 12 Follow I-94 then I-394"; "US 52 Follow I-94"
Quote from: Bickendan on May 14, 2015, 03:08:42 PM
Quote from: corco on May 13, 2015, 07:51:49 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 13, 2015, 11:12:24 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on May 13, 2015, 08:19:36 AM
Quote from: DandyDan on May 13, 2015, 02:59:25 AM
Another one you can blame on Minnesota is US 16 east of Rapid City, SD. US 16 had a separate existence from the current west end of MN 16 near Austin to the Milwaukee area. If Minnesota wanted to pretend US 16 didn't exist from the Austin area west, I suppose that's all right, but they didn't have to make Wisconsin decommission US 16.
If you want another one to blame on Minnesota, there's also US 55. Extending US 52 westward from Indiana as they did is quite ridiculous.
I don't know why gaps are such a bad thing. I don't think anyone who travels US 52 to Saint Paul is dying to travel the part in ND, or would be confused by it being a separate road.
I think gaps should be avoided whenever possible, continuity should be preserved, even if people don't travel the whole route anymore. I see your point, but when a route constantly disappears and reappears it can get very confusing in the situations when someone actually is trying to use the route as a through route
Sure, I agree in concept, but is it worth thousands of dollars in signage to give the four people that drive from Dubuque to Minot every year via US 52 a single route number, or is it easier to say "take US 52 to I-94, then get on I-94 until central North Dakota, then get back on US-52."
MNDOT takes the best approach for these situations: "US 12 Follow I-94 then I-394"; "US 52 Follow I-94"
INDOT uses the same policy in Indy
Pretty much all of them post-Interstate. AASHTO should be the protector of the system, i.e. always be against stupid ideas like decommissioning routes that are still important and serve multi-state traffic, rather than being the guys nobody likes because they enforce shitty rules like the one-state-300-mile-nazi-rule. They should have offered viable alternatives to the unfair truncations that have happened the past few decades.
How about NY 27A from Oakdale to Southampton? The current situation leaves Montauk Highway cycling through either four or five different designations, depending on how you count them, which is totally confusing. The majority of it could have still been maintained by Suffolk County, but having a consistent designation would have been nice.
In Canada, the downloading of Ontario provincial highways of 1997-98, Hwy-2 completely vanished and only exist in our memories while others are truncated like Hwys 7, 11, 17, etc...
Other than the ones listed, I would say US 65's southern terminus that was once at Natchez, MS was truncated back to Clayton, LA in favor of US 425. Of course, you could argue that US 65 (or US 425) should end at Ferriday, LA at US 84 to eliminate the concurrency, but Natchez makes more sense than Clayton or Ferriday.
I would nominate INDOT for all of the asinine decommissionings in the larger cities, especially Lafayette/West Lafayette, where there is no signed alternate. Sure the routings they used were illogical, but at least there were signs telling you how to get somewhere. Today, there is no indication how to cross those cities if you are on SR 25 or 26 and meet up with the appropriate roadway on the other side.
Quote from: corco on May 13, 2015, 07:51:49 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 13, 2015, 11:12:24 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on May 13, 2015, 08:19:36 AM
Quote from: DandyDan on May 13, 2015, 02:59:25 AM
Another one you can blame on Minnesota is US 16 east of Rapid City, SD. US 16 had a separate existence from the current west end of MN 16 near Austin to the Milwaukee area. If Minnesota wanted to pretend US 16 didn't exist from the Austin area west, I suppose that's all right, but they didn't have to make Wisconsin decommission US 16.
If you want another one to blame on Minnesota, there's also US 55. Extending US 52 westward from Indiana as they did is quite ridiculous.
I don't know why gaps are such a bad thing. I don't think anyone who travels US 52 to Saint Paul is dying to travel the part in ND, or would be confused by it being a separate road.
I think gaps should be avoided whenever possible, continuity should be preserved, even if people don't travel the whole route anymore. I see your point, but when a route constantly disappears and reappears it can get very confusing in the situations when someone actually is trying to use the route as a through route
Sure, I agree in concept, but is it worth thousands of dollars in signage to give the four people that drive from Dubuque to Minot every year via US 52 a single route number, or is it easier to say "take US 52 to I-94, then get on I-94 until central North Dakota, then get back on US-52."
I was driving from Phoenix to Vegas a number of years ago with some non-roadgeeks. We were discussing how to get there, and I said "just take US 93 the whole way" and then they felt like I was full of shit and didn't know what I was doing when we had to get on I-40 for a few miles, even though that road is part of and signed as US 93. In their minds, the route was US 93 to I-40 to US 93, and I don't think that thought process is that uncommon outside of roadgeek circles.
I'd hazard that if you directed somebody going from Great Falls MT to San Angelo TX to take US 87 the whole way, they'd get confused, and not because the route is unsigned in Colorado (or leaves I-25/90 in a couple places in Wyoming), but because in their mind the portion of US 87 that is concurrent with I-25 is I-25, not US 87. US 87 to I-90 to I-25 to US 87 is more steps, but is arguably more intuitive because it reflects the major route movements.
Yet the thought is if an interstate has the same number in a STATE as a US highway people will be too confused to get where they are going.
Quote from: US71 on June 25, 2010, 10:08:00 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on June 25, 2010, 09:43:54 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 25, 2010, 09:04:20 PM
US 66 was a pretty stupid decommissioning. Yes, the 66 designation was redundant to 55-44-40, but when you get something with as much cultural mindshare as 66, things like that should really be looked at in a different light. I'd really like to see 66 recommissioned in some form. Hell, while they're resigning it, crank out a few hundred spare 66 shields and sell 'em off to the public to defray the costs...
I recall that it was the decommissioning itself that brought MORE attention to 66 than previously. Honestly, considering the tourist industry built upon the route, why not resurrect it as a navigable, continuous highway from Santa Monica to Chicago?
We were just discussing that on another list today.
I think resurrecting 66 would detract from the Historic Route/Scenic Byway that has grown up around it. Efforts have been made to preserve the flavor & feeling of old 66 and IMHO, bringing the route back would have an adverse effect on those efforts. You would risk losgin the historical aspects of 66 that make it unique. Better by far to leave it as is for future generations and to impress upon them its significance.
Besides, which alignment would you choose? Each state has at least 2 or 3 different alignments :hmm:
New Mexico Via Santa Fe
Arizona Kingman to Topock via Oatman
All of the US x0s and x1s. Like US 10 and US 91. Oh and US 6 in California, and CA 30 because it used to run in my city.
Yes on 66, keep the historic parts that can be driven and duplex it when it's non-driveable.
The ridiculous French system of only nationally maintained roads being 'N' roads has led to a ton of these.
^^ But they also had a ridiculous number of N roads. Today it is still possible to identify most of them, as they live in the D numbering.
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on May 19, 2015, 10:27:52 AM^^ But they also had a ridiculous number of N roads.
But at the same time, replacing iconic routes that had existed for coming onto 200 years with D9xx or D60xx or whatever was rather unnecessary.
Of course, not all the N roads (and there weren't
that many. Sure, it was a lot of roads to be maintained nationally, but...) needed to be preserved, but some did. The equivalents of US66 and US99, but not the equivalent of a US route that no one cares got decommissioned.
US 666.
Quote from: Bickendan on May 19, 2015, 01:09:44 PM
US 666.
It wasn't decommissioned. It just had its number changed -- twice. (Southern portion to 191, northern portion to 491.)
Does anyone have any photos of "Old 666 New 191" signs like the ones that were posted when the section north of Gallup was changed to 491?
Quote from: hbelkins on May 19, 2015, 05:19:30 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on May 19, 2015, 01:09:44 PM
US 666.
It wasn't decommissioned. It just had its number changed -- twice. (Southern portion to 191, northern portion to 491.)
Does anyone have any photos of "Old 666 New 191" signs like the ones that were posted when the section north of Gallup was changed to 491?
Doesn't really refute my point, lol
Quote from: Bickendan on May 19, 2015, 05:26:00 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 19, 2015, 05:19:30 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on May 19, 2015, 01:09:44 PM
US 666.
It wasn't decommissioned. It just had its number changed -- twice. (Southern portion to 191, northern portion to 491.)
Does anyone have any photos of "Old 666 New 191" signs like the ones that were posted when the section north of Gallup was changed to 491?
Doesn't really refute my point, lol
I know that going from 666 to 491 fits the system as well as it can (being treated as a branch of US-191), but when the renumbering happened, I really wanted 666 to at least keep its link to US-66 and be renumbered to US-566 or US-766...orphaned route, north-south alignment, and Utah's direction change be damned.
Quote from: hbelkins on May 19, 2015, 05:19:30 PM
Does anyone have any photos of "Old 666 New 191" signs like the ones that were posted when the section north of Gallup was changed to 491?
From US Ends:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fusends.com%2F90-99%2F491%2Fsign_666-491.jpg&hash=5513b4277b4221c22f832bc3d100116f522f3041)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fusends.com%2FFocus%2FGallup%2Fbegin491s_second.jpg&hash=4e3ed3015763e1929572f74eab6105fa0afd35bd)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fusends.com%2FFocus%2FMonticello%2Fsb_2004_1.jpg&hash=8d301c865d92107c92500a80becdfbdb76ff8a35)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fusends.com%2FFocus%2FMonticello%2Feb_2004_2.jpg&hash=d8d83f3c5a5a62c13e3ea711bc45a29ad9ac7213)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fusends.com%2FFocus%2FMonticello%2FNB_2009.JPG&hash=0692a2f0757e4237211d5c98ce3ab7bcd8af5a21)
Quote from: national highway 1 on May 20, 2015, 12:03:28 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 19, 2015, 05:19:30 PM
Does anyone have any photos of "Old 666 New 191" signs like the ones that were posted when the section north of Gallup was changed to 491?
From US Ends:
Old 666 New
191.
Quote from: Molandfreak on May 20, 2015, 12:07:42 AM
Quote from: national highway 1 on May 20, 2015, 12:03:28 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 19, 2015, 05:19:30 PM
Does anyone have any photos of "Old 666 New 191" signs like the ones that were posted when the section north of Gallup was changed to 491?
From US Ends:
Old 666 New 191.
Type slower so he can understand
With the amount of time that the "conversion" signs have been up (still standing, BTW), one has to wonder if both Utah and Colorado are maintaining an "incognito" Historical US-666 Highway???
:hmmm: :evilgrin: :hmmm: :evilgrin: :hmmm:
Are the Old 666 New 491 signs still up? My brother was in the region shortly after the renumbering and shot some photos.
And yeah, I said 191, because I'd seen the 491 signs.
I grew up a few miles from where US 61 ends now in Wyoming, MN. I remember taking it up the north shore as a kid and I was definitely sad when it was decommissioned. Anyone know why they've left it commissioned to Wyoming rather than end it at 94 in St. Paul?
Quote from: discochris on May 20, 2015, 11:04:32 PM
I grew up a few miles from where US 61 ends now in Wyoming, MN. I remember taking it up the north shore as a kid and I was definitely sad when it was decommissioned. Anyone know why they've left it commissioned to Wyoming rather than end it at 94 in St. Paul?
Probably a matter of making a deal with the relevant counties/cities. Of course, it's also possible they may want to keep the road in the highway system north of St. Paul, which would probably inspire a number change.
It's been a turnback candidate north of St. Paul for years. Dan's likely got the correct reason...they haven't finalized deals with the counties involved to turn it back (proposed jurisdiction is county-level). It was likely missed at first because Constitutional Route 1 is required to go through Forest Lake and White Bear Lake, and at the time neither town had "hopped over" to I-35/I-35E.
It's still US 666 to me.
Quote from: froggie on May 21, 2015, 07:48:09 AM
It's been a turnback candidate north of St. Paul for years. Dan's likely got the correct reason...they haven't finalized deals with the counties involved to turn it back (proposed jurisdiction is county-level). It was likely missed at first because Constitutional Route 1 is required to go through Forest Lake and White Bear Lake, and at the time neither town had "hopped over" to I-35/I-35E.
So that's Ramsey, Washington and Chisago counties. I can see where that would be an issue.
Quote from: discochris on May 22, 2015, 02:47:51 AM
Quote from: froggie on May 21, 2015, 07:48:09 AM
It's been a turnback candidate north of St. Paul for years. Dan's likely got the correct reason...they haven't finalized deals with the counties involved to turn it back (proposed jurisdiction is county-level). It was likely missed at first because Constitutional Route 1 is required to go through Forest Lake and White Bear Lake, and at the time neither town had "hopped over" to I-35/I-35E.
So that's Ramsey, Washington and Chisago counties. I can see where that would be an issue.
If they're going to turn it back further I don't see why they can't just end it in Hastings, because it just duplexes with US 10 from there to I-94.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on May 22, 2015, 04:13:50 PM
Quote from: discochris on May 22, 2015, 02:47:51 AM
Quote from: froggie on May 21, 2015, 07:48:09 AM
It's been a turnback candidate north of St. Paul for years. Dan's likely got the correct reason...they haven't finalized deals with the counties involved to turn it back (proposed jurisdiction is county-level). It was likely missed at first because Constitutional Route 1 is required to go through Forest Lake and White Bear Lake, and at the time neither town had "hopped over" to I-35/I-35E.
So that's Ramsey, Washington and Chisago counties. I can see where that would be an issue.
If they're going to turn it back further I don't see why they can't just end it in Hastings, because it just duplexes with US 10 from there to I-94.
So true...unless they adopt my plan of sending US 10 through River Falls :)
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on May 22, 2015, 04:13:50 PM
Quote from: discochris on May 22, 2015, 02:47:51 AM
Quote from: froggie on May 21, 2015, 07:48:09 AM
It's been a turnback candidate north of St. Paul for years. Dan's likely got the correct reason...they haven't finalized deals with the counties involved to turn it back (proposed jurisdiction is county-level). It was likely missed at first because Constitutional Route 1 is required to go through Forest Lake and White Bear Lake, and at the time neither town had "hopped over" to I-35/I-35E.
So that's Ramsey, Washington and Chisago counties. I can see where that would be an issue.
If they're going to turn it back further I don't see why they can't just end it in Hastings, because it just duplexes with US 10 from there to I-94.
61 is the through route on the expressway. Good enough reason for it to remain there for me.
iPhone
Indeed. Normal local nomenclature for that concurrency is to put 61 ahead of 10. I.e. US 61/10.
Quote from: froggie on May 22, 2015, 10:14:44 PM
Indeed. Normal local nomenclature for that concurrency is to put 61 ahead of 10. I.e. US 61/10.
I can vouch for that having spent my childhood up to high school in Cottage Grove. On a certain level, US 10 only existed east of US 61 on the road to Prescott, WI.
but I remember the signs and maps always being 10/61
Yes, signs and maps show 10 first, but in local nomenclature (and even some MnDOT press releases), 61 comes first. Most locals consider 61 the primary route, not 10.
The only notable decommissioning in Maryland that really bugs me is the removal of Guilford Road from the state highway system between MD 108 in Clarksville and Cedar Lane west of MD 32. This segment of Guilford Road is very well traveled and links to several county roads that cut off the corners between the former and MD 108/MD 216. It also serves several county schools and one of the main arterials into Clarksville and far western Columbia.
This segment of Guilford Road was marked as MD 32 for nearly 50 years, and now it's an anonymous county highway, just like Jarretsville Road in Harford County east of MD 165. I'd really like to know why Howard County didn't ditch lane miles elsewhere (like the useless MD 985 near US 29) so that portions of Guilford Road could remain state-maintained.
My parents live in Del Mar, immediately north of San Diego. They still refer to Camino Del Mar as "101". I'm aware that nowadays, US 101 starts up in DTLA (I think). But down here, there are these "Historic 101" signs that are mounted as though they are current highway numerical markers. So to the non-road buff (like 95% of society), it looks like U.S. 101 was never decommissioned here. Things like that kind of irk me. In my dream world, I'd replace the "Historic 101" highway signs, and the Camino Del Mar surface street labels, with "Old Hwy. 101" surface street labels (or whatever those are called). This is because I've been on "Old 395" and "Old Hwy. 80" before, and it made sense to me.
VDOT in decommissioning VA 31 north of VA 5 through Williamsburg, VA? I know it eliminated that useless overlap, but why not just of kept VA 31 and truncated VA 5 instead?
Better yet truncate VA 199 instead and have VA 5 take over 199 to I-64 near Busch Gardens. Problem fixed.
I believe (but cannot confirm) that it stems from a desire to have VA 5 connect to US 60. I disagree with your "solution", though. Instead, reroute VA 5 onto Monticello Ave (which it should've to begin with when Monticello Ave was extended west to VA 5), meeting US 60 at Richmond Rd/Bypass Rd. This would replace most of VA 321. VA 31 could then return to its 1956-1974 ending at today's VA 5/VA 143 junction.
Quote from: froggie on May 24, 2015, 09:59:43 AM
Yes, signs and maps show 10 first, but in local nomenclature (and even some MnDOT press releases), 61 comes first. Most locals consider 61 the primary route, not 10.
Because once it leaves 61, 10 is an insignificant route. Put it through River Falls & Ellsworth where more traffic is.
Decommissioning US 27 ALT in Florida was dumb. Now the hidden state route number, SR 17 can cause confussion to the masses that cannot distinguish US 27 with SR 17.
I-70 in MD for that road diet project that the greens wanted. Oh and how about US 17-1.
Quote from: froggie on May 25, 2015, 09:30:59 PM
I believe (but cannot confirm) that it stems from a desire to have VA 5 connect to US 60. I disagree with your "solution", though. Instead, reroute VA 5 onto Monticello Ave (which it should've to begin with when Monticello Ave was extended west to VA 5), meeting US 60 at Richmond Rd/Bypass Rd. This would replace most of VA 321. VA 31 could then return to its 1956-1974 ending at today's VA 5/VA 143 junction.
pdf pg 64 of http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/meetings/minutes_pdf/CTB-08-1958-01.pdf
States the reason VA 5 was added to VA 31 through Williamsburg was it "was desirable to improve the service to travelers interchanging between route 5 and routes 60 and 168..."
It seems to me that these days VA 5 is more intended to be a route for tourists who want to do a bunch of colonial-related stuff and should thus still be routed into the city. VA 199 can then be used to head for either I-64/US 60 east or west depending on which way you wanted to go...
Mike
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 26, 2015, 12:42:09 PM
I-70 in MD for that road diet project that the greens wanted.
I've run out of original ideas to post.
Quote from: NE2 on May 26, 2015, 03:10:34 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 26, 2015, 12:42:09 PM
I-70 in MD for that road diet project that the greens wanted.
I've run out of original ideas to post.
Not really needed, yo.
He's from Florida he's still upset about hanging chads
QuoteI-70 in MD for that road diet project that the greens wanted.
Given that I-70 will never be extended into Baltimore, it does make some sense to truncate it to I-695.
Quote from: froggie on May 26, 2015, 07:15:16 PM
QuoteI-70 in MD for that road diet project that the greens wanted.
Given that I-70 will never be extended into Baltimore, it does make some sense to truncate it to I-695.
I made a Baltimore/DC area plan which rerouted I-68 to Baltimore and I-70 down I-270, (I-95/495), and I-595 to end near Annapolis. (Yes, I did forget to eliminate the portion east of I-695, among others).
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8505/8583326791_40df9647b2_b.jpg)
Perhaps instead of ending it at 695 you can send it down (695) and 97 to (hidden) 595 and end near Annapolis. I dunno.
Quote from: c172 on May 24, 2015, 11:22:14 PM
My parents live in Del Mar, immediately north of San Diego. They still refer to Camino Del Mar as "101". I'm aware that nowadays, US 101 starts up in DTLA (I think). But down here, there are these "Historic 101" signs that are mounted as though they are current highway numerical markers. So to the non-road buff (like 95% of society), it looks like U.S. 101 was never decommissioned here. Things like that kind of irk me. In my dream world, I'd replace the "Historic 101" highway signs, and the Camino Del Mar surface street labels, with "Old Hwy. 101" surface street labels (or whatever those are called). This is because I've been on "Old 395" and "Old Hwy. 80" before, and it made sense to me.
US 101 was (mostly) replaced by I-5, so in a way, it kinda makes sense, though.