I've undertaken a project: Restoring US 99 in Oregon.
Following is an email exchange with the ODOT employee who works with US and OR route numbers:
QuoteI recall reading somewhere that Oregon was reluctant in decommissioning US 99 but did so following California and Washington decommissioning their portion of the route. With this reluctance in mind, and with the rules that AASHTO established for the routes, specifically that they should either cross state-lines or be in excess of 300 miles if they are intra-state routes, would it be feasible to petition AASHTO to reestablish US 99? A quick estimate shows that OR 99 meets the 300 mile requirement, following either 99E or 99W.
Their reply:
Quote from: ODOTI do not believe the AASHTO committee would approve a US99 for Oregon only. Here is a link to the current AASHTO policy:
http://cms.transportation.org/sites/route/docs/HO1_Policy_Establ_Develop_USRN.pdf
Item #5 leads off with the unequivocal statement: "No new U.S. route located wholly in one State shall be established." I believe that applies to US99 because that would now be a new US route. The 300-mile standard would only allow Oregon to argue for survival of the US route designation if it still existed.
My interpretation is that ODOT's warm to the idea, but AASHTO's policies are in the way. The whole of Item Five:
QuoteNo new U.S. route located wholly in one State shall be established.
U.S. routes, less than three hundred miles in length, heretofore
established and located wholly in one State, shall be eliminated either
by consolidation with other U.S. routes or by reverting to State routes,
as rapidly as the State Highway Department and the Standing Committee
on Highways of the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials can reach agreement with reference thereto.
Also, Item 7:
QuoteNo new divided numbered (such as U.S. 96W and U.S. 96E, etc.) shall
be adopted. Existing divided U.S. numbers shall be eliminated as
rapidly as the State Highway Department and the Standing Committee
on Highways can reach agreement with reference thereto.
I take this to mean that US 99 would be forced to 'choose' one of the two split alignments from Junction City on north and leave the other as a state highway. That's tricky, considering both OR 99W and 99E are viable choices and whichever doesn't get upgraded, someone's going to get upset.
There has to be exceptions that we can cite, otherwise it's going to be fun convincing WSDOT to re-extend WA 99 from Tacoma down to Vancouver and then coordinating the two states to apply for the upgrade (which is, annoyingly, still more plausible than getting CalTrans and the California legislature to sign CA 99 from Red Bluff up to the Oregon line).
One could make a better case for restoring US 99 in California than in either Oregon or Washington. For starters, most of CA 99 is on the National Highway System (which marks it as a principal through route). Second, most of it has independent utility, instead of being closely paralleled by I-5 like OR 99 and OR 99E.
QuoteThere has to be exceptions that we can cite, otherwise it's going to be fun convincing WSDOT to re-extend WA 99 from Tacoma down to Vancouver and then coordinating the two states to apply for the upgrade (which is, annoyingly, still more plausible than getting CalTrans and the California legislature to sign CA 99 from Red Bluff up to the Oregon line).
Would the California legislature have to approve the extension of 99 from Red Bluff to Oregon if it ran concurrent with I-5? Most states with legislatively defined state highways don't acknowledge concurrencies in the legislation even if they're signed in the field. I think it would be similar to Washington 200 in the 70s, where since it's just another number slapped over an already existing one (with the old one still being signed as the dominant route, which it would be), there's no legislation necessary.
If California would agree that it's a good idea, they could probably even do it without signing it- submit the petition to AASHTO as a California-Oregon US highway, then have it signed as US 99 in California and Oregon, but don't ever bother to put signs up between Red Bluff and Oregon along I-5. This would be slightly annoying, but it could work (there's plenty of more egregious precedent for that). Given that California has no money and probably doesn't want to pay to sign US-99 along I-5 just so Oregon gets continuity because signs cost money, this may be more appealing to them.
Quote from: froggie on July 03, 2010, 06:53:56 AM
One could make a better case for restoring US 99 in California than in either Oregon or Washington. For starters, most of CA 99 is on the National Highway System (which marks it as a principal through route). Second, most of it has independent utility, instead of being closely paralleled by I-5 like OR 99 and OR 99E.
But that would interfere with the ambitions of some in the Central Valley to turn most of CA 99 into an Interstate. That in turn would complicate California's cooperation with restoration of US 99 in OR and WA.
I personally am not crazy about Interstate-izing CA 99, and prefer that CA 99 (at least south of Sacramento) be restored as US 99, as a palindromic counterpart to US 101 on the other side of I-5.
Quote from: oscar on July 03, 2010, 09:55:49 AM
Quote from: froggie on July 03, 2010, 06:53:56 AM
One could make a better case for restoring US 99 in California than in either Oregon or Washington. For starters, most of CA 99 is on the National Highway System (which marks it as a principal through route). Second, most of it has independent utility, instead of being closely paralleled by I-5 like OR 99 and OR 99E.
But that would interfere with the ambitions of some in the Central Valley to turn most of CA 99 into an Interstate.
Actually, I could view it as an "intermediate" step - think of US 48 (#2)'s role before I-68 was officially signed.
Several other thoughts:
- As Corco noted, California legislatively defines routes, so any concurrency does not have to be defined per se. (Interestingly, until the late 1960s, US 99 and I-5 WERE signed together north of Red Bluff, as can be seen in the AARoads Shield Gallery).
- Although not ideal, one could suggest having 99W or 99E become a "99A" and the other route become mainline 99. I'd prefer for the historic E/W split to be retained - after all, if Tennessee can have five examples of this, why can't Oregon have one? (And if anyone wants to suggest that AASHTO rules are cut-and-dried, US 311 in North Carolina and US 377 in Oklahoma show how far DOT assertiveness can go.)
- One thing Oregon currently does with OR 99, and Colorado currently uses US 85/87 for...that California actually already uses Route 1 to some extent in a similar vein - having the "secondary" route serve as a business loop along its old/parallel alignments. Several existing state highways between Red Bluff and the Oregon line were once part of US 99, and would work great for this: Route 273, Route 265, Route 263.
- In another thread, I've theorized that the primary reason for 99 becoming a state route in California - which may or may not be the case, but seems to fit what the official CalTrans writeups of the day were saying - was to increase usage of the white-on-green state route shields, rather than 99 actually being superseded by I-5 entirely. No reason therefore not to put it back on the US highway system if that was the only rationale to downgrade it in the first place.
And if anyone wants evidence that California is (sometimes) willing to sign US 99 again... ;)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsphotos.ak.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-ak-snc1%2Fhs247.snc1%2F9430_802909281233_3216777_45567198_4210558_n.jpg&hash=b1d936de21a8ad4f7f43309f4b78a9f3cd8b89c2)
(the sign has since been patched over with retroreflective greenout for the Route 99 shield though)
Quote from: TheStranger on July 03, 2010, 12:29:12 PM
- Although not ideal, one could suggest having 99W or 99E become a "99A" and the other route become mainline 99. I'd prefer for the historic E/W split to be retained - after all, if Tennessee can have five examples of this, why can't Oregon have one? (And if anyone wants to suggest that AASHTO rules are cut-and-dried, US 311 in North Carolina and US 377 in Oklahoma show how far DOT assertiveness can go.)
This wouldn't exactly work as there can't be any new suffixed US (or interstate, for that matter) routes. A banner would have to do, or perhaps make the other route a 3dus x99.
I think 99A qualifies as a banner route- it'd be no different than Alternate 99 (and that's probably what it would be in the books), just signed as "99A"
A three digit route would have to meet the same qualifications as a two digit route, so that wouldn't work.
Quote from: SyntheticDreamer on July 03, 2010, 04:37:02 PM
This wouldn't exactly work as there can't be any new suffixed US (or interstate, for that matter) routes. A banner would have to do, or perhaps make the other route a 3dus x99.
As Corco noted, 99A would be a "bannered" route (Alternate) rather than a suffixed route per se, so it would be okay. (For that matter, even California has added a new Alternate route in the last ten years with US 50A!)
The question then would be, for Oregon, which 99 branch would serve as a good mainline? Oregon Route 99E does coroute with I-5 for a while, so I would think 99W would work best as a standalone 99.
(In California, both incarnations of 99W - from Sacramento to Red Bluff via Davis, Woodland, and Corning, and from Stockton to Manteca via Lathrop - have been supplanted by I-5 for the most part.)
Interestingly, if US 99 were ever to be recommissioned along state Route 99 in California, a good 30 miles of it would actually have never been part of the original US 99 corridor: that being the segment from I Street in downtown Sacramento north to Route 113 south of Yuba City, which partly corresponds to a former segment of Route 24.
I like the idea of using a US-99A (Alternate) for one of the US-99W or US-99E alignments. I think that using CA-99 down to Stockton and duplexing with I-5 north of Red Bluff into Oregon would work. South of Stockton, it could end up becoming I-7 or I-9, right?
Right now, I'm holding my US-60 plan (but that's another story), but it's good to know that I'm not the only one to try restoring a US Route somewhere.
Quote from: Rover_0 on July 03, 2010, 05:01:11 PM
I like the idea of using a US-99A (Alternate) for one of the US-99W or US-99E alignments. I think that using CA-99 down to Stockton and duplexing with I-5 north of Red Bluff into Oregon would work. South of Stockton, it could end up becoming I-7 or I-9, right?
South of Stockton, why not restore the US route designation all the way to Wheeler Ridge? (It'd be similar in effect to the US 48/I-68 transition in West Virginia)
Quote from: Bickendan on July 03, 2010, 04:23:55 AM
There has to be exceptions that we can cite, otherwise it's going to be fun convincing WSDOT to re-extend WA 99 from Tacoma down to Vancouver and then coordinating the two states to apply for the upgrade (which is, annoyingly, still more plausible than getting CalTrans and the California legislature to sign CA 99 from Red Bluff up to the Oregon line).
Might be easier to see about a legislative override of AASHTO than either of those options.
Quote from: Revive 755 on July 03, 2010, 07:01:43 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on July 03, 2010, 04:23:55 AM
There has to be exceptions that we can cite, otherwise it's going to be fun convincing WSDOT to re-extend WA 99 from Tacoma down to Vancouver and then coordinating the two states to apply for the upgrade (which is, annoyingly, still more plausible than getting CalTrans and the California legislature to sign CA 99 from Red Bluff up to the Oregon line).
Might be easier to see about a legislative override of AASHTO than either of those options.
ODOT could copy Oklahoma and ignore AASHTO (US 377 being the exemplar example); the bigger issue would be California's insistence on legislatively defining any signed route. At least there wouldn't be a need to create a new route definition for 99 in California, it simply would have to be extended to either cover any segments between Red Bluff and the stateline that were once part of US 99 (i.e. 273, 263) or even maintain the existing definition, with no signage from Red Bluff to the border.
Quote from: TheStranger on July 03, 2010, 04:50:15 PM
The question then would be, for Oregon, which 99 branch would serve as a good mainline? Oregon Route 99E does coroute with I-5 for a while, so I would think 99W would work best as a standalone 99.
I'd agree; 99W is the better choice, being more independent of I-5. Its biggest problem is its fairly indistinct northern endpoint. You'd have to terminate it at I-5 in Tigard.
99E could either be:
1) left as OR 99E;
2) divided into 2 state routes separated by the I-5 multiplex. Depending on which system you put them in, they could be 41/45 (old primary route system),
209/215 (old secondary route system), or 81/558 (new system where route # matches highway #, but there's already an OR 58).
3) commissioned as US 99A (my favorite suggestion)
I applaud you for the effort, but I'd be very surprised if we saw US 99 again.
Quote from: TheStranger on July 03, 2010, 12:29:12 PM
Quote from: oscar on July 03, 2010, 09:55:49 AM
Quote from: froggie on July 03, 2010, 06:53:56 AM
One could make a better case for restoring US 99 in California than in either Oregon or Washington. For starters, most of CA 99 is on the National Highway System (which marks it as a principal through route). Second, most of it has independent utility, instead of being closely paralleled by I-5 like OR 99 and OR 99E.
But that would interfere with the ambitions of some in the Central Valley to turn most of CA 99 into an Interstate.
Actually, I could view it as an "intermediate" step - think of US 48 (#2)'s role before I-68 was officially signed.
Several other thoughts:
- As Corco noted, California legislatively defines routes, so any concurrency does not have to be defined per se. (Interestingly, until the late 1960s, US 99 and I-5 WERE signed together north of Red Bluff, as can be seen in the AARoads Shield Gallery).
- Although not ideal, one could suggest having 99W or 99E become a "99A" and the other route become mainline 99. I'd prefer for the historic E/W split to be retained - after all, if Tennessee can have five examples of this, why can't Oregon have one? (And if anyone wants to suggest that AASHTO rules are cut-and-dried, US 311 in North Carolina and US 377 in Oklahoma show how far DOT assertiveness can go.)
Quick background history on these two routes could be useful in giving ODOT some leverage.
Quote- One thing Oregon currently does with OR 99, and Colorado currently uses US 85/87 for...that California actually already uses Route 1 to some extent in a similar vein - having the "secondary" route serve as a business loop along its old/parallel alignments. Several existing state highways between Red Bluff and the Oregon line were once part of US 99, and would work great for this: Route 273, Route 265, Route 263.
This could serve well for I-9 as well. Currently there are eight Bus CA 99 loops in the Central Valley, and there are still numerous communities along CA 99 that don't have a business loop on the original Golden State Boulevard alignment.
I imagine that as this is a route restoration and not a brand new route gives us a bit more to work with -- we can argue that the cultural and historical value of retaining the suffixed designation in the Willamette Valley overrides the provision that suffixed routes are Teh Bad.
Quote from: Bickendan on July 04, 2010, 12:38:00 AM
Quote from: TheStranger on July 03, 2010, 12:29:12 PM
[(And if anyone wants to suggest that AASHTO rules are cut-and-dried, US 311 in North Carolina and US 377 in Oklahoma show how far DOT assertiveness can go.)
Quick background history on these two routes could be useful in giving ODOT some leverage.
US 377: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=2425.msg55002#msg55002
US 311: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_311
to quote:
Quote from: WikipediaNow mostly serving as an alternate routing of U.S. 220, this highway mainly connects Rockingham County with Forsyth, Guilford, and Randolph Counties. This makes the route technically in violation of AASHTO U.S. highway standards which prefers all U.S. routes to be at least 200 miles (320 km) long and exist in more than one state. This would make U.S. 311 a prime candidate for decommissioning, however NCDOT recently received permission to extend the route's designation northward from U.S. 220 near Madison to Eden.
Quote from: Bickendan on July 03, 2010, 04:23:55 AM
I've undertaken a project: Restoring US 99 in Oregon.
I think it's a great idea and recommissioning U.S. 99 seems to have some general support. I heard from a news writer in Southern California a couple of weeks ago who is in favor of it.
I can share some of my experience with my Route 66 initiatives. The State DOT's are very unlikely to go along. They will cite AASHTO standards and "U.S. 99 was decommissioned because blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...."
Getting the
REAL reason they're opposed out of them is a little more tricky. They would be against this 'cause -
and they won't tell you this - they don't want to pay to change all those signs. That's it, really. $
When you stop and think about it, those large "green guide" signs are not cheap.
But, there is another way. Congress has the authority to designate both Interstate
AND U.S. numbered routes. If they were to pass some kind of a Congressional resolution bringing back U.S. 99 or 66 or the western end of U.S. 40 - whatever - AASHTO would probably go along. It'd be a plus, too, if Congress would appropriate funding for new signs. But to get that far you need
LOTS of grass roots support. Is the support even there? Maybe. I guess we'll never know unless we try.
Regards,
Fred M. Cain
U.S. Route 66 Recommissioning Initiative
http://www.bringbackroute66.com/home.html
6 days shy of a 7 year bump! :O
These sorts of sign would arguably do the job well without needing AASHTO/Congress, and both CA and OR have parts of the route signed.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/11/Historic_US_99_Marker.JPG/220px-Historic_US_99_Marker.JPG)
Of course, like with OK66, same-numbered state routes tend not to be signed with historic-US signage (US20 having historic US20 signs being an exception!).
Though if you want plain vanilla US99, then, I-69W/C/E shows that AASHTO don't care about suffixed routes much these days, so OR can have US99W and US99E variants.
Quote from: english si on June 28, 2017, 11:57:49 AM
6 days shy of a 7 year bump! :O These sorts of sign would arguably do the job well without needing AASHTO/Congress, and both CA and OR have parts of the route signed.
variants.
Well, yes and no. There is no doubt that such "Historic" markers are better by far than nothing. The problem with them is that they tend to be
commemorative in nature and not really traffic guides. Pretty tough to first find and then follow a route using them. That was the whole issue with "Historic" Route 66 signage. What you really need are "MUTCD-like" route markers similar to what's used on all of our state and U.S. highways. To give you an idea of what I'm talking about check here: http://www.bringbackroute66.com/signs.html Scroll down 'til you get to my diagrams.
Regards,
Fred M. Cain
I know California started it, but what was all the hoopila with decommissioning US routes in the first place? They DID serve a purpose.
With the exception of 99W between Tigard and Eugene (including the portion of 99 from Junction City to Eugene), 99 in Oregon no longer serves as a through route - with many parts of it reverted to county roads or overlaid by Interstate 5. So why sign it as one?
I agree that ODOT should designate 99 as a historic highway just as the Historic Columbia River Highway is, and place "Historic Route US 99/99W/99E" signs as appropriate - it requires no authorization aside from the ODOT Director to accomplish.
Signs need only be placed at city limits, county boundaries, major junctions, or places where the highway served multiple routes dependent upon the era.
I think any state highway that was a US highway, should revert. That includes the short ones like 309 and 611. If NJ gets to keep 46, any state can keep anything it wants.
Quote from: ATLRedSoxFan on June 28, 2017, 10:35:13 PM
I know California started it, but what was all the hoopila with decommissioning US routes in the first place? They DID serve a purpose.
The idea was that they had been functionally replaced, so they were no longer needed. I would argue that they are useful for when the Interstate is closed or has a major accident and traffic needs to be diverted, it is a good idea to have an alternate through route.
Of course, some decommissionings made less sense (and some were downright stupid).
IIRC, there was a thread on here where it was said that Caltrans just had one guy who totally hated US routes.
Quote from: Alps on June 29, 2017, 12:19:23 AM
I think any state highway that was a US highway, should revert. That includes the short ones like 309 and 611. If NJ gets to keep 46, any state can keep anything it wants.
What if they don't want the US designation but like the number, like US/MN 61 and US/MN 169? Those always seemed stupid to me.
Quote from: sp_redelectric on June 28, 2017, 11:49:08 PM
With the exception of 99W between Tigard and Eugene (including the portion of 99 from Junction City to Eugene), 99 in Oregon no longer serves as a through route - with many parts of it reverted to county roads or overlaid by Interstate 5. So why sign it as one?
I agree that ODOT should designate 99 as a historic highway just as the Historic Columbia River Highway is, and place "Historic Route US 99/99W/99E" signs as appropriate - it requires no authorization aside from the ODOT Director to accomplish.
Signs need only be placed at city limits, county boundaries, major junctions, or places where the highway served multiple routes dependent upon the era.
99 has a decent length through the Rogue Valley (Ashland to Central Point) with SR 99 available for re-signing from a bit north of Central Point to Grants Pass. 99 also has another stretch through the Umpqua Valley from south of Winston to Sutherlin. Toss in the segment that runs through Yoncalla and Drain. There's plenty more of 99 than what is in the Willamette Valley and for the most part those sections are major carriers of traffic.
Washington's best stretch is in the Puget Sound area and will include the new tunnel. Any business routes between PDX and that stretch of 99 can also be signed as US 99 to encourage traffic into discovering those cities. Close out the route with the final stretch heading for the Canadian border.
I am 100% in favor of reviving US 99. It might make Fresno feel better since they currently have no Interstate or US highway connections.
Rick
Quote from: roadguy2 on June 29, 2017, 12:27:23 AM
The idea was that they had been functionally replaced, so they were no longer needed. I would argue that they are useful for when the Interstate is closed or has a major accident and traffic needs to be diverted, it is a good idea to have an alternate through route.
That line of thinking works well in many places, but not so much in the west. For example, I-80 was laid directly on top of US 40 through most of California and Nevada, so it physically couldn't act as an alternate. Keeping US 40 would've involved the route jumping off and back on I-80 at every city and town–well that's what Interstate Business Loops are for (and why Nevada has at least 9 of them).
Quote from: fredmcain on June 28, 2017, 12:24:19 PMWell, yes and no. There is no doubt that such "Historic" markers are better by far than nothing. The problem with them is that they tend to be commemorative in nature and not really traffic guides. Pretty tough to first find and then follow a route using them. That was the whole issue with "Historic" Route 66 signage.
While I agree they could be better, I found it pretty easy to follow US66 across the country on Streetview. There were places where there were problems (urban areas in particular), and OK wasn't very good due to OK66 being most of it, and then the rest being poorly signed (though it does seem to have had new signs added).
I do like your proposal of signing them as proper route shields - which does seem to be the case on lots of '66 - token signs scattered about is of no use to anyone.
Quote from: roadguy2 on June 29, 2017, 12:27:23 AM
Quote from: ATLRedSoxFan on June 28, 2017, 10:35:13 PM
I know California started it, but what was all the hoopila with decommissioning US routes in the first place? They DID serve a purpose.
The idea was that they had been functionally replaced, so they were no longer needed. I would argue that they are useful for when the Interstate is closed or has a major accident and traffic needs to be diverted, it is a good idea to have an alternate through route.
Of course, some decommissionings made less sense (and some were downright stupid).
IIRC, there was a thread on here where it was said that Caltrans just had one guy who totally hated US routes.
Quote from: Alps on June 29, 2017, 12:19:23 AM
I think any state highway that was a US highway, should revert. That includes the short ones like 309 and 611. If NJ gets to keep 46, any state can keep anything it wants.
What if they don't want the US designation but like the number, like US/MN 61 and US/MN 169? Those always seemed stupid to me.
In regards to US 99 in California, it obviously became the longest non-Interstate freeway in the country with CA 99. Most of 99 whether be the east or west route was kept in the state highway system even after it bumped down to state route status. A big part of the California renumbering was to eliminate what was considered to be "unnecessary" route multiplexes. That being the case if I US 99 was going to remain a multi-state route it would have required a significant multiplex of I-5 to reach Oregon and think that is the true instigator of why it was decommissioned. If you really think about it, if Caltrans or the Division of Highways had a hate boner for US Routes would something like US 199 really have survived this long? Really it was about route simplification and keeping the remaining US Routes as multi-state.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 29, 2017, 07:27:29 AMIn regards to US 99 in California, it obviously became the longest non-Interstate freeway in the country with CA 99. Most of 99 whether be the east or west route was kept in the state highway system even after it bumped down to state route status. A big part of the California renumbering was to eliminate what was considered to be "unnecessary" route multiplexes. That being the case if I US 99 was going to remain a multi-state route it would have required a significant multiplex of I-5 to reach Oregon and think that is the true instigator of why it was decommissioned. If you really think about it, if Caltrans or the Division of Highways had a hate boner for US Routes would something like US 199 really have survived this long? Really it was about route simplification and keeping the remaining US Routes as multi-state.
To the one guy who stated that he thought some of these decommissionings were "stupid", well, I think he might have a point. While some were probably justified, other decommissionings were possibly short-sighted.
Now what? Can U.S. Route 99 be recommissioned? Probably but what is the justification? We would need a good reason for doing this more than because we are U.S. Numbered Highway fans and would
LOVE to see it done (Yes! I would). The issues of which alignment to use where and where to multiplex etc., etc., etc., are relatively minor in contrast in getting the states or the U.S. Congress to look at doing it.
Why recommission any route? With Route 66 it would be because I happen to believe the
DEMAND is there. There is some evidence for this that I could cite but that'd probably be a subject for a different thread. Is the demand there for recommissioning U.S. 99? Quite possibly although it might not be as strong. Maybe if we could put our heads together we could come up with some ideas. One idea I had was that in a few areas a new U.S. 99 might make for a good alternate to the interstates in some areas. This would especially be the case if they start tolling the interstates (an idea that seems to come up from time to time). There is also the lure of people who might want to take a Route 66-like journey on U.S. 99. Robert Droz once stated on his U.S. Highways site that 99 was a "possible recommissioning to form a Canamex Route" or something. Sadly, his site is now gone. :(
Regards,
Fred M. Cain,
U.S. Route 66 Recommissioning Initiative
http://www.bringbackroute66.com/home.html
Quote from: fredmcain on June 29, 2017, 09:33:24 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 29, 2017, 07:27:29 AMIn regards to US 99 in California, it obviously became the longest non-Interstate freeway in the country with CA 99. Most of 99 whether be the east or west route was kept in the state highway system even after it bumped down to state route status. A big part of the California renumbering was to eliminate what was considered to be "unnecessary" route multiplexes. That being the case if I US 99 was going to remain a multi-state route it would have required a significant multiplex of I-5 to reach Oregon and think that is the true instigator of why it was decommissioned. If you really think about it, if Caltrans or the Division of Highways had a hate boner for US Routes would something like US 199 really have survived this long? Really it was about route simplification and keeping the remaining US Routes as multi-state.
To the one guy who stated that he thought some of these decommissionings were "stupid", well, I think he might have a point. While some were probably justified, other decommissionings were possibly short-sighted.
Now what? Can U.S. Route 99 be recommissioned? Probably but what is the justification? We would need a good reason for doing this more than because we are U.S. Numbered Highway fans and would LOVE to see it done (Yes! I would). The issues of which alignment to use where and where to multiplex etc., etc., etc., are relatively minor in contrast in getting the states or the U.S. Congress to look at doing it.
Why recommission any route? With Route 66 it would be because I happen to believe the DEMAND is there. There is some evidence for this that I could cite but that'd probably be a subject for a different thread. Is the demand there for recommissioning U.S. 99? Quite possibly although it might not be as strong. Maybe if we could put our heads together we could come up with some ideas. One idea I had was that in a few areas a new U.S. 99 might make for a good alternate to the interstates in some areas. This would especially be the case if they start tolling the interstates (an idea that seems to come up from time to time). There is also the lure of people who might want to take a Route 66-like journey on U.S. 99. Robert Droz once stated on his U.S. Highways site that 99 was a "possible recommissioning to form a Canamex Route" or something. Sadly, his site is now gone. :(
Regards,
Fred M. Cain,
U.S. Route 66 Recommissioning Initiative
http://www.bringbackroute66.com/home.html
Really at the end of the day I don't think a lot of people thought there was going to be a ton of viability in US Routes after the Interstate system was created. It wasn't like people were pining to keep most of the surface highways open out west that were replaced by Interstates. The whole nostalgia trip thing for some of the classic US Routes coupled with the fact that many former corridors being still viable has really brought the topic into the forefront in road communities like this. Really in regards to California, US 99 would have made a fine corridor to remain in the state considering it was over 300 miles when it was bumped down to a state route given it would loop off of I-5 and back.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 29, 2017, 09:50:24 AMReally at the end of the day I don't think a lot of people thought there was going to be a ton of viability in US Routes after the Interstate system was created. It wasn't like people were pining to keep most of the surface highways open out west that were replaced by Interstates. The whole nostalgia trip thing for some of the classic US Routes coupled with the fact that many former corridors being still viable has really brought the topic into the forefront in road communities like this. Really in regards to California, US 99 would have made a fine corridor to remain in the state considering it was over 300 miles when it was bumped down to a state route given it would loop off of I-5 and back.
You know, a few years back there was a real push on to get much of the California 99 corridor added to the Interstate Highway system. I do not know where that plan currently stands if it's dead or just simmering on the back burner somewhere out of visibility.
But anyhow, there was a newspaper in the Central Valley, (I
THINK it was the Fresno Bee but I'm not sure anymore), that was really pushing hard for this. They published several editorials favoring it. Suspecting that they might just get shot down by the FHWA, I sent them an e-mail asking them about a new "99" U.S. Route designation in place of an Interstate if their Interstate plans fall through. I tried to explain that'd be a good "back up" plan. Of course I realized it wouldn't make much of a difference in the actual infrastructure more that adding "prestiege" but I didn't tell them that.
They told me they thought that'd be an excellent idea but then I never heard anymore about it and that's been around 7 or 8 years ago, I think. I still like the idea of a new U.S. 99. Not sure I'll ever see it though. Prbly not, huh? You know, I am quite possibly older than some of the other guys on this group and I was actually
ON U.S. 99 when I was a kid. I distinctly remember when they took the signs down. That was a sad day for me. :(
Regards,
Fred M. Cain
Quote from: fredmcain on June 29, 2017, 10:24:19 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 29, 2017, 09:50:24 AMReally at the end of the day I don't think a lot of people thought there was going to be a ton of viability in US Routes after the Interstate system was created. It wasn't like people were pining to keep most of the surface highways open out west that were replaced by Interstates. The whole nostalgia trip thing for some of the classic US Routes coupled with the fact that many former corridors being still viable has really brought the topic into the forefront in road communities like this. Really in regards to California, US 99 would have made a fine corridor to remain in the state considering it was over 300 miles when it was bumped down to a state route given it would loop off of I-5 and back.
You know, a few years back there was a real push on to get much of the California 99 corridor added to the Interstate Highway system. I do not know where that plan currently stands if it's dead or just simmering on the back burner somewhere out of visibility.
But anyhow, there was a newspaper in the Central Valley, (I THINK it was the Fresno Bee but I'm not sure anymore), that was really pushing hard for this. They published several editorials favoring it. Suspecting that they might just get shot down by the FHWA, I sent them an e-mail asking them about a new "99" U.S. Route designation in place of an Interstate if their Interstate plans fall through. I tried to explain that'd be a good "back up" plan. Of course I realized it wouldn't make much of a difference in the actual infrastructure more that adding "prestiege" but I didn't tell them that.
They told me they thought that'd be an excellent idea but then I never heard anymore about it and that's been around 7 or 8 years ago, I think. I still like the idea of a new U.S. 99. Not sure I'll ever see it though. Prbly not, huh? You know, I am quite possibly older than some of the other guys on this group and I was actually ON U.S. 99 when I was a kid. I distinctly remember when they took the signs down. That was a sad day for me. :(
Regards,
Fred M. Cain
Funny, that's actually been an on/off debate on this forum for the couple years I've been on here. A lot of people really seem to want I-7 or I-9 but don't really understand how much work it would really take to get the entirety of the CA 99 freeway up to Interstate standards. Really the easier solution would be leave the CA 99 as is (which is what ultimately WILL happen) or simply apply US 99 to it. I'm with you in regards to a US Route having a "higher status" than what I would say for pretty much any state highway would.
Generally, we need better signage overall. Many state routes in CA are decomissioned and state law requires that they still be signed with shields - but they aren't. Roads that are no longer maintained by state DOTs should still be signed in a good way so that the motoring public will be able to navigate with them.
So absent a formal recommissioning of US 66 and US 99, I think the idea of proper historic shields as navigation devices are an excellent idea and should include more than just historic US routes, but many decomissioned or unsigned state and county routes as well.
I for one am wholeheartedly in favor of reinstating US 99. This is how I would do it. US 99 would start at Wheeler Ridge and follow SR 99 to US 50/BUS 80 to I-5. Just north of Sacramento I would have it follow SR 99 to SR 70 through Marysville and Oroville then follow SR 149 back to SR 99 through Chico and to I-5 at Red Bluff. (Note that I would make the existing SR 99 through Yuba City, Live Oak, Gridley, etc. US 99 Alt. or US 99A)
Then I would silently multiplex US 99 with I-5 to SR 273 where US 99 would follow existing SR 273 through Anderson and Redding. Upon rejoining I-5 I would have the silent multiplex continue to Dunsmuir where US 99 would exit the freeway along the historic route and rejoin the freeway at Weed. A further silent multiplex would bring US 99 to Yreka where US 99 would follow SR 263 through Yreka to rejoin I-5 at the Klamath River.
US 99 would again silently multiplex I-5 into Oregon where it would resume on Oregon 99 through Ashland, Medford, Central Point, Gold Hill and Grants Pass. US 99 would again resume a silent multiplex with I-5 to exit 120 where it would follow Oregon 99 through Roseburg and Sutherlin rejoining I-5 just north of Oakland. It would leave the freeway near Yoncalla and pass through Drain on former Oregon/US 99 rejoining I-5 near Curtin. It would again leave I-5 at exit 170 and pass through Cottage Grove and Creswell, rejoining I-5 at Goshen.
Upon exiting at I-5 exit 192, it would follow Oregon 99 through Eugene to Junction City. At Junction City US 99 would follow Oregon 99W through Corvallis, McMinnville and Newberg to end at I-5 at Tigard. (Corvallis, McMinnville and Newberg are all sufficiently large and far enough from I-5 to justify a US route designation.) Oregon 99E would remain a state highway as it remains close to I-5 most of the way from Junction City to Oregon City and except for Canby, all towns along that route have pretty direct Interstate access.
Note that I have chosen NOT to reinstate the segment through Dillard and Winston as Winston is served by Oregon 42, a major route, and Dillard is not sufficiently big to justify its own US route connection.
I would also consider it to be an acceptable alternative to have the whole segment between Red Bluff and Eugene be silently multiplexed with I-5 but that is a pretty big silent multiplex and I believe that at least some of the larger communities I would have it passing through are sufficiently large and with enough traffic to justify a US route designation connecting them separate from I-5. (i.e Anderson - Redding, Ashland - Medford - Central Point - Grants Pass, Roseburg - Sutherlin)
I would NOT continue US 99 into Washington as pretty much the entire route is right next to I-5 and does not really "serve" anywhere that is unique from I-5.
As for HOW to make this happen, I like the idea of getting support for a congressional bill to "force" the issue.
Finally, if US 99 cannot be reinstated, I would be happy to see a "Historic US 99" designation applied at a minimum to the Wheeler Ridge to Red Bluff and Eugene to Tigard segments. (With "Historic US 99" reassurance shields and shields on all applicable BGS signage.)
I welcome any comments anyone may wish to make about this.
Thunderbyrd316,
I think those are good ideas and many of us could come up with more (I have a few of my own) but I still think that the most difficult nut to crack is to get the legislation passed that would do this. If that could be done we could try and submit some of our ideas to the state DOTs. Will any of this ever happen? Definitely maybe it just depends how many people you could get interested in it.
Do not discount roadside businesses along Old Route 99. When I first got involved in trying to bring back route 66, I sent out e-mails to every chamber of commerce I could find between Chicago and Southern California. They didn't all respond but it's safe to say that the majority DID respond. Well, guess what? Something like 80% (or about 8 out of every 10) didn't just say it'd be a good idea to restore the official "66" U.S. Roue designation on the road through their community but a *GREAT* idea.
That might be a good place to start and send out some "feelers"
Regards,
Fred M. Cain
US 99 along with US 16 east of Rapid City are the only US Highways I would bring back. Well maybe US 89 down to US 93 as well as the rest of US 61 in Minnesota.
I started looking at what it would take to resurrect 66 and 99 in particular, and ran out of believing that it made sense. In both cases you have long stretches of road that have since been decommissioned. You either need to add a bunch of mileage back into the state highway system (non-starter), swap it with other routes (why), or keep the US highway on a long stretch of Interstate (again, why). So for 99:
* Calexico to Whitewater - 111 (or 86)
* Whitewater to Wheeler Ridge, 180 miles of Interstate overlap (assuming the I-210 swap)
* Wheeler Ridge to Red Bluff - 99
Then other than 273 through Redding, you're basically on I-5 to Oregon. I think it's entirely too much multiplex for California's liking. And without CA, I don't see enough for OR and WA to go in together - all of southern Washington would be an I-5 multiplex as well, realistically.
Keep in mind that 99 is signed (from I-5) between I-5 and Drain though Yoncalla on non-county highways -- there is precedence of having a route on decommissioned roads.
Also, in Oregon's case, this is an issue I believe the Oregon Highway Commission would need to head up, not ODOT or the Oregon House or Senate.
Quote from: Bickendan on July 01, 2017, 05:00:04 PM
Keep in mind that 99 is signed (from I-5) between I-5 and Drain though Yoncalla on non-county highways -- there is precedence of having a route on decommissioned roads.
Also, in Oregon's case, this is an issue I believe the Oregon Highway Commission would need to head up, not ODOT or the Oregon House or Senate.
My case is built on California. I don't see this happening without their support. US 66 has less of an issue, as relatively less mileage is in California, but again they're not going to assign it. There's actually not much of a case for an independent US 66 until Oklahoma, and barely into Missouri from Kansas.
Regarding Washington, old 99 deviates from I-5 more than you think. Think about it, in the Columbia Gorge, ODOT has kept US 30 to serve as a business loop through all the towns during the long section it shares the same corridor with I-84. You could argue to ODOT that if it was done with US 30, why can't it be done with US 99? I think there is a chance that this could be a viable proposal if many cities and towns in WA, OR, CA realized that with a US route serving in-town, it would be a boost in tourism, and ultimately help support businesses in the downtown areas.
In addition US 30 in Oregon deviates from I-84 to serve some state parks. I know of a few state parks that are on the old-99 corridor not served by a state, US, or Interstate highway. If US-99 were to be revived, out-of-state travelers not familiar with the area would have an easier time finding some state parks, which in turn would bring in more revenue to the state parks of WA, OR, CA.
In Washington, I could see several cities that could benefit from a US 99 business loop off I-5, including downtown Vancouver, La Center, Woodland, Kalama, Kelso/ Longview, Castle Rock, Toledo, Chehalis/ Centralia, Tenino, Tumwater/ Olympia/ Lacey. Once the Alaskan Way Tunnel is done, the 99 corridor can handle more traffic, and with a US designation, more traffic would be encouraged to leave I-5 through downtown Seattle.
I could see downtown Everett benefiting from a US route, along with Marysville, Stanwood, Mount Vernon/ Burlington, downtown Bellingham, Ferndale, Blaine.
There are a few sections of old-99 that actually deviate quite a ways from I-5 in Washington. The section from La Center to Woodland is beautiful and a few miles away from I-5. Then one of the long ones is Jackson Highway, which leaves the freeway at the Lewis-Cowlitz county line, goes through Toledo, serves Lewis and Clark State Park, serves downtown Chehalis and Centralia. Another section leaves I-5 at Grand Mound, serves Tenino, Tumwater and downtown Olympia. The oldest alignment of US-99, from Arlington, through Silvana and Stanwood, and returns at Conway, actually deviates from the freeway about 5 miles away. Finally, old 99 leaves I-5 at the north end of Burlington, passes Skagit Speedway, serves Alger, and returns at the Whatcom County line. Chuckanut Drive could also see the US-99A designation returned.
Quote from: thefraze_1020 on July 04, 2017, 12:41:11 PM
Regarding Washington, old 99 deviates from I-5 more than you think. Think about it, in the Columbia Gorge, ODOT has kept US 30 to serve as a business loop through all the towns during the long section it shares the same corridor with I-84. You could argue to ODOT that if it was done with US 30, why can't it be done with US 99? I think there is a chance that this could be a viable proposal if many cities and towns in WA, OR, CA realized that with a US route serving in-town, it would be a boost in tourism, and ultimately help support businesses in the downtown areas.
In addition US 30 in Oregon deviates from I-84 to serve some state parks. I know of a few state parks that are on the old-99 corridor not served by a state, US, or Interstate highway. If US-99 were to be revived, out-of-state travelers not familiar with the area would have an easier time finding some state parks, which in turn would bring in more revenue to the state parks of WA, OR, CA.
In Washington, I could see several cities that could benefit from a US 99 business loop off I-5, including downtown Vancouver, La Center, Woodland, Kalama, Kelso/ Longview, Castle Rock, Toledo, Chehalis/ Centralia, Tenino, Tumwater/ Olympia/ Lacey. Once the Alaskan Way Tunnel is done, the 99 corridor can handle more traffic, and with a US designation, more traffic would be encouraged to leave I-5 through downtown Seattle.
I could see downtown Everett benefiting from a US route, along with Marysville, Stanwood, Mount Vernon/ Burlington, downtown Bellingham, Ferndale, Blaine.
There are a few sections of old-99 that actually deviate quite a ways from I-5 in Washington. The section from La Center to Woodland is beautiful and a few miles away from I-5. Then one of the long ones is Jackson Highway, which leaves the freeway at the Lewis-Cowlitz county line, goes through Toledo, serves Lewis and Clark State Park, serves downtown Chehalis and Centralia. Another section leaves I-5 at Grand Mound, serves Tenino, Tumwater and downtown Olympia. The oldest alignment of US-99, from Arlington, through Silvana and Stanwood, and returns at Conway, actually deviates from the freeway about 5 miles away. Finally, old 99 leaves I-5 at the north end of Burlington, passes Skagit Speedway, serves Alger, and returns at the Whatcom County line. Chuckanut Drive could also see the US-99A designation returned.
How many of those sections are state maintained? Again, the state is not going to take on new mileage to designate a highway it doesn't need.
Quote from: Alps on July 04, 2017, 02:15:15 PM
Quote from: thefraze_1020 on July 04, 2017, 12:41:11 PM
Regarding Washington, old 99 deviates from I-5 more than you think. Think about it, in the Columbia Gorge, ODOT has kept US 30 to serve as a business loop through all the towns during the long section it shares the same corridor with I-84. You could argue to ODOT that if it was done with US 30, why can't it be done with US 99? I think there is a chance that this could be a viable proposal if many cities and towns in WA, OR, CA realized that with a US route serving in-town, it would be a boost in tourism, and ultimately help support businesses in the downtown areas.
In addition US 30 in Oregon deviates from I-84 to serve some state parks. I know of a few state parks that are on the old-99 corridor not served by a state, US, or Interstate highway. If US-99 were to be revived, out-of-state travelers not familiar with the area would have an easier time finding some state parks, which in turn would bring in more revenue to the state parks of WA, OR, CA.
In Washington, I could see several cities that could benefit from a US 99 business loop off I-5, including downtown Vancouver, La Center, Woodland, Kalama, Kelso/ Longview, Castle Rock, Toledo, Chehalis/ Centralia, Tenino, Tumwater/ Olympia/ Lacey. Once the Alaskan Way Tunnel is done, the 99 corridor can handle more traffic, and with a US designation, more traffic would be encouraged to leave I-5 through downtown Seattle.
I could see downtown Everett benefiting from a US route, along with Marysville, Stanwood, Mount Vernon/ Burlington, downtown Bellingham, Ferndale, Blaine.
There are a few sections of old-99 that actually deviate quite a ways from I-5 in Washington. The section from La Center to Woodland is beautiful and a few miles away from I-5. Then one of the long ones is Jackson Highway, which leaves the freeway at the Lewis-Cowlitz county line, goes through Toledo, serves Lewis and Clark State Park, serves downtown Chehalis and Centralia. Another section leaves I-5 at Grand Mound, serves Tenino, Tumwater and downtown Olympia. The oldest alignment of US-99, from Arlington, through Silvana and Stanwood, and returns at Conway, actually deviates from the freeway about 5 miles away. Finally, old 99 leaves I-5 at the north end of Burlington, passes Skagit Speedway, serves Alger, and returns at the Whatcom County line. Chuckanut Drive could also see the US-99A designation returned.
How many of those sections are state maintained? Again, the state is not going to take on new mileage to designate a highway it doesn't need.
I agree, there seems to be little need to resurrect US 99 in Washington. The least they can do is slap a Historic US 99 sign on roads that used to be part of US 99.
Quote from: Alps on July 04, 2017, 02:15:15 PM
Quote from: thefraze_1020 on July 04, 2017, 12:41:11 PM
Regarding Washington, old 99 deviates from I-5 more than you think. Think about it, in the Columbia Gorge, ODOT has kept US 30 to serve as a business loop through all the towns during the long section it shares the same corridor with I-84. You could argue to ODOT that if it was done with US 30, why can't it be done with US 99? I think there is a chance that this could be a viable proposal if many cities and towns in WA, OR, CA realized that with a US route serving in-town, it would be a boost in tourism, and ultimately help support businesses in the downtown areas.
In addition US 30 in Oregon deviates from I-84 to serve some state parks. I know of a few state parks that are on the old-99 corridor not served by a state, US, or Interstate highway. If US-99 were to be revived, out-of-state travelers not familiar with the area would have an easier time finding some state parks, which in turn would bring in more revenue to the state parks of WA, OR, CA.
In Washington, I could see several cities that could benefit from a US 99 business loop off I-5, including downtown Vancouver, La Center, Woodland, Kalama, Kelso/ Longview, Castle Rock, Toledo, Chehalis/ Centralia, Tenino, Tumwater/ Olympia/ Lacey. Once the Alaskan Way Tunnel is done, the 99 corridor can handle more traffic, and with a US designation, more traffic would be encouraged to leave I-5 through downtown Seattle.
I could see downtown Everett benefiting from a US route, along with Marysville, Stanwood, Mount Vernon/ Burlington, downtown Bellingham, Ferndale, Blaine.
There are a few sections of old-99 that actually deviate quite a ways from I-5 in Washington. The section from La Center to Woodland is beautiful and a few miles away from I-5. Then one of the long ones is Jackson Highway, which leaves the freeway at the Lewis-Cowlitz county line, goes through Toledo, serves Lewis and Clark State Park, serves downtown Chehalis and Centralia. Another section leaves I-5 at Grand Mound, serves Tenino, Tumwater and downtown Olympia. The oldest alignment of US-99, from Arlington, through Silvana and Stanwood, and returns at Conway, actually deviates from the freeway about 5 miles away. Finally, old 99 leaves I-5 at the north end of Burlington, passes Skagit Speedway, serves Alger, and returns at the Whatcom County line. Chuckanut Drive could also see the US-99A designation returned.
How many of those sections are state maintained? Again, the state is not going to take on new mileage to designate a highway it doesn't need.
Don't some places sometimes post highway shields on routes that aren't state maintained?
The Yoncalla-Drain portion of OR 99 is not state maintained.
Quote from: Bickendan on July 05, 2017, 02:31:16 AM
The Yoncalla-Drain portion of OR 99 is not state maintained.
It's not even SR 99. The road is now a Douglas County route. Then to add to the confusion is how signage between Drain and I-5 to the north is for SR 38 but the freeway BGS says 38/99. I tell ya', 99 is dying a hard death over there!
Rick
Clearly a case of the OTC and ODOT not communicating with each other.
I don't care if OR 99's routed on a county route, if that's what OTC wants. ODOT needs to follow up with signing it beyond the divergences from I-5.
Anyway, to the earlier point, I don't know that WA does that or wants to do that. There are a few highways on county routes or even town roads here in NJ, but I guarantee you they won't add a new one.
Quote from: ATLRedSoxFan on June 28, 2017, 10:35:13 PM
I know California started it, but what was all the hoopila with decommissioning US routes in the first place? They DID serve a purpose.
I read it was actually that California wanted to use as many white-on-green state highway shields as possible. So most of their US highways were decommissioned for this purpose.
Quote from: roadfro on June 29, 2017, 01:31:49 AM
Quote from: roadguy2 on June 29, 2017, 12:27:23 AM
The idea was that they had been functionally replaced, so they were no longer needed. I would argue that they are useful for when the Interstate is closed or has a major accident and traffic needs to be diverted, it is a good idea to have an alternate through route.
That line of thinking works well in many places, but not so much in the west. For example, I-80 was laid directly on top of US 40 through most of California and Nevada, so it physically couldn't act as an alternate. Keeping US 40 would've involved the route jumping off and back on I-80 at every city and town–well that's what Interstate Business Loops are for (and why Nevada has at least 9 of them).
And yet, that's exactly what I wished the US routes would have done. I don't like business routes, loops or spurs. I much prefer how Oregon uses US-30 for the same purpose, for example. US-40 doesn't necessarily need to be signed all the way across the state, but it could have been useful to have its own freeway alignment through Sacramento, instead of signing it as the Capital City Loop, for example.
The issue in CA was due to US40 and I-40 clashing, ditto US80 and I-80. Then they got the bug and so other routes got chopped - even ones where an interstate hadn't replaced it like US6.
Of course, CA's former US routes are now in the process of being signed as Historic routes.