On this day in 1985, US-66 was formally decommissioned as a federal highway.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54616672159_b7b95af489_c.jpg)
I was under the impression that the using the term "Federal Highway" to denote a US Route or Interstate is a road fan faux pau.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 26, 2025, 10:05:27 PMI was under the impression that the using the term "Federal Highway" to denote a US Route or Interstate is a road fan faux pau.
Don't know why, the road signs say "US" at the top. Whats to be upset about, fill me in.
Quote from: edwaleni on June 26, 2025, 10:38:42 PMDon't know why, the road signs say "US" at the top. Whats to be upset about, fill me in.
Because, even if they say 'US' at the top, they're still just state highways.
The numbering scheme is the only nationwide thing about them. Other than that, they're just state routes with a fancy shield.
I get the state highway thing in the pecking order of who "owns" the road. But didn't the Federal budget pay for the majority of their construction?
I remember an article when US-66 was commissioned in 1926 at Pontiac, Illinois. They even brought out one of the last Illini tribal chiefs to come out and dance and dedicate it. That article called it a new "federal highway" as part of the new highway system.
A mis-statement even then?
Aside from random Federal Aid Primary and Seconday programs the US Route System was built by the states. You are probably thinking of Chargeable Interstate mileage.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 26, 2025, 11:07:33 PMAside from random Federal Aid Primary and Seconday programs the US Route System was built by the states. You are probably thinking of Chargeable Interstate mileage.
You read my mind, that was my next question, the FAP and FAS routes.
I will let the sock go, I understand where you are coming from.
At least this injustice was eventually made right by a historic designation decades later. I remember making a promise to my father before I set out on my first-ever road trip alone that I would drive as much of the old road that I still could do, like he did on the family trips from Chicago to L.A. And mind you, I was starting college at the end of that trip, but I did pretty good finding it all.
I don't know about "injustice." The corridor became obsolete over time and was replaced by the Interstates. A lot of the surface mileage was dumped via relinquishment out west. Most of things people associate with US 66 were part of the original alignment of the National Old Trails Road west of Santa Fe. Without those Auto Trail ingredients US 66 is just another US Route. Out by me the only thing truly unique to US 66 is the 1926-1952 alignment along Oatman Highway.
"progress", says a guy in New Jersey that lives nowhere near the corridor.
Quote from: Henry on June 26, 2025, 11:18:57 PMAt least this injustice was eventually made right by a historic designation decades later. I remember making a promise to my father before I set out on my first-ever road trip alone that I would drive as much of the old road that I still could do, like he did on the family trips from Chicago to L.A. And mind you, I was starting college at the end of that trip, but I did pretty good finding it all.
"Injustice?" Good lord...
Was 66 the last US route to be entirely decommissioned?
Quote from: formulanone on June 27, 2025, 10:10:44 AMWas 66 the last US route to be entirely decommissioned?
A previous edition of US 48 was decommissioned in 1989, but the number got recycled (for a 2nd time) in 2002.
Quote from: edwaleni on June 26, 2025, 10:38:42 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on June 26, 2025, 10:05:27 PMI was under the impression that the using the term "Federal Highway" to denote a US Route or Interstate is a road fan faux pau.
Don't know why, the road signs say "US" at the top. Whats to be upset about, fill me in.
Hello viatologists! In my study of roads, I just love analyzing the transportology of all the various federal routes I encounter, don't you? Be sure to check out the Worldwide Transportation Library (https://wwtl.info) (WWTL) by Carl Rogers - the premier viatological resource on the planet! Happy travels!
Quote from: vdeane on June 27, 2025, 12:35:49 PMQuote from: edwaleni on June 26, 2025, 10:38:42 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on June 26, 2025, 10:05:27 PMI was under the impression that the using the term "Federal Highway" to denote a US Route or Interstate is a road fan faux pau.
Don't know why, the road signs say "US" at the top. Whats to be upset about, fill me in.
Hello viatologists! In my study of roads, I just love analyzing the transportology of all the various federal routes I encounter, don't you? Be sure to check out the Worldwide Transportation Library (https://wwtl.info) (WWTL) by Carl Rogers - the premier viatological resource on the planet! Happy travels!
He fits right in with the others in Deming, New Mexico...
Quote from: formulanone on June 27, 2025, 10:10:44 AMWas 66 the last US route to be entirely decommissioned?
US-666 in 2003 was the last.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 27, 2025, 01:33:21 PMUS-666 in 2003 was the last.
Is a renumbering really the same thing, though?
Quote from: kphoger on June 27, 2025, 01:44:02 PMQuote from: SEWIGuy on June 27, 2025, 01:33:21 PMUS-666 in 2003 was the last.
Is a renumbering really the same thing, though?
Lots of pieces of the old US-66 still have route numbers due to former concurrencies. I don't know if there are any that were given completely new US route numbers, but my guess would be no. And the decommissioning of US-666 was kind of a special case, not reflecting a diminishing need for the road itself.
Quote from: pderocco on June 27, 2025, 05:24:18 PMQuote from: kphoger on June 27, 2025, 01:44:02 PMQuote from: SEWIGuy on June 27, 2025, 01:33:21 PMUS-666 in 2003 was the last.
Is a renumbering really the same thing, though?
Lots of pieces of the old US-66 still have route numbers due to former concurrencies. I don't know if there are any that were given completely new US route numbers, but my guess would be no. And the decommissioning of US-666 was kind of a special case, not reflecting a diminishing need for the road itself.
This one was very badly needed, since sign theft, a high number of traffic accidents and a Satanic connection to the highway itself led to the decommissioning/renumbering to US 491. Out of all the highway designations that no longer exist, this is the only one I'm glad is gone forever. Even back in the 1970s and 80s, we avoided it like the plague during our family road trips.
Quote from: Henry on June 27, 2025, 10:02:46 PMQuote from: pderocco on June 27, 2025, 05:24:18 PMQuote from: kphoger on June 27, 2025, 01:44:02 PMQuote from: SEWIGuy on June 27, 2025, 01:33:21 PMUS-666 in 2003 was the last.
Is a renumbering really the same thing, though?
Lots of pieces of the old US-66 still have route numbers due to former concurrencies. I don't know if there are any that were given completely new US route numbers, but my guess would be no. And the decommissioning of US-666 was kind of a special case, not reflecting a diminishing need for the road itself.
This one was very badly needed, since sign theft, a high number of traffic accidents and a Satanic connection to the highway itself led to the decommissioning/renumbering to US 491. Out of all the highway designations that no longer exist, this is the only one I'm glad is gone forever. Even back in the 1970s and 80s, we avoided it like the plague during our family road trips.
I kind of dig the motif "666" brought to the Coronado Trail versus what US 191 does. That led to a lot of eastern Arizona lore stories which still persisted a decade after the highway was renumbered.
US 166 and 266 remain, and while 166 is probably a worthy corridor (though redundant with 160), I don't know why 266 still exists. 66 was decommissioned because of the Interstates, yet 266 is nothing but a glorified I-40 business loop.
Quote from: Henry on June 27, 2025, 10:02:46 PMQuote from: pderocco on June 27, 2025, 05:24:18 PMQuote from: kphoger on June 27, 2025, 01:44:02 PMQuote from: SEWIGuy on June 27, 2025, 01:33:21 PMUS-666 in 2003 was the last.
Is a renumbering really the same thing, though?
Lots of pieces of the old US-66 still have route numbers due to former concurrencies. I don't know if there are any that were given completely new US route numbers, but my guess would be no. And the decommissioning of US-666 was kind of a special case, not reflecting a diminishing need for the road itself.
This one was very badly needed, since sign theft, a high number of traffic accidents and a Satanic connection to the highway itself led to the decommissioning/renumbering to US 491. Out of all the highway designations that no longer exist, this is the only one I'm glad is gone forever. Even back in the 1970s and 80s, we avoided it like the plague during our family road trips.
Superstition isn't a great reason for a renumbering, nor is high sign theft (considering the high number of state highways that are barely signed or cities that don't bother maintaining their signage after turnbacks -- looking at you, California). High sign theft being a renumbering argument would make I-69 a candidate, I'd think.
Sure, I get we'll never get an I-13 through Vegas or Reno, but had they existed and they petitioned to have them renumbered, '13' being considered an unlucky number would be a poor reason to renumber; likewise '666' being Satanic, which is a stretch.
Quote from: Bickendan on June 28, 2025, 03:15:33 AMQuote from: Henry on June 27, 2025, 10:02:46 PMQuote from: pderocco on June 27, 2025, 05:24:18 PMQuote from: kphoger on June 27, 2025, 01:44:02 PMQuote from: SEWIGuy on June 27, 2025, 01:33:21 PMUS-666 in 2003 was the last.
Is a renumbering really the same thing, though?
Lots of pieces of the old US-66 still have route numbers due to former concurrencies. I don't know if there are any that were given completely new US route numbers, but my guess would be no. And the decommissioning of US-666 was kind of a special case, not reflecting a diminishing need for the road itself.
This one was very badly needed, since sign theft, a high number of traffic accidents and a Satanic connection to the highway itself led to the decommissioning/renumbering to US 491. Out of all the highway designations that no longer exist, this is the only one I'm glad is gone forever. Even back in the 1970s and 80s, we avoided it like the plague during our family road trips.
Superstition isn't a great reason for a renumbering, nor is high sign theft (considering the high number of state highways that are barely signed or cities that don't bother maintaining their signage after turnbacks -- looking at you, California). High sign theft being a renumbering argument would make I-69 a candidate, I'd think.
Sure, I get we'll never get an I-13 through Vegas or Reno, but had they existed and they petitioned to have them renumbered, '13' being considered an unlucky number would be a poor reason to renumber; likewise '666' being Satanic, which is a stretch.
I vote for US 13 to be renumbered next. It has as much of a reason to be renumbered as US 666.
Quote from: Bickendan on June 28, 2025, 03:15:33 AMSuperstition isn't a great reason for a renumbering
I could get behind this.
Quote from: Bickendan on June 28, 2025, 03:15:33 AMnor is high sign theft
This I'm not so sure about.
Quote from: Henry on June 27, 2025, 10:02:46 PMQuote from: pderocco on June 27, 2025, 05:24:18 PMQuote from: kphoger on June 27, 2025, 01:44:02 PMQuote from: SEWIGuy on June 27, 2025, 01:33:21 PMUS-666 in 2003 was the last.
Is a renumbering really the same thing, though?
Lots of pieces of the old US-66 still have route numbers due to former concurrencies. I don't know if there are any that were given completely new US route numbers, but my guess would be no. And the decommissioning of US-666 was kind of a special case, not reflecting a diminishing need for the road itself.
This one was very badly needed, since sign theft, a high number of traffic accidents and a Satanic connection to the highway itself led to the decommissioning/renumbering to US 491. Out of all the highway designations that no longer exist, this is the only one I'm glad is gone forever. Even back in the 1970s and 80s, we avoided it like the plague during our family road trips.
US-666 was kind of difficult to avoid between Gallup NM and into AZ, where it co routed with US-66 (and then I-40) before turning south where US-191 is now
My point, though, is that US-666 was not decommissioned. It just got a new number.
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on June 28, 2025, 04:35:00 AMQuote from: Bickendan on June 28, 2025, 03:15:33 AMSuperstition isn't a great reason for a renumbering
I could get behind this.
Quote from: Bickendan on June 28, 2025, 03:15:33 AMnor is high sign theft
This I'm not so sure about.
US 666 isn't the only highway to be renumbered over signage theft. CA 69 was renumbered in the 1970s to CA 245 due to people stealing all the shields.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 28, 2025, 09:28:06 AMUS 666 isn't the only highway to be renumbered over signage theft. CA 69 was renumbered in the 1970s to CA 245 due to people stealing all the shields.
In 2007, Oregon's Belt Line Hwy #69 was designated OR 569 instead of OR 69 because of the connotations of the number and in
anticipation of the sign theft.
For some reason I thought the 69 thing was a more recent societal meme than 420, like within my lifetime. I remember MN having issues with 420th St signs years ago, resulting in things like street renumberings to 421st Ave or street blades having the 0 replaced with an X.
Quote from: LilianaUwU on June 28, 2025, 01:45:38 AMI don't know why 266 still exists. 66 was decommissioned because of the Interstates, yet 266 is nothing but a glorified I-40 business loop.
If you have to keep the highway around as a state highway either way (which Oklahoma would feel obliged to, since they are pretty good about making sure incorporated places are on state highways), it is much easier (and cheaper!) to keep something a US route than to convert it to a state highway number.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan3561 on June 28, 2025, 02:11:51 PMFor some reason I thought the 69 thing was a more recent societal meme than 420, like within my lifetime.
It's as old as the Kama Sutra.
Quote from: pderocco on June 28, 2025, 02:41:50 PMQuote from: TheHighwayMan3561 on June 28, 2025, 02:11:51 PMFor some reason I thought the 69 thing was a more recent societal meme than 420, like within my lifetime.
It's as old as the Kama Sutra.
Well yes, I was referring to the number 69 being a euphemism for it.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan3561 on June 28, 2025, 02:11:51 PMFor some reason I thought the 69 thing was a more recent societal meme than 420, like within my lifetime. I remember MN having issues with 420th St signs years ago, resulting in things like street renumberings to 421st Ave or street blades having the 0 replaced with an X.
playing some tic-tac-toe?
Quote from: LilianaUwU on June 28, 2025, 01:45:38 AMUS 166 and 266 remain, and while 166 is probably a worthy corridor (though redundant with 160), I don't know why 266 still exists. 66 was decommissioned because of the Interstates, yet 266 is nothing but a glorified I-40 business loop.
Now that US400 is the thru route in Cherokee County (KS) after construction was finished, there is really no reason why US166 cannot be re-signed as K-166. It is slightly ridiculous to have two W-E US routes end less than 1 mile into Missouri at I-44.
Quote from: brad2971 on June 28, 2025, 11:37:31 PMQuote from: LilianaUwU on June 28, 2025, 01:45:38 AMUS 166 and 266 remain, and while 166 is probably a worthy corridor (though redundant with 160), I don't know why 266 still exists. 66 was decommissioned because of the Interstates, yet 266 is nothing but a glorified I-40 business loop.
Now that US400 is the thru route in Cherokee County (KS) after construction was finished, there is really no reason why US166 cannot be re-signed as K-166. It is slightly ridiculous to have two W-E US routes end less than 1 mile into Missouri at I-44.
No. US 400 should be the one that is decommissioned.
So the article in the OP uses the term "decertified" though I'd suggest "removed the US 66 designation".
It seems to me that the designation was and would still remain useful today as a single number from Chicago to LA. Move it onto the interstates or keep it on the actual former US 66 roads, as appropriate. That said, the existing situation with so much interest in and signage of old segments as a historic route is probably a perfectly good way to handle it, and has brought more tourist interest than would a consistently-signed US 66 that hops on and off the nearby interstates.
One I really don't understand was the removal of the US 99 designation. So much was not meaningfully replaced by I-5. And I am not a fan of the truncations of what should be coast-to-coast routes like US 6 and US 40.
Quote from: LilianaUwU on June 28, 2025, 11:44:21 PMQuote from: brad2971 on June 28, 2025, 11:37:31 PMNow that US400 is the thru route in Cherokee County (KS) after construction was finished, there is really no reason why US166 cannot be re-signed as K-166. It is slightly ridiculous to have two W-E US routes end less than 1 mile into Missouri at I-44.
No. US 400 should be the one that is decommissioned.
I think you're both right: US 400 should become K-400 (KDOT can sign it all the way to the Colo. stateline if they want). And US 166 should become K-166, ending at K-400 in Baxter Spgs.
US 400: its number is not the only error (https://www.usends.com/blog/us-400-its-number-is-not-the-only-error)
US 412 should become US 66. That way the 412 number that doesn't match the grid can be decommissioned and 66 will fit the grid.
Quote from: Jim on June 29, 2025, 08:04:42 AMIt seems to me that the designation was and would still remain useful today as a single number from Chicago to LA. Move it onto the interstates or keep it on the actual former US 66 roads, as appropriate. That said, the existing situation with so much interest in and signage of old segments as a historic route is probably a perfectly good way to handle it, and has brought more tourist interest than would a consistently-signed US 66 that hops on and off the nearby interstates.
I've considered writing a Congresscritter or two about the possibility of force-recommissioning the section of US 66 that is currently OK 66 by writing it into federal law, but I haven't done so because I'm concerned about the roadgeek ethics of that.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on June 29, 2025, 10:23:26 AMUS 412 should become US 66. That way the 412 number that doesn't match the grid can be decommissioned and 66 will fit the grid.
If the number you were talking about was 38 or 47 or something like that, sure. The designation US 66, however, is so well known that applying it to any other corridor is a complete nonstarter.
Quote from: Jim on June 29, 2025, 08:04:42 AMIt seems to me that the designation was and would still remain useful today as a single number from Chicago to LA. Move it onto the interstates or keep it on the actual former US 66 roads, as appropriate. That said, the existing situation with so much interest in and signage of old segments as a historic route is probably a perfectly good way to handle it, and has brought more tourist interest than would a consistently-signed US 66 that hops on and off the nearby interstates.
It's been 40 years. No reason to resurrect something for the sake of a single number from LA to Chicago. That's just not that important.
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 29, 2025, 04:11:31 PMQuote from: Jim on June 29, 2025, 08:04:42 AMIt seems to me that the designation was and would still remain useful today as a single number from Chicago to LA. Move it onto the interstates or keep it on the actual former US 66 roads, as appropriate. That said, the existing situation with so much interest in and signage of old segments as a historic route is probably a perfectly good way to handle it, and has brought more tourist interest than would a consistently-signed US 66 that hops on and off the nearby interstates.
I've considered writing a Congresscritter or two about the possibility of force-recommissioning the section of US 66 that is currently OK 66 by writing it into federal law, but I haven't done so because I'm concerned about the roadgeek ethics of that.
Wait, we have "roadgeek ethics?"
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 29, 2025, 05:04:55 PM"roadgeek ethics?"
I think they're something like, "Don't run over your mother-in-law if she's getting in the way of you photographing that sign. Unless you've already told her to move twice."
Quote from: Jim on June 29, 2025, 08:04:42 AMOne I really don't understand was the removal of the US 99 designation. So much was not meaningfully replaced by I-5. And I am not a fan of the truncations of what should be coast-to-coast routes like US 6 and US 40.
The final insult was Provincetown saying, We don't want the end of US-6 any more. Truro, you can have it.
Quote from: pderocco on June 29, 2025, 06:32:27 PMQuote from: Jim on June 29, 2025, 08:04:42 AMOne I really don't understand was the removal of the US 99 designation. So much was not meaningfully replaced by I-5. And I am not a fan of the truncations of what should be coast-to-coast routes like US 6 and US 40.
The final insult was Provincetown saying, We don't want the end of US-6 any more. Truro, you can have it.
As much as some of the road fans don't like the idea of US 6 crossing Tioga Pass it probably would have had more staying power post-1964. Shame that concept wasn't adopted in 1937 instead of Long Beach.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on June 29, 2025, 04:27:28 PMQuote from: Jim on June 29, 2025, 08:04:42 AMIt seems to me that the designation was and would still remain useful today as a single number from Chicago to LA. Move it onto the interstates or keep it on the actual former US 66 roads, as appropriate. That said, the existing situation with so much interest in and signage of old segments as a historic route is probably a perfectly good way to handle it, and has brought more tourist interest than would a consistently-signed US 66 that hops on and off the nearby interstates.
It's been 40 years. No reason to resurrect something for the sake of a single number from LA to Chicago. That's just not that important.
I'm not suggesting it should be restored now, just that having kept it all along would have made sense. My wording wasn't clear in the second sentence. I meant over the past 40 years, parts of the route could have been moved onto interstates or kept where they were, much like has happened in other places where US designations hop on and off of interstates.
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 29, 2025, 04:11:31 PMI've considered writing a Congresscritter or two about the possibility of force-recommissioning the section of US 66 that is currently OK 66 by writing it into federal law, but I haven't done so because I'm concerned about the roadgeek ethics of that.
Given the way Congresscritters have no problem writing interstate numbers into law, I say go for it. And while you are at it, ask for the designation to continue into Missouri and replace MO 96 east of Joplin.
Quote from: GaryV on June 29, 2025, 06:16:35 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on June 29, 2025, 05:04:55 PM"roadgeek ethics?"
I think they're something like, "Don't run over your mother-in-law if she's getting in the way of you photographing that sign. Unless you've already told her to move twice."
I was thinking something along the lines of "It's BS to use political power to override AASHTO just to get a pretty shield somewhere they wouldn't approve one normally."
But what you said works too.
Avoiding US 666 due to a "Satanic connection" is an interesting choice...Quite a detour as well.
But yeah, dealing with replacing signs would get annoying for a DOT. That's a legit reason to renumber.
FWIW none of the notes about 666 being replaced in AASHTO's database mention anything about "Satanism." They do mention US 66 no longer existing and signage theft.
I get it that people hate US-400's number. But it's a major long-distance route that carries more traffic than either of the east-west US routes near it (especially east of Wichita), especially truck traffic. Suggestions that US-400 should be decommissioned just totally baffle me. I guess it's because its eastern endpoint is just barely outside the state of Kansas, but really, come on. It's the corridor of a once-potential Interstate, and now it shouldn't even be a US Route?
Quote from: brad2971 on June 28, 2025, 11:37:31 PMthere is really no reason why US166 cannot be re-signed as K-166.
Sure there is. It still exists as a US Route. That's the biggest reason I can think of to sign it as such.
Quote from: kphoger on June 30, 2025, 10:37:52 AMI get it that people hate US-400's number. But it's a major long-distance route that carries more traffic than either of the east-west US routes near it (especially east of Wichita), especially truck traffic. Suggestions that US-400 should be decommissioned just totally baffle me. I guess it's because its eastern endpoint is just barely outside the state of Kansas, but really, come on. It's the corridor of a once-potential Interstate, and now it shouldn't even be a US Route?
I agree. People just don't like the number. If it had a number that "fit the grid," no one would care.
Quote from: kphoger on June 30, 2025, 10:37:52 AMI get it that people hate US-400's number. But it's a major long-distance route that carries more traffic than either of the east-west US routes near it (especially east of Wichita), especially truck traffic. Suggestions that US-400 should be decommissioned just totally baffle me. I guess it's because its eastern endpoint is just barely outside the state of Kansas, but really, come on. It's the corridor of a once-potential Interstate, and now it shouldn't even be a US Route?
Quote from: brad2971 on June 28, 2025, 11:37:31 PMthere is really no reason why US166 cannot be re-signed as K-166.
Sure there is. It still exists as a US Route. That's the biggest reason I can think of to sign it as such.
US 400 is mostly concurrent with other routes.
Quote from: Rothman on June 30, 2025, 10:49:44 AMQuote from: kphoger on June 30, 2025, 10:37:52 AMI get it that people hate US-400's number. But it's a major long-distance route that carries more traffic than either of the east-west US routes near it (especially east of Wichita), especially truck traffic. Suggestions that US-400 should be decommissioned just totally baffle me. I guess it's because its eastern endpoint is just barely outside the state of Kansas, but really, come on. It's the corridor of a once-potential Interstate, and now it shouldn't even be a US Route?
Quote from: brad2971 on June 28, 2025, 11:37:31 PMthere is really no reason why US166 cannot be re-signed as K-166.
Sure there is. It still exists as a US Route. That's the biggest reason I can think of to sign it as such.
US 400 is mostly concurrent with other routes.
Which I think speaks to a bigger issue of the hardened sub-300 mile intrastate US Route prohibition shouldn't be a thing.
Quote from: Rothman on June 30, 2025, 10:49:44 AMUS 400 is mostly concurrent with other routes.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 30, 2025, 10:51:21 AMWhich I think speaks to a bigger issue of the hardened sub-300 mile intrastate US Route prohibition shouldn't be a thing.
The portion east of Wichita is mostly
NOT concurrent with other routes, and it sees heavier traffic than even US-54, let alone the 3dus south of it. If anything, I'd rather US-400 continue east from Pittsburg along K-171 → MO-171 → I-49-BL → MO-96 and connect to I-44 at Halltown instead, as a single-number Wichita–Springfield corridor.
But, from the US-54/400 split near Leon to Halltown, it's only about 200 miles. Even extending it all the way from I-135 to US-65 would only make it about 250 miles.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/VAEZDe794AaJt2Lw6
Something like this, I think, might deserve to be a single US Route. Maybe not the westernmost bit, because it's a tag-end duplicate with US-54, but at least the rest of it.
Heck, this even brings us back on topic, because most of the MO-96 portion used to be US-66.
(https://www.theroute-66.com/images/missouri/1928-US66map-SW-MO.jpg)
Quote from: kphoger on June 30, 2025, 11:18:18 AMQuote from: Rothman on June 30, 2025, 10:49:44 AMUS 400 is mostly concurrent with other routes.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 30, 2025, 10:51:21 AMWhich I think speaks to a bigger issue of the hardened sub-300 mile intrastate US Route prohibition shouldn't be a thing.
The portion east of Wichita is mostly NOT concurrent with other routes, and it sees heavier traffic than even US-54, let alone the 3dus south of it. If anything, I'd rather US-400 continue east from Pittsburg along K-171 → MO-171 → I-49-BL → MO-96 and connect to I-44 at Halltown instead, as a single-number Wichita–Springfield corridor.
But, from the US-54/400 split near Leon to Halltown, it's only about 200 miles. Even extending it all the way from I-135 to US-65 would only make it about 250 miles.
So...what I said is still true. :D
Quote from: Rothman on June 30, 2025, 03:28:30 PMSo...what I said is still true.
West of Wichita, it is mostly concurrent with other routes. I understand wanting to get rid of it west of Wichita.
East of Wichita, it is mostly an independent route. Not only do I not understand wanting to get rid of it east of Wichita, but I'd rather see it expanded even further.
Quote from: kphoger on June 30, 2025, 03:34:59 PMQuote from: Rothman on June 30, 2025, 03:28:30 PMSo...what I said is still true.
West of Wichita, it is mostly concurrent with other routes. I understand wanting to get rid of it west of Wichita.
East of Wichita, it is mostly an independent route. Not only do I not understand wanting to get rid of it east of Wichita, but I'd rather see it expanded even further.
Just call it US 54S. :>
Quote from: usends on June 29, 2025, 09:03:19 AMQuote from: LilianaUwU on June 28, 2025, 11:44:21 PMQuote from: brad2971 on June 28, 2025, 11:37:31 PMNow that US400 is the thru route in Cherokee County (KS) after construction was finished, there is really no reason why US166 cannot be re-signed as K-166. It is slightly ridiculous to have two W-E US routes end less than 1 mile into Missouri at I-44.
No. US 400 should be the one that is decommissioned.
I think you're both right: US 400 should become K-400 (KDOT can sign it all the way to the Colo. stateline if they want). And US 166 should become K-166, ending at K-400 in Baxter Spgs.
US 400: its number is not the only error (https://www.usends.com/blog/us-400-its-number-is-not-the-only-error)
I think you're all wrong. Creating a corridor to adequately serve the east-west connectivity needs of a metro with more than half a million people is not "just serving Kansas interests." Why is the spur of US 66 created to serve the middle of nowhere more worthy of the US highway shield than the US 400 corridor?
Quote from: Jim on June 29, 2025, 10:21:52 PMQuote from: SEWIGuy on June 29, 2025, 04:27:28 PMQuote from: Jim on June 29, 2025, 08:04:42 AMIt seems to me that the designation was and would still remain useful today as a single number from Chicago to LA. Move it onto the interstates or keep it on the actual former US 66 roads, as appropriate. That said, the existing situation with so much interest in and signage of old segments as a historic route is probably a perfectly good way to handle it, and has brought more tourist interest than would a consistently-signed US 66 that hops on and off the nearby interstates.
It's been 40 years. No reason to resurrect something for the sake of a single number from LA to Chicago. That's just not that important.
I'm not suggesting it should be restored now, just that having kept it all along would have made sense. My wording wasn't clear in the second sentence. I meant over the past 40 years, parts of the route could have been moved onto interstates or kept where they were, much like has happened in other places where US designations hop on and off of interstates.
It wouldn't have really been kept as a single number between Chicago and Los Angeles, though, since it had already been axed from California, Illinois, and most of Missouri.
Are you arguing that it simply should have been signed along the accompanying interstates as a legacy designation, or that it should have kept its routing as it existed in 1985? There is some independent utility along the portions that are now OK-66, K-66, and MO-66, but realistically that's about it.
Unless there was an exception for US 66 or NMDOT's current policy of ghosting US highways where they are concurrent with interstates was scrapped, there would not be a single sign for it in New Mexico today, either.
AZ 66 has a lot of utility also. 65 MPH through some nice quiet canyons is a preferrable alternative to ADOT's patented beat to shit asphalt on I-40.
Changing US highways to state highways doesn't make a lot of sense unless the U.S. corridor has been replaced with an interstate.
Unless you got a fancy new green state highway shield which tested well in snow and foggy conditions.
Quote from: Jim on June 29, 2025, 08:04:42 AMIt seems to me that the designation was and would still remain useful today as a single number from Chicago to LA.
I don't think it's all that useful to have a single number from Chicago to LA. How many people in a given year, do you suppose, actually drive from one to the other? (And, of those, how many are retirees from Quebec taking a leisurely Route 66 vacation in a camper van?) How many people who are confident enough to embark on a three-day, 2000-mile cross-country trip, are not skilled enough to handle four different route numbers along the way?
I mean, honestly, how useful is it, really, that US-41 exists all the way from Chicago to Miami? It isn't. Would it be beneficial if the whole Interstate route between the two cities carried a single number? No, not really.
Quote from: kphoger on June 30, 2025, 07:34:46 PMQuote from: Jim on June 29, 2025, 08:04:42 AMIt seems to me that the designation was and would still remain useful today as a single number from Chicago to LA.
I don't think it's all that useful to have a single number from Chicago to LA. How many people in a given year, do you suppose, actually drive from one to the other? (And, of those, how many are retirees from Quebec taking a leisurely Route 66 vacation in a camper van?) How many people who are confident enough to embark on a three-day, 2000-mile cross-country trip, are not skilled enough to handle four different route numbers along the way?
I mean, honestly, how useful is it, really, that US-41 exists all the way from Chicago to Miami? It isn't. Would it be beneficial if the whole Interstate route between the two cities carried a single number? No, not really.
Also, if we're going down the road of arguing the benefits of having a single designation between two major cities, the fact that a single designation between New York and Los Angeles has never existed (even as an auto trail) should be enough evidence that it's a pretty silly argument.
Quote from: Molandfreak on June 30, 2025, 08:39:07 PMQuote from: kphoger on June 30, 2025, 07:34:46 PMQuote from: Jim on June 29, 2025, 08:04:42 AMIt seems to me that the designation was and would still remain useful today as a single number from Chicago to LA.
I don't think it's all that useful to have a single number from Chicago to LA. How many people in a given year, do you suppose, actually drive from one to the other? (And, of those, how many are retirees from Quebec taking a leisurely Route 66 vacation in a camper van?) How many people who are confident enough to embark on a three-day, 2000-mile cross-country trip, are not skilled enough to handle four different route numbers along the way?
I mean, honestly, how useful is it, really, that US-41 exists all the way from Chicago to Miami? It isn't. Would it be beneficial if the whole Interstate route between the two cities carried a single number? No, not really.
Also, if we're going down the road of arguing the benefits of having a single designation between two major cities, the fact that a single designation between New York and Los Angeles has never existed (even as an auto trail) should be enough evidence that it's a pretty silly argument.
The National Old Trails Road did have branches to NYC and San Francisco.
I'm definitely not trying to argue that there should be a single number between every pair of major U.S. cities. If it ever was specifically useful it's much less so now with everyone carrying an device around capable of getting you from anywhere to anywhere, turn by turn. Was a desire to have single number on a Chicago-LA route the reason the route was given a single number when the US system was created? I assumed so but maybe that just happened to be where 60, which became 66, was proposed.
Wikipedia's article on Cyrus Avery (who is more or less universally acknowledged as the person who "invented" US 66 as a concept) says that Congress requested the system create a route from Virginia Beach to Los Angeles by way of Springfield MO and Las Vegas. (Presumably this would have looked a lot like US 400 when it got to Kansas.) Avery made two changes to this route—one, shifting it south to New Mexico and Arizona rather than Colorado and Utah, ostensibly to avoid the Rocky Mountains (but which also meant the route passed through Tulsa, where Avery lived). And two, he argued that the terminus should be Chicago, rather than Virginia Beach, because that is where most commercial traffic from Springfield (and, presumably, Tulsa) was heading.
So really, US 66 was intended to connect Tulsa to Chicago and Los Angeles more than anything else, thanks to Avery's looking out for his home city's interest. Of course, he had the good sense to not mention that to anyone else.
And given that what is now US 400 was a rough draft of what became US 66, maybe the right number for US 400 is actually US 766.
Quote from: Jim on June 30, 2025, 09:56:26 PMI'm definitely not trying to argue that there should be a single number between every pair of major U.S. cities. If it ever was specifically useful it's much less so now with everyone carrying an device around capable of getting you from anywhere to anywhere, turn by turn. Was a desire to have single number on a Chicago-LA route the reason the route was given a single number when the US system was created? I assumed so but maybe that just happened to be where 60, which became 66, was proposed.
So, what exactly are you saying? Given that 66 was already dead in California and Illinois, how would you go about forcing IDOT and Caltrans to accept extensions of a redundant route that had just been eliminated? If you are saying it should have just been kept as it was in 1985, how are you going to get around the policy changes with NMDOT that eliminated US 80 and ghosted US 85–or would it effectively be ghosted within New Mexico's borders anyway?
Quote from: Molandfreak on July 01, 2025, 04:57:34 AMSo, what exactly are you saying? Given that 66 was already dead in California and Illinois, how would you go about forcing IDOT and Caltrans to accept extensions of a redundant route that had just been eliminated? If you are saying it should have just been kept as it was in 1985, how are you going to get around the policy changes with NMDOT that eliminated US 80 and ghosted US 85–or would it effectively be ghosted within New Mexico's borders anyway?
Definitely none of that. My earlier words were obviously unclear or perhaps you have me confused with others who actively campaign to restore the route. I am not advocating for the route to be reinstated now. My intent was to speculate that the designation could have been kept around just like so many others that have been functionally replaced by nearby interstates with its routing evolving over time. If California still wanted to truncate it or New Mexico wanted to make it a hidden concurrency with I-40, that would disappoint me (as it does with other routes to which that has happened) but I have no power or desire to influence them not to do so. In fact, in my initial post in this topic, I said the current situation "is probably a perfectly good way to handle it" with so many well-marked and relatively popular historic segments.
Quote from: Jim on June 30, 2025, 09:56:26 PMI'm definitely not trying to argue that there should be a single number between every pair of major U.S. cities. If it ever was specifically useful it's much less so now with everyone carrying an device around capable of getting you from anywhere to anywhere, turn by turn. Was a desire to have single number on a Chicago-LA route the reason the route was given a single number when the US system was created? I assumed so but maybe that just happened to be where 60, which became 66, was proposed.
I think this issue is you said this (emphasis added):
Quote from: Jim on June 29, 2025, 08:04:42 AMIt seems to me that the designation was and would still remain useful today as a single number from Chicago to LA.
I think it was likely useful when it was established, but would wouldn't be much use now.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 01, 2025, 08:52:44 AMI think this issue is you said this (emphasis added):
Quote from: Jim on June 29, 2025, 08:04:42 AMIt seems to me that the designation was and would still remain useful today as a single number from Chicago to LA.
I think it was likely useful when it was established, but would wouldn't be much use now.
Well said.
Quote from: kphoger on July 01, 2025, 09:37:19 AMQuote from: SEWIGuy on July 01, 2025, 08:52:44 AMI think this issue is you said this (emphasis added):
Quote from: Jim on June 29, 2025, 08:04:42 AMIt seems to me that the designation was and would still remain useful today as a single number from Chicago to LA.
I think it was likely useful when it was established, but would wouldn't be much use now.
Well said.
LOL...oops! "Wouldn't" is what I meant.
"Would remain useful" better stated as "would have remained useful" if it never went away in the first place. Obviously others disagree and that's fine, especially since it's been a done deal, as the thread title reminds us, for 4 decades.
Quote from: Molandfreak on July 01, 2025, 04:57:34 AMQuote from: Jim on June 30, 2025, 09:56:26 PMI'm definitely not trying to argue that there should be a single number between every pair of major U.S. cities. If it ever was specifically useful it's much less so now with everyone carrying an device around capable of getting you from anywhere to anywhere, turn by turn. Was a desire to have single number on a Chicago-LA route the reason the route was given a single number when the US system was created? I assumed so but maybe that just happened to be where 60, which became 66, was proposed.
So, what exactly are you saying? Given that 66 was already dead in California and Illinois, how would you go about forcing IDOT and Caltrans to accept extensions of a redundant route that had just been eliminated? If you are saying it should have just been kept as it was in 1985, how are you going to get around the policy changes with NMDOT that eliminated US 80 and ghosted US 85–or would it effectively be ghosted within New Mexico's borders anyway?
I mean if you really wanted to do this, you could write a federal law that required it, and then said if they left it unsigned they'd lose all their federal highway funding.
That would be really stupid and over the top, mind you, but that's how you'd force states to accept it.
Quote from: kphoger on June 30, 2025, 03:34:59 PMWest of Wichita, it is mostly concurrent with other routes. I understand wanting to get rid of it west of Wichita.
East of Wichita, it is mostly an independent route. Not only do I not understand wanting to get rid of it east of Wichita, but I'd rather see it expanded even further.
Even heading east from Wichita, there are virtually no circumstances under which someone would use US 400
in its entirety. You wouldn't do that if you were going to Joplin, nor if you were going to Springfield (and I understand this is why kphoger says it should be rerouted). But as it stands, US 400 was never intended to connect important travel destinations; rather it was designed as an all-Kansas route which then connects to I-44 (pointlessly, I would argue). Obviously KDOT would have been welcome to do that with a state designation, but that was not a situation that justified a US route designation.
I also want to comment on the statement that US 400 is mostly independent east of Wichita. When it was first commissioned, that was less true, because US 400 had a 30-mile overlap with US 160. But then KDOT rerouted US 160 along the former K-96 corridor. This caused the distance along US 160 to increase by seven miles, making it yet another route that no one would follow from end to end. So not only was US 400 misguided, but it also caused collateral damage to US 160.
If the US route shield can be thought of as a special "certification" which gets applied only to highways which meet specific qualifications, then this ^ is the kind of crap that cheapens the brand in the mind of the consumer. Unfortunately AASH(T)O has never been particularly good at defining those qualifications, let alone requiring the DOTs to abide by them.
Quote from: usends on July 14, 2025, 04:16:13 PMEven heading east from Wichita, there are virtually no circumstances under which someone would use US 400 in its entirety. You wouldn't do that if you were going to Joplin, nor if you were going to Springfield (and I understand this is why kphoger says it should be rerouted).
I think I've only done so once, and that was due to inclement weather. I felt safer using US-400 all the way to I-44 than using those little shoulderless secondary routes I usually use instead.
Quote from: usends on July 14, 2025, 04:16:13 PMBut then KDOT rerouted US 160 along the former K-96 corridor. This caused the distance along US 160 to increase by seven miles, making it yet another route that no one would follow from end to end. So not only was US 400 misguided, but it also caused collateral damage to US 160.
If the US route shield can be thought of as a special "certification" which gets applied only to highways which meet specific qualifications, then this ^ is the kind of crap that cheapens the brand in the mind of the consumer. Unfortunately AASH(T)O has never been particularly good at defining those qualifications, let alone requiring the DOTs to abide by them.
I'd still argue that US-400 is the most important E-W US route in the southern half of Kansas. I don't care what number the route from Wichita to K-171 has, but it deserves a US route number more than anything around it.
Quote from: usends on July 14, 2025, 04:16:13 PMEven heading east from Wichita, there are virtually no circumstances under which someone would use US 400 in its entirety. You wouldn't do that if you were going to Joplin, nor if you were going to Springfield (and I understand this is why kphoger says it should be rerouted).
During my aborted Wichita meet trip in 2013 (car breakdown while collecting counties south of Springfield; ended up overnighting in Joplin instead of finishing the trip to Wichita via the route I had planned), I did that in reverse -- I took US 400 all the way from Joplin to Wichita.
I'm curious as to what direct Joplin-Wichita route would be recommended, if not US 400.
Quote from: hbelkins on July 15, 2025, 05:02:13 PMI'm curious as to what direct Joplin-Wichita route would be recommended, if not US 400.
The obvious one would be US-400 → K-171/MO-171 → MO-43. It's five miles shorter than US-400 → K-66/MO-66. But, even then, with that latter route, you're still not doing US-400 in its entirety: you're leaving it ten miles before its eastern terminus.
If only going
through Joplin to points farther east on I-44, such as Springfield, my preferred route includes a number of miles on Missouri's lettered highways, which is not ideal for a lot of people. Now that Google Maps shows most of that route as its preferred routing, it's common to see Branson-bound RVs and heavy 18-wheelers sharing pavement on narrow, hilly, ill-maintained roads with no shoulder line. Sticking to primary highways only, the best option is US-400 → K-171/MO-171 → MO-96 to Carthage—and then take your pick of (a) continuing on MO-96 to Halltown or (b) dropping down on I-49.
Quote from: usends on July 14, 2025, 04:16:13 PMUnfortunately AASH(T)O has never been particularly good at defining those qualifications, let alone requiring the DOTs to abide by them.
For a while they had an actual scored rubric that they would use to deny unqualified US routes. This is why they denied the US 377 extension to US 66 so many times. The problem is that the rubric was so firmly against US 377's existence (it lost points for being too close to US 177 and for being promoted by an out-of-DOT interest group) that Oklahoma finally just had it written into federal law. (AASHTO then denied the designation anyway.)
I think that was about when they stopped being strict with designation requests, possibly because they realized that rogue states could do whatever they wanted and AASHTO risked becoming completely irrelevant if they protested too much.
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 15, 2025, 08:53:06 PMI think that was about when they stopped being strict with designation requests, possibly because they realized that rogue states could do whatever they wanted and AASHTO risked becoming completely irrelevant if they protested too much.
Isn't that largely what happened anyways?
That rubric was epic. Too bad that the current climate will not allow such a thing. We now have terrible anomalies to the system.
If there weren't anomalies in numbered highway systems, then at least 25% of the conversations that take place in the road fandom wouldn't exist. You should all be pining for more terrible anomalies, not less.