Just looked at the Oregon Transportation Commission agenda for the August 17th meeting (at http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/COMM/docs/OTCagendaAug11.pdf ), and caught this item on the Consent Calendar:
Quote7. Approve a request to move the U.S. 199 designation from 6th and 7th streets to the Grants Pass Parkway (Redwood Spur Highway) in Grants Pass.
The explanation, as near as I can tell, is that US 199 was never formally moved off the 6th/7th couplet; in fact, this is still the formally defined routing of the Redwood Highway. This might explain why US 199 is signed (along with OR 99) along 6th & 7th Streets in Grants Pass:
(https://i.imgur.com/GNawqz1.jpg)
The Grants Pass Parkway, which most of the signage indicates is the actual route of US 199 (and has since the facility opened in about 1990), is considered by ODOT to be a spur of US 199.
Now, though, it looks like it will formally be moved onto the Grants Pass Parkway. I wonder if that will immediately end the signed duplex on 6th/7th, which I kind of enjoyed.
Last thought: check out some crappy PhotoShopping:
(https://i.imgur.com/yJ1VIIC.jpg)
Ah, what could've been . . .
What should be! How strange to see US 199 and SR 99 cosigned...LOL!
Now what about the highway from I-5 to Drain to Yoncalla to I-5? The part north of Drain is either 99, 38 or 99/38 depending on what signs you see. South of Drain, old US/SR 99 is now a Douglas County road. The southern half is clear enough as to it's being given to Douglas County but what's going on with the other section? Have you heard anything? It's not as big a deal as the MIA 99W in PDX but it's on a route I drive regularly so I'm curious!
Rick
Quote from: nexus73 on August 12, 2011, 09:16:48 PM
Now what about the highway from I-5 to Drain to Yoncalla to I-5? The part north of Drain is either 99, 38 or 99/38 depending on what signs you see. South of Drain, old US/SR 99 is now a Douglas County road. The southern half is clear enough as to it's being given to Douglas County but what's going on with the other section? Have you heard anything? It's not as big a deal as the MIA 99W in PDX but it's on a route I drive regularly so I'm curious!
I lived in Douglas County between 1990-97, and I remember that back then OR 38 and 99 were cosigned on that stretch of road. Now it's the situation you describe: shields on the north end are generally 99, the south end signs are 38, with a little overlap in the middle, but as far as I remember no assembly except the BGS's on I-5 display both routes. As for why: no idea.
I also don't understand why 99's not signed south of Drain. Granted, it along with some other Douglas County highways were transferred to county maintenance (actually, traded for the North Umpqua Hwy), but Route 99 is still designated on that road. Other counties have no problem carrying routes on their roads; much of OR 10 and 210 are maintained by local jurisdictions but still signed as state routes (poorly, in the case of 210), and OR 213 between Salem and Silverton is along Marion County-maintained Silverton Rd. You'd think Douglas County would want the more prominent state route on its roads to draw motorists, but apparently not.
That's one highway I'd like to drive. I may be heading to Los Angeles in a couple of weeks so perhaps on the way back up, I can do some exploring and drive 101 to 199 to I-5.
That could be a fun trip.
Maybe I'll get some pics along the way.
Quote from: drummer_evans_aki on August 13, 2011, 12:16:41 AM
That's one highway I'd like to drive. I may be heading to Los Angeles in a couple of weeks so perhaps on the way back up, I can do some exploring and drive 101 to 199 to I-5.
That could be a fun trip.
Maybe I'll get some pics along the way.
The canyons along the Smith River in CA are pretty cool, and then you get to drive through a redwood grove just before 101. 101's also a pretty nice drive north of the Bay Area.
Quote from: drummer_evans_aki on August 13, 2011, 12:16:41 AM
That's one highway I'd like to drive. I may be heading to Los Angeles in a couple of weeks so perhaps on the way back up, I can do some exploring and drive 101 to 199 to I-5.
That could be a fun trip.
Maybe I'll get some pics along the way.
you'll really like it. prepare to devote two or three days to the drive. I did San Diego (5 to 101 to 199) to Grants Pass in about 24 hours of non-stop driving with some exploration of old alignments... depending on how you like to pace yourself, it's likely to be a several-day drive.
Quote from: xonhulu on August 12, 2011, 07:30:38 PM
Last thought: check out some crappy PhotoShopping:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FUS%2520Routes%2FUS99-199GrantsPass.jpg%3Ft%3D1267579062&hash=56374e68c67fa697e42157da90493614a582f3f2)
Crappy? Maybe it's my monitor, but that could easily pass for a Oregon blooper shot.
Now imagine that with proper 1961-era cutout shields...
Quote from: Revive 755 on August 14, 2011, 01:30:18 AM
Crappy? Maybe it's my monitor, but that could easily pass for a Oregon blooper shot.
Full size, there are some pretty obvious errors. Not my strong suit.
On Jake's comments earlier, there's a great drivable old alignment of 199 bypassing the tunnel called Oregon Mountain Road. Give that a drive if you get the chance.
Is the Redwood Highway designation also going to be moved?
I'm surprised US 199 is being expanded, let alone that it still exists. Maybye someone can fill me in on why US 199, US 166 and US 266 are still in existance long after their famous parent routes vanished? :confused:
Quote from: 707 on July 17, 2012, 02:03:07 AM
I'm surprised US 199 is being expanded, let alone that it still exists. Maybye someone can fill me in on why US 199, US 166 and US 266 are still in existance long after their famous parent routes vanished? :confused:
Also add US 138 in Colorado/Nebraska to the list, its parent US 38 was decommissioned in the 1930s in favor of US 6. US 666 in the Four Corners stuck around for 18 years after Route 66 was officially decommissioned, before being changed to 491 in July 2003 due to frequent sign thefts.
I'm guessing US 199 was kept because it only connected to US 99 and US 101, and even though it was significantly shorter than its sibling US 299 further south, it did however, cross a state border. It couldn't possibly be a spur of 101, unless it could have been US 1101. US 138 could easily be US 306.
Theoretically, if you wanted a spur to US 101, you could use 801 or 901, as they're not in use. Sure, US 1 would lose out on them, but US 1 lost out on 101 with 101 being on the west coast as a (valid) x1 route.
Some good questions, but here's my take:
If the argument is that US 199 should be decommissioned because US 99 was, I'd have to disagree. If the route deserved US status originally, it still does today: it passes through multiple states, it serves as a significant regional connection, and it hasn't been supplanted by an interstate. If you say it's unworthy of a US designation, then there are plenty of US Routes that are even less worthy and have to go, too.
If the argument is that its number should be changed because it no longer has a US parent route, that's also a little weak. First, it still connects to its demoted parent route, OR 99. Second, there really aren't other sensible options for its number: it would be awkward to use a four-digit number as a spur of 101, and unconventional (though not impossible) to renumber it to US 801 or US 901. In the end, you have to ask yourself if there's really anything wrong with it staying 199. Changing it would be making a big deal out if nothing, IMO.
The one sensible change you could make is to combine US 199 and MSR 140 (via a brief duplex with I-5) into a single E-W US route. It could be US 140, but that would be another orphaned US Route. You could also make it a 2-dus with several options available for numbering, like US 28, US 32, or US 38 as possible numbers. I'd favor US 28 as you'd be returning a US Route that previously existed in Oregon (1926-1952).
Lastly, this move by Oregon really isn't an extension, it's just an official acknowledgement of the way US 199 has been signed in Grants Pass for over 20 years!
I have no problem with the 199 designation.
interestingly, 199 is the only route for which I've never seen a CALIFORNIA/US cutout shield. seen at least three Oregons, oddly enough, given that Oregon shields are tougher to find, and that 199 is quite short in both states.
I like the 199 designation as it is. Even though it is orphaned, it acknowledges US-99's former existence. 'Course US-99 could be re-commissioned and the problem would be fixed, that is if there was a problem to begin with (namely US-99 being decommissioned in the first place!)
Quote from: xonhulu on July 17, 2012, 09:48:22 AM
The one sensible change you could make is to combine US 199 and MSR 140 (via a brief duplex with I-5) into a single E-W US route. It could be US 140, but that would be another orphaned US Route. You could also make it a 2-dus with several options available for numbering, like US 28, US 32, or US 38 as possible numbers. I'd favor US 28 as you'd be returning a US Route that previously existed in Oregon (1926-1952).
I'd get behind reviving US 28 via MSR 140 in a heartbeat, though instead of supplanting US 199, I would leave it be and have this new route connect closer to Bandon or Coos Bay. In either case, a more direct and better connection between US 101 and I-5 would likely be beneficial for the coastal cities in the area.
I don't think a recommissioned US-99 would make it up that far, due to so many multiplexes with I-5 between Red Bluff and Grants Pass. The most likely US-99 recommissioning (analogous to the most common species of unicorn!) is just a renumbering of CA-99 from Red Bluff to Wheeler Ridge.
Alright, thanks for letting me know. I just wanted to know why orphaned routes continued to exist without their parents.
Quote from: xonhulu on July 17, 2012, 09:48:22 AM
Some good questions, but here's my take:
If the argument is that US 199 should be decommissioned because US 99 was, I'd have to disagree. If the route deserved US status originally, it still does today: it passes through multiple states, it serves as a significant regional connection, and it hasn't been supplanted by an interstate. If you say it's unworthy of a US designation, then there are plenty of US Routes that are even less worthy and have to go, too.
If the argument is that its number should be changed because it no longer has a US parent route, that's also a little weak. First, it still connects to its demoted parent route, OR 99.
The one sensible change you could make is to combine US 199 and MSR 140 (via a brief duplex with I-5) into a single E-W US route. It could be US 140, but that would be another orphaned US Route. You could also make it a 2-dus with several options available for numbering, like US 28, US 32, or US 38 as possible numbers. I'd favor US 28 as you'd be returning a US Route that previously existed in Oregon (1926-1952).
Quote from: luokou on July 17, 2012, 01:57:01 PM
I like the 199 designation as it is. Even though it is orphaned, it acknowledges US-99's former existence. 'Course US-99 could be re-commissioned and the problem would be fixed, that is if there was a problem to begin with (namely US-99 being decommissioned in the first place!)
Quote from: xonhulu on July 17, 2012, 09:48:22 AM
The one sensible change you could make is to combine US 199 and MSR 140 (via a brief duplex with I-5) into a single E-W US route. It could be US 140, but that would be another orphaned US Route. You could also make it a 2-dus with several options available for numbering, like US 28, US 32, or US 38 as possible numbers. I'd favor US 28 as you'd be returning a US Route that previously existed in Oregon (1926-1952).
I'd get behind reviving US 28 via MSR 140 in a heartbeat, though instead of supplanting US 199, I would leave it be and have this new route connect closer to Bandon or Coos Bay. In either case, a more direct and better connection between US 101 and I-5 would likely be beneficial for the coastal cities in the area.
I do like a few of Chris' (xonhulu's) reasons for retaining US 199, :nod: :thumbsup: but I do like combining it with OR 140/NV 140 to make a route from I-80/Northern Nevada/SLC to Southern Oregon/NorCal (Northern Oregon/PDX traffic can use I-15 and I-84). :jumping: I prefer renumbering 199/140 as US 38, :camo: because it is pretty far south of US 30 which is on the opposite side of Oregon, and it meets (near) old US 40 near Winnemucca. I'd be OK for signing the new US 38 along US 95 to I-80 at Winnemucca. OR 38 can be renumbered as OR 388 or 338. :)
I guess you're resurrecting the fact that the original 28 was south of 30 and so is the 1940 extension of US 20, and the 1952 extension of US 26.
Quote from: luokou on July 17, 2012, 01:57:01 PM
I'd get behind reviving US 28 via MSR 140 in a heartbeat, though instead of supplanting US 199, I would leave it be and have this new route connect closer to Bandon or Coos Bay. In either case, a more direct and better connection between US 101 and I-5 would likely be beneficial for the coastal cities in the area.
Don't get me wrong, I would also prefer keeping US 199. Your idea of creating a new cross-Coast Range route as an extension of MSR 140 is good, but the existing road would need
a lot of upgrading and would actually come out at Gold Beach unless it took a really roundabout path. The terrain doesn't really permit a road directly from Grants Pass to Bandon or Coos Bay. And Gold Beach is a pretty minor destination in itself, although it isn't too far from Brookings and not too terrifically far to get to Bandon.
Quote from: national highway 1 on July 17, 2012, 08:57:00 PM
I do like a few of Chris' (xonhulu's) reasons for retaining US 199, :nod: :thumbsup: but I do like combining it with OR 140/NV 140 to make a route from I-80/Northern Nevada/SLC to Southern Oregon/NorCal (Northern Oregon/PDX traffic can use I-15 and I-84). :jumping: I prefer renumbering 199/140 as US 38, :camo: because it is pretty far south of US 30 which is on the opposite side of Oregon, and it meets (near) old US 40 near Winnemucca. I'd be OK for signing the new US 38 along US 95 to I-80 at Winnemucca. OR 38 can be renumbered as OR 388 or 338. :)
Oregon has no trouble with duplicate route numbers, and even has one pair (I-82/OR 82) that aren't very far apart. The other pair, I-205/OR 205, are at opposite corners of the state. So OR 38 would probably retain its number in the event US 38 was established. However, other numbers are available, so there really doesn't need to be any duplication here.
QuoteI guess you're resurrecting the fact that the original 28 was south of 30 and so is the 1940 extension of US 20, and the 1952 extension of US 26.
I really didn't give that a lot of thought, I just wanted to see US 28 in Oregon again! But you make a good point. That probably makes US 32 the best choice if MSR 140 were elevated to US status, although I'd just as soon see it as US 140 with the implied connection to old US 40 in Winnemucca. There are so many US shields erroneously installed on the Oregon segment of the route that it's partly US 140, anyway!
Forgive my ignorance... What is "MSR 140"?
Quote from: roadfro on July 19, 2012, 03:14:56 AM
Forgive my ignorance... What is "MSR 140"?
Multi State Route 140 - that is, OR & NV 140.
Quote from: 707 on July 17, 2012, 02:03:07 AM
I'm surprised US 199 is being expanded, let alone that it still exists. Maybye someone can fill me in on why US 199, US 166 and US 266 are still in existance long after their famous parent routes vanished? :confused:
166 is a fairly long route that serves the southernmost tier of counties in Kansas. It would be the rare traveler that incorporates it end-to-end in their itinerary, but it's regionally important.
But 266 should go.
I liked the idea of renumbering US 199 as US 1101 or US 38 (although US 38 sounds better). Also, if US 166 is only regionally important, why not just downgrade it to KS 166? Also, why keep US 166 when US 400 pretty much runs the same way?
Thou shalt not kill (the remnants of US 66 or 99).
Quote from: 707 on July 29, 2012, 09:11:23 PM
Also, why keep US 400 when US 166 pretty much runs the same way?
FTFY
Quote from: xonhulu on August 12, 2011, 07:30:38 PM
The explanation, as near as I can tell, is that US 199 was never formally moved off the 6th/7th couplet; in fact, this is still the formally defined routing of the Redwood Highway. This might explain why US 199 is signed (along with OR 99) along 6th & 7th Streets in Grants Pass:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FUS%2520Routes%2F134.jpg%3Ft%3D1267579494&hash=97eb3f33e3397e5229d1f4b7a602e37f1a0b43b7)
The Grants Pass Parkway, which most of the signage indicates is the actual route of US 199 (and has since the facility opened in about 1990), is considered by ODOT to be a spur of US 199.
Now, though, it looks like it will formally be moved onto the Grants Pass Parkway. I wonder if that will immediately end the signed duplex on 6th/7th, which I kind of enjoyed.
I just returned from a trip to the redwoods, and I can now answer my own question: ODOT has now removed the US 199 shields from 6th/7th. Here's the same assembly pictured above as it appears now:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss166%2Fxonhulu%2FOregon%2520State%2520Routes%2FOR99GrantsPass2.jpg%3Ft%3D1344039775&hash=49e9b741eb39d2e2fbe7a54ee5709cc52db119bf)
Quote from: 707 on July 29, 2012, 09:11:23 PM
Also, if US 166 is only regionally important, why not just downgrade it to KS 166? Also, why keep US 166 when US 400 pretty much runs the same way?
Why bother to replace all the signs?
Also US 400 has only been around since the 80s or so. US 166 is original to the system.
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 10, 2012, 09:58:34 PM
Quote from: 707 on July 29, 2012, 09:11:23 PM
Also, if US 166 is only regionally important, why not just downgrade it to KS 166? Also, why keep US 166 when US 400 pretty much runs the same way?
Why bother to replace all the signs?
Also US 400 has only been around since the 80s or so. US 166 is original to the system.
US 400 is an illegitimate child route, it should really be a new US 450 with a western end at US 50 in Garden City KS. An easy method is to white out the first zero and stick a 5 on.
Or you could reroute US 166 onto US 400.
US 412 should be a minor violation of the grid like US 59, a US 86 with a western terminus at US 56 at Guymon OK.
US 425 should be US 265 ending at US 65 at Clayton. US 65 should be re-extended back to Natchez.
But I do agree US 266 should go.
Quote from: national highway 1 on August 10, 2012, 10:16:13 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 10, 2012, 09:58:34 PM
Quote from: 707 on July 29, 2012, 09:11:23 PM
Also, if US 166 is only regionally important, why not just downgrade it to KS 166? Also, why keep US 166 when US 400 pretty much runs the same way?
Why bother to replace all the signs?
Also US 400 has only been around since the 80s or so. US 166 is original to the system.
US 400 is an illegitimate child route, it should really be a new US 450 with a western end at US 50 in Garden City KS. An easy method is to white out the first zero and stick a 5 on.
Or you could reroute US 166 onto US 400.
US 412 should be a minor violation of the grid like US 59, a US 86 with a western terminus at US 56 at Guymon OK.
US 425 should be US 265 ending at US 65 at Clayton. US 65 should be re-extended back to Natchez.
But I do agree US 266 should go.
U.S. 400 could have been a resurrection of U.S. 154, since it's a very marginally compliant U.S route, what with its last furlong being in Missouri. (If you disregard the AASHTO directive that U.S. routes should not be extended over another merely to reach a terminus with another U.S. or interstate route). I find its westward extension over U.S. 50 into Colorado as far as the junction with U.S. 385 to be ridiculous. Colorado barely acknowledges the appearance/disappearance of 400 at that junction. But, another possibility would have been to extend Colorado's short U.S. 350 over 50 from La Junta to Dodge City, as long as you could accept a silly concurrency of over 200 miles.
U.S. 412 isn't a minor violation of the grid. It should have been x64 or a child of some other appropriate intersecting route, and never extended west of Boise City. (See rule above). Admittedly, it didn't go that far west when first established, so a non-systematic number may have seemed more appropriate when it was first established. Same with U.S. 425, and I agree about U.S. 65 being a more appropriate route to extend.
Too bad Oklahoma has already used 266 as a state route, so U.S. 266 would have to get a different state route number such as 264 upon its decommissioning.
I can grudgingly accept 400 since that number implies it is a spur of '00', or a spur of nothing as '00' isn't a valid route number in the US (internally-designated OK-0 and 0B notwithstanding). 412 is a worse violation since it implies it is a spur of 12, which it never even comes close to.
Also don't underestimate Oklahoma's willingness to do awful things to its numbering system; we already have two of a bunch of different highways (SH-74, SH-4, SH-37, three SH-9As, et al) so it's not like Oklahoma having two SH-266s is really going to cause the entire system to cave in–though it would be uncomfortably close to existing 266, it's not like it'll be any worse than US-270/OK-270.
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 10, 2012, 10:48:50 PM
I can grudgingly accept 400 since that number implies it is a spur of '00', or a spur of nothing as '00' isn't a valid route number in the US (internally-designated OK-0 and 0B notwithstanding).
I can see you've driven across Kansas too.
And listened to its politicians of late.EDIT: Drifting way off thread and into verboten topics. Sorry.